Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamsaya

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mallanox 12:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hamsaya

Hamsaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article has been started and conducted with only one 19th century racist source. It alleges that the well known tribe of Awans which was as a major land owner tribe and some parts as an aristocratic ruling tribe, was somehow in subjugation to the Pathans in the NWFP, which is not only incorrect but derogatory. Please see the discussion page of this article for further info. The author only states one NON LOCAL source for the evidence of this assertion. The word Hamsaya simply means neighbour. This article serves no purpose and is actually an insensitive and offensive to entire tribe which runs into millions. Raja 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator.--Svetovid 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• No opinion - I usually don't bother noting the absence of an opinion, but I think most English language wikipedians would have trouble ascertaining the validity of the claims on both sides. Seems like a WP:V issue, if nothing else. /Blaxthos 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm finding it hard to assess this. One source that I picked at random seems to tell a different story about this term. I would probably opt for a rewrite, provided WP:V and WP:N can be covered. Adrian M. H. 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this really appears to be a dictionary definition. --Infrangible 13:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A term may be used in local lingo frequently , or even in English as spoken in local pidgins. But if it is not a part of regular English lexicon.It doesnt deserve to be here. For example : In India , people commonly use the term "patao" or even "pataoed" (meaning woo or wooed)in English but it isnt as universally accepted term as guru, avatar, juggernaut. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Many words which are not used in the English language are nevertheless notable and are covered by multiple reliable sources. The criteria for inclusion in enwiki is WP:N/WP:V/WP:RS, not being "a part of regular English lexicon"; "not an English word" is not a deletion criterion. The question here is not whether this is a local dialect word or a widely-accepted term (and even if it were just a local dialect word, the best solution would be to redirect it to the widely accept it term); the question is whether this is notable and verifiable. cab 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Awan (Pakistan) and note there that Hamsaya is a name for the tribe which was also used in older literature in English but is not used today because it is considered derogatory. Request nominator to provide a source for the fact that it is derogatory. Deletion is not a good solution here precisely because this term appears in old books; better the reader be redirected to the preferred name of the ethnic group and be told that the old name is offensive, rather than ending up nowhere at all. cab 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hamsaya was never a name (old or new) for the Awan tribe, rather a derogatory term used at one time in reference to a section of the Awan tribe residing in the NWFP. This is not a matter of a ‘preferred’ name being used for the Awan tribe as this ethnic group has always be known by one name. i.e. Awan. And I am afraid that the argument that because what is largely an obscure term, appears in particular publications, during a particular period in history, is reason enough for its inclusion as a Wikpedia entry, is a poor one because the application of this term as outlined by the article in its present form, is highly misleading, inaccurate and because it is based on racist notions, does not even reflect certain realities in relation to the Awans or the actual application of the term itself. In fact, the Ferozesons Urdu-English Dictionary (Revised Edition), page 819, simply defines the term as:

“ham sayah, n.m. Neighbour”

If an entry on this particular term is to be included on Wikipedia, then the above – and variants on this definition – is the only definition that reflects a realistic, accurate and generally understood application of the term (as opposed to the bastardised definition limited to the Pathan community), both in the past and present. Furthermore, does this mean that Wikipedia is also going to serve as a Hindi-Urdu dictionary for mundane words used in everyday conversation?

As for proof that the term, as outlined by the article, is derogatory, please refer to comments I have reproduced below, that I originally left on the Hamsaya discussion page. You will discover that the author of the source that Intothefire pointed to in support of his article (S.S. Thorburn, a district officer of the Punjab who compiled the source material in question during the nineteenth century, 1876 to be precise, the title of the work being, Bannu: Our Afghan Frontier, and the section of the source material that has been highlighted, detailing various old Pashto proverbs which are quite frankly, flimsy material for a Wikipedia article), actually states himself that the use of the terms Hamsaya and Hindkais/Hindkis – terms which are interchangeable – are based on Pathan prejudices and jealousies and even during the nineteenth century did not reflect the reality of the situation vis-à-vis the Awan tribe; in fact, Thorburn states that use of the terms Hamsaya/Hindkais, as applied by the Pathan community at the time, cannot even be justified. Please also note additional reasons I have provided for the use of the term Hamsaya, as defined by Intothefire’s article, as leading the reader into making assumptions about the Awan tribe that are disingenuous and worse still, possibly giving the impression to some that use of this term (which as I have stressed, as outlined by the article, is problematic) is currently applicable:

