Talk:Gakhars (Hindu)

Gakhar Gakhar (गखर) is a Rajput clan found in Pakistan. Padwal, Fadwal and Khatarmal claims descend from the famous Gakhar tribe.

Contents Variants Ghakkar (घक्कर) (AS, p.199) Gakkhar (गक्खर) Gakkar Gakar

Origin Kukara (कुकर) was a very ancient northwestern Mahabharata tribe. Kukura was a Chandravanshi Kingdom during Mahabharata period. It is identified with eastern Rajasthan. Kukura is also mentioned as a Nagavanshi King in Mahabharata. Varahamihira has mentioned Kukuradesha in Brihatsamhita (14,4). Probably Kukuras were related with Shakas and considered to be Anaryas.

History According to Vishwa Mitra Mohan (1976: 84f), the Gakhar J are a fierce Scythian tribe spread over Sindh, eastern and western Panjab upto Khyber Pass in the Frontier Province.

The Gakhars (also Gakkhar or Ghakhar or Ghakkar) are a clan found predominantly on the Potohar plateau in the northern part of Pakistan's Punjab province. In the 1990s, Gakhars who professed Islam were reported to be most prevalent in Hazara district and in northern districts of Punjab such as Rawalpindi district.[1] Hindu Gakhars have also been recorded, historically in areas such as the Punjab where a Gakhar ruled in the time of Babur.[2]

Medieval Gakhars: The Gakhars had engaged in a long-running battle for sovereignty over the Salt Range. Gakhars were renowned for their skill in building forts and fortified cities,[3] such as the Rawat Fort.

The history of this region (the Salt Range) from the thirteenth century onward had been a sickening record of wars between Various clans inlcuding the Janjuhas, Gakkhars, Thathals and Bhattis for political ascendancy.[4] H.A. Rose[5] writes that The first settlement of the Gakkhar tribe in this district is generally admitted to be Abriām in Sultānpur, under the Lehri hills : thence they spread over the Khuddar, southwards towards the river, and as far as Landi Patti to the west, being constantly opposed by the Janjuas who were almost invariably defeated and ejected : in his first invasion of India Babar took the part of the Janjuas, and with them defeated Hati Khan, the great Gakkhar chief of Pharwala, but in a subsequent invasion made friends with the Gakkhars and procured from them an auxiliary force. When Babar's son, Humayun, was in A. D. 1542 ousted by Sher Shah, the principal Gakkhar chiefs took the side of the exile: to bridle their pride Sher Shah built the huge fort of Rohtas, about ten miles from Jhelum : and in the constant warfare that followed the Gakkhar country was terribly harried, but the tribe was never subdued, and on Humayun's return to power began to grow powerful.

Alexander Cunningham [6] has mentioned one of Gakar state in the list of Hill States of the Punjab as Pharwala, near Behat River ruling in 7th century.

Pharwala Fort of Gakhars

Pharwala Fort of Gakhar Jatts Fharwala Fort located in Potohar, Pakistan is the most unassailable fort in South Asia. The fort has long been associated with the fearless clan of Gakhar Jatts. Pharwala Fort is about 40 km from Rawalpindi beyond Lehtrar road. (For details see Pharwala Fort)

Mahmud Ghazni (977-1030) and Gakkhar Jats Mahmud Ghazni was a Turk. The original rulers of Turkistan were Jats. Then the Mongols ousted them and Turk tribes were gradually compelled to leave Turkistan. Mahmood's ancestors had thus come and settled in Zabulistan and Afghanistan. Alptigin of this tribe established his kingdom in Ghazni. Sabuktigin (977-997), who was born in the third generation of Alptigin, invaded India many times but was vigorously repulsed by the Jat King, Jai Pal, at Frontier Provinces. His son Sultan Mahmud was aware of his father's battles with Raja Jaipal and India's weaknesses.

