Talk:Chibhal

Article has little historical accuracy. References are completely out of context ie ref number 13 has no mention whatsoever of this tribe or a chibal? it can be read here https://archive.org/stream/origingrowthofvi00badeuoft/origingrowthofvi00badeuoft_djvu.txt

Chibhal was near the hazara border not in bhimber. The chibhalis were a branch of the dogars not katoch. When the chibs lost their chibhal area they migrated to bhimber and massacred the thakial rulers of bhimber who gave them refuge and now they claim the whole of Kashmir including Jhelum and Gujrat was part of chibhal which is completely false. Jhelum since ancient times was always ruled by the ghakkar tribe and gujrat by gujjar and Jatts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.180.9 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

no

you are totally false first chibhal covers areas of bordering kashmir and punjab second the bhimber was the capital of the state third chibs rajputs are direct descendant of kangra prince Raja chib chand where chib clan formed so first read the history again and do not bark again. 103.157.248.23 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Chibhal was a second largest state after the jammu state at its peak chibhal covers areas of bhimber,rajouri,poonch,mirpur,Gujrat and jhelum chibhal was remember for their great victories against the Sikhs. Raja Abdullah Chib (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The proposal for page deletion should be removed.Chibhal had been led by a Raja since it’s creation in 1390/1400. Such a state, vassal or otherwise, should not need explicit confirmation as a kingdom. The notion that it was a princely state simply does not hold up since Chibhal as a state never came under the suzerainty of the British Raj. While the title of raja devolved to mean prince under British colonial rule, any ‘Raja’ before that would have USUALLY been the ruler of a Small Kingdom, and Vassalage does not change that fact. The word raja originates from the sanskrit "Rajan", meaning king. It is solidified futher when you find out that it is commonly said that one of the Chib Rajas, Commonly called Baba Shadi Shaheed, had been given the title of "Maharaja" by the Mughal Emperor of his time, literally meaning High king or Great King. This clearly would annul the objection that the claim that the State of Bhimber or The State of Chibhal was not a kingdom, rather a princely state Kimi123456 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you have any reliable sources that you can provide? I noticed that you tried to add a wordpress page and facebook article, both of which are user generated (anyone can create) — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 23:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AUTISTIC HERE: CAN ANYONE PLEASE CHANGE THE KINGDOM STATUS TO PRINCELY STATE AND REMOVE THE "DELETION" MESSAGE BEFORE THE ARTICLE IS DELETED, PLEASE! Kimi123456 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please do not type in all capital letters, as it is perceived as shouting. Day Creature (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems that Chibhal is always talked about as a Region or place or area, which just so happened to have been ruled by minor Kings since ~1390. This has resulted in an odd situation where there is no EXPLICIT proof that the Chib Dynasty/Clan ruled A Kingdom? A Princely State? A Chieftancy? A Principality? A Horde of Tribal and rural Land?

Thus most locals i have met either call it a kingdom or a princely state.

whatever it may have been, could you kindly address the "Kingdom" Issue before the page is deleted, PLEASE!

have a Good Day! Kimi123456 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please add the following sentence to the History section:

In 1486, Raja Howns (probably Hans) of Bhimber defeated a force from the Punjab that attempted to enter through Bhimber.[1] [2]  

Thanks D4M.JK (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

These are Raj-era sources from 100 plus years ago. We cannot use them per WP:RAJ. Ixudi (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I understand why you have not added it because History of the Panjab Hill States is over 100 years old, but how about Himalayan Principalities? This book does mention this event and is not over 100 years old. D4M.JK (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done: per the above response. Day Creature (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I understand why you have not added it because History of the Panjab Hill States is over 100 years old, but how about Himalayan Principalities? This book does mention this event and is not over 100 years old. D4M.JK (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please reply someone

? D4M.JK (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Stub-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Stub-Class India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Stub-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• Stub-Class Indian history articles
• Unknown-importance Indian history articles
• Stub-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Stub-Class Pakistan articles
• Low-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistani history articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles

• Past proposed deletion candidates