Talk:Sikandar Hayat Khan

message: I have removed some wrong information which was added by someone today. The lady mentioned was not Sir Sikandar's daughter but Sir Liaquat Hayat Khan's, i.e. his elder brother. 
Khani100 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Wrong Information

message: <legal threats removed per WP:LEGAL>
Dear Sir, Sh Iftikhar sahib, many salams. Thank you for your notice here! Let me please assure you, that here on Wikipedia, we take general vandalism v seriously and examples of defamatory  comments and libel, even more seriously. Wikipedia has an ongoing system of checking/patrolling such acts and taking action of various types, firm action, to discourage such activity. However, I hope you will also please try to appreciate and understand our limitations. Wikipdia is run by the non-profit charitable Wikimedia Foundation and its a free/open encyclopedia project, whereby readers and editors/users from all over the world participate in contributing to articles--by and large most contributions are v good and constructive, though sometimes, some disruptive acts (as in this instance) unfortunately do occure. But we just cannot discourage all people from helping with an article, including this one. But please do rest assured, some of us will now keep an eye on this by putting the article on a 'watchlist' and try tio stave off a repeat of this shameful and rather low act. Yours most sincerely, Editor/User Khani100 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice and Warning

message: I have now removed latest vandalism by the above user on this page, and I would request that some admin please take notice of this, since this person/s is/are making only vandalistic attacks on some few pages, primarily this one, and this needs to be looked into. Previously, User:AsadUK200 has also been doing repeated clean up after such attacks and its a real waste of time, doing so repeatedly.Thanks
Khani100 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed further vandalism by User 76.17.7.56

message: Reg my comments and notes above, and to all the article's history, as well as my frequent requests for help/guidance etc, and so on; I feel that there is little or no scope for editors who want to work seriously on some articles such as this, which tend to be controversial and which result in ill feeling and demotivation and where one is subjected to stress and bullying. Im sorry to say that Wikipedia does not seem to have a proper, effective rapid-response to the concerns engendered by such problems/issues, and Id rather not have bear all the headaches etc. Thus, Im removing this article from my watchlist, and good luck to anyone who wants to do a decent job with it. Regards, Khani100 (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing this article from my watch list

message: Hello, I am also editing this article and I am a new editor and not familiar with various terminologies etc. From my watchlist I note that on this article, some 'recent revision' was 'hidden' by a User:Spinningspark however I cannot seem to find exact details of the log for this or any valid reason and so that is a bit confusing for me. Did I make some error or fault? Or add something that is against Wikipedia policy? The situation is not clear and I would like please to know and understand exactly what is the problem and what is the right course of action thereupon. Could some detailed explanation be please given ? Thank you very much, AsadUK200 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replied to you on my talk page. SpinningSpark 09:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Re a recent deletion or hiding of some revision?

message: Hello. It seems that someone , a User:74.82.68.144, has deleted an entire section from this article; and also a part of the last (now) section. I dont know what to say about that--maybe the last section is best removed, as it seemed to be controversial? But I dont fathom why the last lines of the previous section were also deleted? From the history i see that User:Spinningspark reverted a previous deletion too? What to do? I am sorry but I dont fully comprehend the procedures in these matters. RegsAsadUK200 (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With ref to the discussion above, I have today fixed all the spellings that someone had systematically changed from the standardised Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, here, to Sikander Hyat Khan, and Sikandar Hyat-Khan. There is no point in wasting time in this and its good to please maintain the spelling prevailing and already standardised. If you wish, even in good faith to give Alternative Name Spellings, PLEASE, its my humble request, DONT spoil the article, add to the Person Data section thanks. 39.54.114.15 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Section deletions

message: Hello, I made a couple of changes i.e (1) removing a long list of children of Sir Sikandar, only leaving those who are noteworthy for some achievements and have Wikipedia pages of their own. and (2) corrected the spelling of the family name to 'Hayat Khan' . It is a simple rule of English that a name is only hyphenated when a person or individual take two separate family names and combines them. For example, If Mr John Smith's mother was from the Terrence family, he could thus if so wished, also add her name to his paternal one as John Terrence-Smith etc. In the case of the Hayat family of Wah, Pakistan, the name springs from their ancestor Nawab Muhammad Hayat Khan whose name was 'Muhammad Hayat' and whose surname was actually 'Khan'. Later, his sons took on the name of 'Hayat Khan' as their surname but there is no hyphenation. The hyphenation issue developed during the late 1930s when some media writer from the local Indian press in Punjab mis-spelt the name and no correction was forthcoming. Later on, in April 1940, Mr Edgar M. Henry a prominent Christian scholar and English professor of Lahore pointed this out in a letter to the Civil and Military Gazette -- he happened to be my grandfather. When I was later teaching at a Women's college in Lahore, I also had the honour of discussing this topic with both Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan and he very clearly told me that there was No Hyphenation in the Hayat Khan name. I hope that these changes will be ok, thanks 39.54.47.254 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding some of Sir Sikandar's notable descendants whom someone has removed, for no apparent reason. Thanks39.54.163.96 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Several changes