It has been mentioned in Indian History that Mahmud Ghazni had given a vow to the Khalifa to invade India every year, demolish the idols they worshipped and spread Islam. Every time he came like a hurricane looted, and returned but only to create a large Army with that wealth, and invade again. Two of his invasions were purely against Jats and these proved the costliest.

In 1001 AD Mahmud of Ghazni defeated Jay Pal and occupied the state of Bhatis, Bhatinda. He captured Multan and levied tax on acts of worship. Anand Pal, son of Jay Pal, took with him the rulers of Kannauj and Jujhauti and attacked Mahmud. In this war Gakkhar Jats were also with Anand Pal. Mahmud had come this time with a huge army and camped for 40 days. At last the army of Gakkhars attacked Mahmud at place called Chhachh near Atak. The Turk army could not sustain war before Gakkhars. Mahmud was about to withdraw from the war, But unfortunately at the same time the elephant of Anand Pal got angry, which sent the signals as a defeat and the army got demoralized. This led to the victory of Mahmud. (Dr Natthan Singh, 123-124)

The Rajput kings of those days did not offer any appreciable resistance against his invasions. Once it was rumored that an attack on Somnath temple was imminent and it would be looted and devastated. All the Rajput Kings assembled there to save Somnath temple from this anticipated disaster, but had no mutual confidence among themselves. They had no heart to fight, but presented themselves only as a matter of prestige. The Head priest of this temple, however, assured them that there was no need to fight as the idol of Somnath would curse the devils to blindness, and they would perish moaning and screaming.

The rumor came true. The Muslim force laid siege of the temple and the battle ensued. At that time a dance of beautiful girls (devdasis) was going on in temple to appease the idol and all Rajput chiefs who had come to defend the temple were busy in enjoying the function. When the Muslim invaders attacked, the Rajputs took to their heels. The priests, however, fought bravely and were killed in large numbers at the altar. Sultan Mahmood demolished the idol of Somnath and started towards Ghazni with a Caravan of Camels laden with gold, silver and precious jewels.

It is mentioned in Todd's Rajasthan that while the Army of Mahmood Ghazni with the booty was passing through the Jat territory of Multan, they were ambushed by Jats in 1025 AD, and all the wealth was recovered.

Sultan Mahmood Ghazni collected the remnants of his force, and managed to slip away with it. This was the first occasion when he met defeat in India.

No References to Claims

Hello. Interesting page although you have not provided any referances or citations. Please do! Thanks--Peter 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)peterkeyani--Peter 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Peter. This page has absolutely no references or citations. I have read numerous work relating to the Gakhar clan and have yet to find any mention of the clan have any Hindu elements.

1. The article makes such very strong claims regarding the clans conversion from Hinduism and Buddhism to Islam. Can I see the references to prove this please?

2. Also, there is a claim that some Gakhars did not convert and remained Hindu. Yet there is no cited reference or proof of them becoming Hindu? Considering they were champions of Zoroastrainism, they are assumed to have become Hindu upon entry into India. This is erroneous as the Parsi community, staunch Persian Zoroastrians, never converted upon entry to India en masse. I do believe their may be non Muslim elements of the Gakhars residing in India. But to label them all as Hindu, indeed requires proof, a simple citation. They can be of many other Indian faiths, or indeed still Zoroastrains (which is very much probable).

3. There is also a claim that the Gakhar Hindus resided in "Jhelum, Kashmir, and West Punjab (which now falls in the Pakistan Punjab)." But strangely, considering the tribe was heavily recorded by the British researchers and ethnographers as completely Muslim, there has been NO mention of them having been Hindu. Not to say there were no Hindu Gakhars in India at all. But just that they were NOT recorded as living in the above stated regions. I dont see how this claim could have been made without any proof quite frankly.

This query is not countering their existence, just countering the claims made on this page and requesting published proof for these claims please.

I would advise a re write of the claims, either verified with citations, or removed and rewritten to reflect the points above. Wiki policies in this case for citations must be adhered to. --Raja 10:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Supersaiyan|Raja your queries are better answered by anonymous user 24.10.142.95 .