Intothefire

You state that the source you use for the Hamsaya article is widely used on Wikipedia, yet you don’t seem to understand one simple point – the term as defined by your article is now redundant (not surprising, considering the age of the source material used), something that your article does not clarify. The source you provide a link to is a proverb, based on Pathan prejudices. Tell me, do you think that old derogatory proverbs coined by the English in regard to the Welsh and the Scots, should still carry any weight and relevance in this day and age? The word Hamsaya also has a variety of meanings and though you may claim that others can go ahead and include these definitions in the article, Wikipedia is not a Hindi-Urdu dictionary and to define the term as the Pathans used to, is inaccurate and misleading.

As I said, I have spent time in the NWFP and have to inform you that the term is no longer applied as your article outlines, ergo, your article is irrelevant as it does not recognise present day realities. A significant number of those belonging to social groups that were in subordination to Pathan groups, have now experienced a change in fortunes (as is to be expected over the course of time), yet another reason why the term, as defined by your article, is outdated and irrelevant.

I have demonstrated that I have no problem in admitting that there are Awans who were and still do belong to the poorer elements of society (true of all Punjabi Muslim groups of a generally accepted high social ranking such as the Awans) and as a result, found/find themselves in the service of others, but the spin your article puts on this is to give the impression that this is the general condition of Awans found in the NWFP and its neighbouring regions, which is complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, amongst the descendants of those Awans residing in the NWFP, who were in the service of certain Pathan groups in certain localities (such as Bannu) a significant number have experienced a change in their fortunes. In fact, the source you have provided a link to (not a Pakistani source as you claim, but one that actually dates to the time of the British Raj), at the time of its publication, i.e. the nineteenth century (which underlines that not only is the source of your definition limited and prejudiced, but it is also archaic), patently states in the words of its author, S.S. Thorburn, that the Awans who were classed as Hamsaya by the Bannuchis, as:

“Being better labourers, and more thrifty, they gradually acquired land and increased in numbers, which, naturally enough, has prevented them from being popular amongst the Bannuchis, or rather Pathan Bannuchis, as Hindkais are now, to all intents and purposes, Bannuchis themselves, having been settled from two to five or more generations in the valley. Their old masters are fond of ascribing to them all those vices which we know they themselves possess.” http://www.khyber.org/pashtolanguage/pashtoproverbs/classlocal-a.shtml

In other words, if you read that statement I have italicised, even during the nineteenth century, Thorburn comments that the connotations carried by the term Hamsaya during this period of time, were outdated and thus the term, a misnomer, given the change in status experienced by this section of the Awan tribe (Thorburn stating that this section of society should be referred to as Bannuchis and not Hamsaya/Hindkai). Furthermore, Thorburn clearly indicates that the derisory term is based on racist notions, more proof that the term is inaccurate (and note the use of the phrase “old masters” even during that period of time). Also note that Thorburn also makes the point that the Bannuchi Pathans are in no position to vilify others.

In fact, looking at the link to the source you have provided, Thorburn states in his introduction:

“Hindkais are roundly abused… because of their superior thrift and energy in cultivation… as far as I have observed, the Hindkais are most unjustly vilified. Probably motives of jealousy alone have warped the judgement of their former Pathan masters about them. http://www.khyber.org/pashtolanguage/pashtoproverbs/classlocal-a.shtml

Even the author of the source you have cited has stated that the manner in which the Pathans addressed those residing in their areas who were of non-Pathan origin (i.e. Punjabi migrants) was unjustified and that the prejudiced Pathan attitudes were the result of jealousy. Moreover, Thorburn has quite clearly stated that by the nineteenth century, when the source you have referred to was compiled, the groups that are the topic of discussion were no longer subordinate to Pathans (hence his reference to former Pathan masters), further proof that your article is irrelevant because hamsaya as defined by your article, is invalid, warped and unreliable.