message: He did not belong to a "jatt khattar" tribe. Khattars are not jatt, and the word was merely an addition by some user without any citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.32.94 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the list of names of Sir Sikandar's children as that did not seem necessary here in the light of previous/foregoing discussions on this topic, over quite some time. Also, i have re-added the 'Jatt' term as the origins of the Khattars are subject to much controversy and they are in fact generally classified as Jatt Khattars in most land revenue and census records in both India and Pakistan, and is still in use in many cases post-1947, in official records. I hope that this will not start a new edit war as before, as one can note above please. Thanks 39.54.138.91 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

text: The sources referred to above by these contributors are not reliable or acceptable ones. Besides, there was no factual, historical 'Qutub Shah' and the origins and background of the Awans is in itself a matter of dispute. Most recent research and DNA testing seems to place the Awans as 92% within the Indo-European family, closely allied by blood /genetics to the Rajputs and Jatts39.54.29.155 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Re your comments above, there are 2 major recent genetic studies of mithochondrial DNA that you need to study -- (a) Malik, A.A. , Riza, SM and Yaqub, M 'Racial origin claims of select tribes of Rawalpindi and Attock district, North Punjab' (2011) , in The Genome international journal, Carolina, USA, Vol 72, pp 101-112. and (b) Majumdar , K and Brar, VS , study of the consanguinity of Jatts and Rajputs in Punjab and Haryana, pub in India, 2014. In the first document, a detailed DNA study has been made of several tribes of North Punjab (in Pakistan) and and specially the Awans, who are confirmed to be of certain indigenous South Asian origins. Further, the researchers cite some other historical sources, to show that there never was any 'Qutub Shah' ancestor of Awans or anyone else, as no such person ever existed in Central Asia or Afghanistan. Further, they also cite Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani, a notable Pakistani scholar , who claimed that Awans were in fact the ancient 'Awanii' or 'Abanii' mentioned by Greek and Roman ancient writers. In the second work, published in India, there seems to be a strong confirmation of close blood relations between Rajputs and Jatts; indeed , in some areas of Pakistan and India, some tribes are classified as Rajput and/or Jatt/s, interchangeably. Many people in Pakistan today 'claim' a separate origin and have now manufactured fake histories and pedigrees to 'prove' their new so called origins. That does not mean anything . facts are important and facts show that the Khattars, for example, were variously categorized as either Rajputs or Jatts until the early 20th c , indeed well into the 1920s. Only later did some Khattars start to claim 'Arabic' origins . In the same way, if we look at the early pedigrees of the Awans (I am also an Awan by the way) until 1918-1919 we see many Hindu names and origins, which were later 'brushed out' by some of our senior Awans (with some political ambitions) and a whole crock of fake history manufactured , to justify this. Similar facts are also there about other tribes eg Ghebas in Attock (also Rajputs who claim to be Mughals now), Dhonds (so called 'Abbasis' now, originally indigenous hill tribes) of Murree and galiyat hills, Karlals of Abbottabad and Havelian regions of KPK (also Jatts) and so on. I think that we need to seek out and accept verified facts and not just speculate on the basis of vague self-promoting 'histories' manufactured by some people. Thanks. 39.54.196.91 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I think that we can reasonably rely on an old genealogy of Khattars main family. 
The senior branch of the Khattar tribe (which has both Hindus and Muslims) settled in Wah, Attock area of Punjab, Pakistan, is the Hayat Wah family , and they are neither Jat nor Awan/so-called fake Arabs, nor Turks etc-- they have maintained accurate historical pedigree in the past which was recorded by Col CH Hall in 1866 probably at Wah village, seat of late Nawab Muhammad Hyat Khan Khattar, which clearly shows they are of Rajput (Chohan) descent. Hence, they should be classified properly as 'Muslim Rajputs'. I am reproducing this original pedigree below, please, for accuracy and for the record:
STARTS HERE Original Pedigree and Genealogy of the Hayat, Khattar Family of Wah, as per the Account Given to Col. CH Hall, by Mullah Sarwar, Genealogist to Sardar (later Nawab) Muhammad Hayat Khan, 1866 and duly recorded at the Residence of the Sardar, in his company, in October of that year.
1. Chauhan (or Chohan) Agnivanshi Rajput, Remote Progenitor –probably of Hun/Central Asian ancestry who came via Kashmir and settled with his clan/tribe in various parts of the areas that were later Punjab, UP and Rajputana.