Cheers Intothefire 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Im sure they will. --Raja 13:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Raja

Now to get back to where this all began . My additions of Hindu Gakhars being continously deleted from the Gakhar page and to avoid an edit conflict ...I set up a new page although I think this was patently unfair . All the same here is the exact text of the first post ...perhaps you should have checked it yourself .Lets look at it and then I will elaborate .

"Hindu Gakhars are an ancient clan of India from the Punjab region . Gakhars are found among both Khatris as well as Rajputs . After the Partition of India in 1947 Hindu Gakhars moved from their traditional homes in West Punjab and what is now part of Pakistan to India.

Before the partition of India Hindu Gakhars were settled in the areas of Rawalpindi and Jhelum .

After the arrival of Islam into the subcontinent a predominant section of Gakhars converted to Islam from Hinduism. The Muslim Gakhars in Pakistan are a prominent community in that country ."

Then even this inocious page started to get attacked ....see my post to Siddiqui..for example below . What is the proof you require to this post ....
a)You question that there are any living Hindu Gakhars at all ?
b)You question that Gakhars were ever converted to Islam ?
c)You question that Gakhars were converted from Hinduism to Islam ?

I will provide the responses for the precise question or objections you may have ,provided they pertain to my posts ,which if they dont I do not respond . As to me being a RSS member I could only laugh since I specifically reject their exclusivist worldview.

Having read Farishta ...which is often quoted here ...I could say that much of what he has said is only his- Farishta s imbalanced opinion that often border on abuse . Frankly His obnoxious observations on Gakhars calling them barbarians is only an extension of his own highly prejudiced mind . If you have read both Farishta and Alberuni you would I am sure be able to see the vast difference of these two authors in their observations of Indian culture . I need not subscribe to Farishtas hateful opinions on Gakhars , but according to the rules of wikipedia his opinion is taken for proof ?

Cheers Intothefire 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Having understood what you mean regarding this issue not being given space in the original article, I can understand you having another page devoted to the subject. Problem is, you still managed to ensure that the Hindu side were mentioned in the original Gakhars page, thus confusing as to why this was even needed when it states the same info?

The problem is, and I mean this respectfully intothefire, I dont think you read what is written first, then put up your points. I feel this because you have yet to answer the above points, which already ascribe what I am saying. I never said there weren't any Gakhars, but I requested what info you had to suggest that they were Hindus and not any other Indo or Zoroastrian faith? See above again to understand. I dont see why I should re type my points when you can read them above, perfectly clearly. But I have managed to bullet point them by numbers for you to make it easier for you to see them. Answer them and we can either dramatically improve this article, or perhaps see what extra there is here (that isnt already in the Gakhars page already) to warrant a seperate page in the 1st place.

Regarding the Ferishta's opinions of Gakhars, it does warrant mention, but also I would include the alternative point from other historians and also perhaps from the tribe itself (Raja Jehandad Khan's research rebuttal) perhaps? I believe Al beruni to be the better more neutral source though. You have to remember, Ferishta's account is simply word of mouth, many many centuries later than the alleged incident and the ONLY indicator of this tribe's presence in India prior to Ghazni's campaigns.

Regarding Siddiqui, I believe if you weren't so harsh to him (inexperience of wiki language accord I guess...) perhaps you guys could have worked together on this. Citations my man, just citations! :-)--Raja 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Siddiqui

Siddiqui Just as the deliberate obiliteration of the history of Siddiquis from India would be completely unjustified as for example the stellar contribution of the Muhajir Urdu community s contribution in the establishment of Pakistan is being obiliterated... So is the case with the Hindu Gakhars or millions of others who are now living in India but belong to the area which now forms Pakistan.

As a Pakistani , you proclaim your own Indian and Arabic roots , and yet you steadfastly wish to deny the roots of others ?? Why ?

What is a Pakistani surname ? please elucidate . And by that same yardstick standard explain where Siddiqui belong . ?