Your article does not even acknowledge the present day status of the groups that Pathans referred to in such derogatory terms, nor does it make reference to the fact that the term is rooted in bias and that its use cannot be justified; if you had done so, you would have been forced to realise just how outdated the term hamsaya, as defined by your article, is. I gave three specific examples relating to the Awans, including one taken from an official Pakistani government source. To recap:

“Sayeds and Swatis, and to some extent Awans, are influential landowners; others are either tenants or tenants-cum-landowners.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4856E/y4856e0g.htm

The above quote relates to Kaghan (NWFP), where Awans don’t even form a significant proportion of the population, yet a clear distinction is made between them and dependant groups.

“In Punjab and NWFP, the Kammis were dominated by other castes such as the Awans and the Kharals.” http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/ppa-national.pdf

The above is from a recent Pakistani government source – note it refers to the position of the Awan tribe in the NWFP as well as Punjab.

Even during the nineteenth century, the majority of Awans still managed to maintain a standing that often led them to being virtually indistinguishable from the larger Pathan community, a situation that continues to this day, hence the quote I reproduced:

“Next to the Pathans are the Awans. They are an agricultural tribe like the Pathans and have many characteristics in common with them.” http://www.opf.org.pk/almanac/P/provinces.htm

And as I stressed earlier, what really makes a mockery of the term hamsaya, as defined by your article and applied to tribes such as the Awans who either resided within the NWFP or neighboured (something that your article alludes to) the Frontier Pathans, is that in regions of the Punjab such as the districts of Attock (where Fatehjang is located) and Mianwali (where Kalabagh is located) that border the NWFP, Awans maintained and continue to maintain a dominant position despite the heavy presence of Pathans within these regions and across the border in NWFP. Again, to recap:

“Fatehjang and Kalabagh, which border the NWFP, are the residencies of Malik Mohammad Asad Khan (the current Nawab of Kalabagh) and Prince Malik Ata Mohammad Khan (hereditary lord and master of Fatehjang and one of Pakistan's most powerful feudal lords) and both men are of course, Awans. It should also be noted that both dynasties have retained their pre-eminent status in regions that are heavily populated by Pathans.”

I am sorry, but the above facts, make a mockery of the term hamsaya when used as a term to describe Awans living on the border of the NWFP as being subordinate to any group (as your article suggests), let alone Pathans. As I said earlier, you have created your article by taking comments relating to the use of the word hamsaya amongst nineteenth century Pathan society, out of context.

And contrary to your claim, the article cannot be “suitably amended and developed to accommodate a broader scope.” Firstly, Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary, and the word hamsaya, in reality, is nothing more than a Hindi-Urdu term with a variety of mundane, everyday meanings. Secondly, your definition of the term, as has been described, relies on a single, narrow definition of the term that is also happens to be racist and more importantly, erroneous and thus does not deserve inclusion in any article outlining definitions of the term, especially as the term itself, as defined by your article, is now obsolete and null and void, i.e. it does not reflect present day realties – in fact, even the author of the source you referred to states that the use of the term as a derisory reference to “Hindkais” was outdated in the nineteenth century. Lastly, when even the author of the source you provided a link to comments that the use of the word Hamasya as defined by your article, is unjustified, misleading, based on jealously and prejudice and outdated (even at that time it did not reflect the reality of the situation), then not only is your article irrelevant and misleading, but it also most certainly deserves to be deleted.

To reiterate, the article is inaccurate, anachronistic, skewered, and offensive to Awans because of the false impression it creates and thus serves no purpose at all. Malik Awan 1 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.