(Several generations)
2. Rai Shiv Dayal Chauhan (came from Kashmir or upper/hills of Punjab and settled at Bagh Nilab, near Indus River, c. 1750 AD)
(Several generations)
3. Rai Kishan Dayal
4. Rai Har Dayal
5. Rai Ram Dayal
6. Had two (2) sons, Rai Sukh Dayal (supposedly remote ancestor of Tiwanas, Noons etc) and Rai or Raja Jai Dayal (direct line)
7. Raja Jiwan (son of Raja Jai Dayal)
8. Raja Mahinder
9. Raja Gajinder
10. Raja Rajinder
11. Raja Harnarain
12. Raja Badrinath
13. Had two (2) sons, Raja Dayanand who via his descendant Raja/Rai Alyas, was progenitor of the Ghebas, Jodhras etc; and Raja Raghunand (direct line)
14. Raja Kaidarnath (alias ‘Kaidu Raja’ or ‘Khattar Raja’) son of Raja Raghunand, converted to Islam around 11th-12th AD, and received title of ‘KHATTAR KHAN’. All Khattars today, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, descended from him, in Pakistan and India and elsewhere.
15. Khattar Raja/Khattar Khan had 6 sons, and they divided into two (2) groups (a) KALA SECTION (led by Kalay Khan) and (b) CHITTA SECTION or ‘FEROZAL’ SECTION (led by Feroz Khan)
16. From Chitta/Ferozal Section over the next many generations, with frequent inter-marriages and inter-relations with various Afghan, Persian and Turki (Turkish/Central Asian) settlers, was RAJA SARBULAND KHAN , who received also the title of ‘Sardar’ and was also known as ‘Sardar Sarbuland Khan’.
(From line of Sarbuland Khan)
17. Said Ahmad Khan
18. Ghazan Khan
19. Jamal Khan (founded village of ‘Jalalsar’ after his son, now ‘Wah’)
20. Jalal Khan (lived under the reign of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir)
21. Had two sons, Inayat Khan and Habeeb Khan; and from Habeeb Khan are:
22. Kamil Khan and Ghazi Khan; and from Kamil Khan:
23. Shah Wali Khan (also known as ‘Shah Wali Mansabdar’ as he was in Mughal service and enjoyed ‘Mansab’ or rank of Haft-Hazari, commander over 7000); and from him:
(3-4 generations)
24. Several sons, (a) Sardar Karam Khan (b) Hassan Khan (c) Fatteh Khan (d) Kaim Khan and (e) Noor Khan. Sardar Karam Khan was murdered by his half-brother, Fatteh Khan; and he too was later murdered by Fatteh Khan, Khattar of Dharek. The sons of late Sardar Karam Khan are as follows;
25. (a) Gulab Khan (b) Bahadur Khan (c) SARDAR MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN, ASST. COMMISSIONER (THE MAIN SUBJECT OF THIS PEDIGREE) born: 1833/34; (d) Ghulam Khan’ and (e) Sikandar Khan.
Ends Here
Subsequent Pedigree from Sardar (later Nawab) Muhammad Hayat Khan, CSI, of Wah (until 1947-48)
26. Nawab Muhammad Hayat Khan (1833/34-1901) had many children from various wives and concubines, and from his Senior Wife, Begum Zainab Khanam, daughter of Ghulam Jilani, Ansari, employee and minister of Kapurthala State, he had the following sons: (a) Nawabzada Muhammad Aslam Hayat Khan (died 1924); (b) Sardar Mahmood Hayat Khan (died 1910) (c) Khan-Bahadur (later Nawab-Bahadur) Sir Liaquat Hayat Khan, ex-Prime Minister of Patiala State, British Punjab (1887-1948) (d) Sardar Ghairat Hayat Khan (died 1911); and (e) CAPT ® SARDAR SIR SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, KBE, KCSI etc , former Premier of the Punjab (1892-1942)—the noblest and most distinguished of the sons of his notable father and the most brilliant of the scions of Khattar race, the true pride of all Punjabis, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh.
(shared thanks to post by Prof Dr Vimal Verma) 
Tenty1000 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made a small change. 

message: A User:98.255.18.239 seems to have made a deliberately wrong entry, by adding the name of former Pakistani general Akhtar Abdur Rahman amongst the children /offspring of Sir Sikandar here. This is so obviously untrue that one is in doubt as to the motives of this contributor. I have removed this and I hope it shant be repeated. 39.54.29.155 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A seemingly deliberate wrong entry

message: Hullo- seems someone has recently removed referenced material from this article and replaced it with unreliable, or unreferenced material. I have fixed this and request that properly sourced material shouldnt be removed, and also that only names of those notable people should be added who already have existing Wikipedia articles/entries. Many thanksAsadUK200 (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of referenced material and replacement with dubious/unreferenced material

message: I would please like to clarify that Sir Sikandar was definitely born in  1892 and NOT 1882. His son, late Shaukat Hyat Confirms this in his book (1993) and the same date is given in Iftikhar H Malik (1984) and Stanley Wolpert's book on Jinnah which also mentions Sir Sikandar (1991-92) . I have fixed/amended this again to 1892 and I would please request that this may not be tampered with, as it is the correct/factual date of birth. Thanks. 39.54.196.91 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: TrangaBellam (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Pakistan