Are you quite sure that there is not one single Hindu Gakhar left in Pakistan?

I have made a separate page Gakhar Hindus in deference to the existing page that covers Muslim Gakhars of Pakistan ....and now you vandal this ....!

You bandy your siddiqui lineage as if it were a caste , and you edit the lineage of others ?

Where do you belong ? Intothefire 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Gakhar page

A lively debate took place on the Gakhars discussion page ,which would be of interest to anyone visiting this page for information on Gakhar history .
Cheers
Intothefire 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Intothefire 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For reasons known to themselves some contributors who also regularly post on the Gakhar page have had an objection to acknowledgement or the existance of Hindu Gakhars .

For those Doubting Thomas there is an easy way to clear their doubts please visit [1] the online MTNL telephone directory of Delhi select Individual Residential

and simply type Gakhar .

Cheers
Intothefire 17:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hindu Gakhars do exist

I do not have any citations regarding Hindu Gakhars but I was known to a Hindu Gakhar family in Indian Punjab. They were very light-skinned, well-educated and spoke fluent Punjabi/Haryanvi. This testimony may not carry any weight as per Wikipedia rules but I would request the other editors not to dismiss the claim of Hindu Gakhars summarily. Sometimes citable information is missing about certain groups. In such circumstances it is better not to express strong affirmative or negative statements about a claim simply because the citable information does not exist. If this is allowed to happen then it is not fair to the certain subaltern narratives which are historically significant but lie buried beneath of a heap of popular, and often ignorant, opinions and propaganda which often find entry into citable sources just as easily as the truthful accounts. While it is not the subject matter of an encyclopedia to be a forum for these suppressed narratives but keep in mind they belong to the groups which still exist in full blood, and they have a rightful voice in objecting to them. Maybe wikipedia's rules about biographies of 'living persons' could be invoked in these cases. Ethnic groups which still exist are nothing but a collection of 'living people' and maximal caution should be exercised when they are described in an encyclopedia, lest anything be written which might be deemed libelous by the members of that group. regards.--Internet Scholar (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

so...the Ghakkar Kayanis are Rajputs or where did they come from?/And ruled the area between the/Indus and Jhelum Rivers? 202.165.225.144 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sikh Gakhars

Are their Sikh Gakhars? 122.163.204.38 (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

The article seems to be mostly an exposition that could be covered at Gakhars. Sure, the community has two religions and there is a claim (unsourced) that post-partition they even split geographically, but the fact is that 90% of this article is just talking about the Islamic conversion ... and it is using really old primary sources to do so. I am tempted to propose a merger unless someone comes up with decent content and sources before too long. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you read up the discussion on this page and the Gakhar discussion page before acting in haste .Intothefire (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. Now, why does it exist? - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:)

Intothefire (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a meaningful answer. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

|Primary Sources?

Sitush:You put a tag
There are 7 citations , please inform which are primary sources , the closest living person Mostowfi lived about 70 years after the events .

• Muhammad of Ghor lived 1150 – 1206
• Ferishta: lived 1560 1620
• Hamdollah Mostowfi lived 1281–1349

No doubt your wikipedia skills are commendable ,regret you are injuring various articles with your skills , sometimes removing citations , other times causing doubt where none should exist .
Intothefire (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All three. They are far too old and are considered to be primary sources. We need reliable secondary sources. If these issues are notable then they will have been discussed by academics etc in the last few years. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Response 1 from Intothefire

You are wrong.

Please carefully refer Primary sources . It clearly states Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering ::an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Then look at the dates I have provided above , one author cited is least 70 years later and the other is 300 years later than the incident , nor are the people writing these accounts directly involved or could have been .
Incidently which is the third ? ... you say all three ? I only mentioned 2 here ? Surely you dont mean Muhammad of Ghor , because I cant see him quoted in the article . Intothefire (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No way are those sources reliable. If you doubt this then I suggest that you enquire at WP:RSN but would it not be simpler just to provide more modern sources? - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been having a think about this. Take a look at Lohara dynasty. It relies very heavily on the one early Indian historian who is considered to be reliable(-ish), Kalhana. Nonetheless, the article is sourced mostly to Mark Aurel Stein, whose study of Kalhana's work seems still to be something of a standard reference. Stein both translated Kalhana and provided a substantial commentary, discussing the context and the issues surrounding the early writings. In other words, Kalhana is a primary source and Stein is a secondary source. Does this make any sense? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Response 2 from Intothefire

I really do wish we were working together to improve articles rather than at loggerheads , but then who knows the contrariety may actually lead to improvement .Unfortunately your edits are spanning articles and subjects I have been working on and there is a definitive contradiction here .

Lets take your deletion of a citation from a secondary source in this article
*October 2011 remove Wikeley source: he may be reliable on military affairs of the 1920s etc but as a historian he was at best an amateur & a plagiaris. Whereas on 17 September 2011 you provide an edit on article Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas a book by an advocate ? (not a historian or , a sociologist , anthropologist , scholar published in 1904). If you read the pedestrian invectives in this book on various issues , you may like to seriously reconsider your endorsement of your edit. The remaining citations on that article are even more absurd . My aim here is to question your double standard then , Wekely a millitary man is unacceptable but an an advocate Kumar Cheda Singh Varma is ?? Moreover your opinion on Wekeley ,is it your opinion or the result of a Wikipedia concensus as a legitimate secondary source  ?

Next to the issue of Ferishta and Hamdollah Mostowfi being reliable sources for wikipedia ....well , what would you say to Plutarch and Arrian being used all over Wikipedia ...take the example of article Alexander the Great and see the citations .Yes your opinion on Mark Aurel Stein is valid I have cited him on various occasions .But here the issue is one of consistency over article , which my friend you are missing over and over again .

Cheers Intothefire (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to fix your somewhat idiosyncratic indenting. I hope you do not mind. There is also absolutely no need for all these bolded "X response from Y" statements.

I have never added Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas as a source, nor am I brilliantly happy with it as such (see: Talk:Khatri during the last week). Wikeley is a plagiarist and also not a historian, anthropologist, Indologist etc. He is unreliable. If you disagree then take it to WP:RSN or WT:INB. As for the rest of your comments, please read WP:OSE. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of citation

Sitush
Please stop removing valid citations as you have done here .

• 8 September 2011 you removed this citation on an erroneous counts Ferishta s account of Gakkhars: remove: this article is not about Ferishta .
  But this article is about the Gakhars , and the quote was from a secondary source , about an important source Ferishta (also secondary ....I have already illustrated to you that Ferishta lived about 300 years after the Gakhars clash With Ghori) , and the quote was from Ibbetson .

• Please also inform why you removed these wikilinks to Muhammad Ghori and changed the word to Ghor . It changed the meaning completely ,
  

originally it read Some Muslim historians record the encounter of Muhammad Ghori with the Gakkhurs
you changed it to Some Muslim historians record the encounter of Ghor with the Gakkhurs
Ghor is a place
And Muhammad Ghori was a person ...a king  ?
Now Gakhars encountering a king and Gakhars encountering a place are too completely different things .

Would appreciate your response .
Intothefire (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What part of my edit summaries do you not understand? - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Response 1 from Intothefire

I understood all you did , am asking why you did , please read my note again and respond.
Intothefire (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why is in my edit summaries. That is why I asked what it was in them that you do not understand. Since you do understand, there is no issue to discuss. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That I understand your edits are deceptive is not the same as I agree agree with your deceptive edits
, now discuss judiciously , or I assume you do not have a reasonable explanation for your erroneous actions
Intothefire (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why I should bother when you do not respond in any sensible way to a query that I raised above, but what the hell. This sort of demanding arrogance seems to be the norm at the moment on various caste articles, and it seems that it may be rubbing off on you. So, why do you not agree? I have previously explained why Ferishta is useless and Ibbetson not much better. This article needs much more modern sources and, honestly, it is really not about Ferishta. Even if he were a reliable source, the most we would need to say about him is "Ferishta, a historian of the xth century, says that ..."

As for unlinking Ghor(i), well, why not read WP:OVERLINK, which has also been mentioned in the edit summaries? And what on earth could be your problem with standardising on a spelling within an article, per WP:MOS? If you want to change the Ghor to read Muhammad Ghori or (better, since his own article is titled as such) Muhammad of Ghor throughout the article then feel free, but don't leave it half-and-half, and do not link other than on the first occurrence of the name in the article. Sorry, but I am not wasting too much time on this because you have been around for a while & I know that this sort of thing has been explained to you in the past. If you still do not understand it then you need someone else to try and explain it to you because there are only so many ways that I can figure out how to do it.

I have kept quiet about your lies regard various things which you claim I have said or done of late, but take this as a warning that I will not be doing so in the future. There is only so much good faith in my soul. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of issuing warnings ,

• its enough for you to focus and discuss on the very specific issues I raise .
• Since you assume prerogative to delete other editors citations unilaterally , also accept the prerogative of other editors to discuss your specific edits .
• try to build consensus , through repair and improve ,over slash and burn ....which you could have done easily here as well as you now admit .

Evidently the number of my daily edits on wikipedia are way less than yours ,I also work in the real world !

but what I contribute is carefully researched and properly cited , I see no reason why in spite of your needlessly aggressive attitude , you should not provide cogent reasons for your deletions .
Intothefire (talk) 10:10, 21 October 201artical Its not a tru artical The Rajput, Gujjars, Jats and Ahirs,[10][11][12] who now hold the Salt Range and its northern plateau respectively, appear to have been the earliest inhabitants of Jhelum.[13] The next major point in the history of the district was the Battle of the Hydaspes between Alexander and the local ruler, . Abisares (or Abhisara;[14] in Greek Αβισαρης), called Embisarus (Eμ Oβισαρoς) by Diodorus,[15] was an Indian people king of abhira[16] descent beyond the river Hydaspes, whose territory lay in the mountains, sent embassies to Alexander both before and after the conquest of Porus in 326 BC, although inclined to espouse the side of the latter. Alexander not only allowed him to retain his kingdom, but increased it, and on his death appointed his son as his successor. Jhelum was capital of Porus' kingdom Paurava. The Gakhars appear to represent an early wave of conquerors from the west, and who still inhabit a large tract in the mountain north to tilla range. Gakhars were the dominant race during the early Muslim era and they long continued to retain their independence, both in Jhelum itself and in the neighbouring district of Rawalpindi.[13]

Medieval Edit In 997 CE, Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, took over the Ghaznavid dynasty empire established by his father, Sultan Sebuktegin. In 1005 he conquered the Shahis in Kabul and followed it by the conquests of Punjab region including Jhelum. The Delhi Sultanate and later Mughal Empire ruled the region. The Punjab region became predominantly Muslim due to missionary Sufi saints whose dargahs dot the landscape of Punjab region.

The Mughals were Persianized Turks who claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis Khan and strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India. Being very few in number,main families of Mughal Barlas, the descent of Ameer-i- Taimoor settled in Mong Rasool and afterward scattered to village chak Nazar, Shamaspur, Aima Afghana, khardiyala, Chak sikander, Malhar Muglain, Mota Garbi, Bimber, they adopted a policy of converting the local jats and Gakhars mandatory as recorded in the Baburnama.[17] Thus it is credited to the Mughals, who were largely responsible for the conversion of the jatts to Islam.[18]

With the collapse of the Mughal Empire after the death of Aurangzeb, the Durrani empire had occupied the plains but was quickly ousted by the Sikhs.

Rizvi quote

We seem to be quoting S. A. A. Rizvi in the "conversion to Islam" section but the citation appears to be for Arthur Basham's The Wonder That Is India. I thought I had a copy of that book but cannot find it. Can someone please clarify what is going on and improve the citation. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)