| Revision as of 14:30, 25 December 2006 editSupersaiyan (talk | contribs)2,496 edits →Proof of Raja's point← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:01, 18 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,789 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Janjua/Archive 3) (bot | ||
| (529 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{gs/talk notice|sasg}} | |||
| {{WP India|class=|importance=}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| ==Cleanup== | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 3 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Janjua/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box|search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=6 |units=months |index=/Archive index}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| == Characteristics failed verification == | |||
| I got an e-mail requesting that I review this article to see if it was sufficiently cleaned up. I re-tagged the article with more specific templates that can be removed as specific problems are resolved. | |||
| I have moved this sentence from the article to here because it is not supported by the cited source: | |||
| * NPOV: The sections "Nature and characteristics" and "Janjuas today" make broad, unsourced generalizations about an entire ethnic group. It would be more NPOV to report concrete demographics for which sources can be cited. | |||
| * Context: How much of the history here is legend vs. well-attested history? | |||
| * Context: None of the historical events and people mentioned have dates associated with them. | |||
| * Context: There needs to be an intro before the first section which gives an overview of the entire article. It should give a clear definition. Is this an ethnic group? A very large extended family? What is "Lunar Race"/"Chandra Vans"? | |||
| * References: The links to pages in Google's cache need to be converted into direct links, or into archive.org links. | |||
| * References: Most of the inline links should probably be converted into footnotes. I would suggest the ] style. | |||
| * Context: More geographical and historical context for those not familiar with the Indian Subcontinent would be helpful. Links to related Misplaced Pages articles in strategic places would also be an improvement. | |||
| * Copyedit: I have fixed most of the bits that did not align with Misplaced Pages and standard English guidelines for italicization and quoting, but I may have missed some things. The writing is in general a bit rough and needs re-phrasing. | |||
| * External links: I don't know why these are here. They should probably be moved to articles about these topics, and this article should link to those. | |||
| -- ] 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|text=The tribal system of loyalty to the clan is still adhered to, and they tend to only align with other tribes of equally high social rank and reputation.<ref>''The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia'' Gyanes Kudaisya, London 2000, p. 207</ref> | |||
| :All the above has been addressed one by one over the past few months. The article is now a complete change from what it was. Citations clearly added, fully referenced and sourced. Language has been improved with a brief explanation of wordings etc. The section of characteristics etc has been removed and replaced with general tribal behaviour as been recognised and distinguished to this clan by sourced historians. Historical and geographical data also been added with links to other pages an clans wherever possible. The legends are clearly stated as legend (general Hindu beliefs) and the well attested history is again fully referenced and sourced.--] 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| This is not an accurate paraphrase of anything on the cited page of the source (or in that chapter, for that matter). All that the authors write about Janjuas, citing a source published in 1915, is: | |||
| Given that the Tanawalis - or Tanoli - link with Janjuas is very dubious to say the least,and at best only valid for a very small minority it therefore, is imperative to address this in text so that the reader is not misled into thinking this issue as non-contentious and thus factual. I have therefore, added this to the article in the appropriate section. I have also amended the section on Tanolis by deleting the quote from The Imperial Gazetteer of the North West Frontier Province as on the relevant page it does not make any mention of Raja Tanoli or Raja Mal. Instead the origin of Tanolis is attributed to Yousafzais and the Barlas Mughals. Hence, the misquote has been deleted. --] 14:47, 15 November 2006 | |||
| {{quote|text=Socially dominant Muslim tribes such as the Gakkhars, Janjuas and Awans and a few Rajput tribes, concentrated in the Rawalpindi and Jhelum districts of the Salt Range tract of western Punjab, accounted for more than 90 per cent of Punjabi Muslim recruits.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Gyanesh Kudaisya |author2=Tai Yong Tan |year=2000 |title=The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia |publisher=Routledge |page=207 |isbn=0-415-17297-7}}</ref> | |||
| ==Reply to Pakhtun Tanoli== | |||
| }} | |||
| The above user is a vandal beyond doubt and a POV theorist whos views have not been backed by '''any''' credible source. I will however endevour to challenge his assertions; | |||
| I have no objection to the reintroduction of the sentence about Janjua characteristics if accompanied by a citation that verifies it. | |||
| ''Given that the Tanawalis - or Tanoli - link with Janjuas is very dubious to say the least,and at best only valid for a very small minority it therefore, is imperative to address this in text so that the reader is not misled into thinking this issue as non-contentious and thus factual. '' | |||
| :I agree, hence the article has been changed to reflect this. But the interesting thing to note here, is that an admission has been made by someone till now denying it, lol. | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ''I have therefore, added this to the article in the appropriate section. I have also amended the section on Tanolis by deleting the quote from The Imperial Gazetteer of the North West Frontier Province as on the relevant page it does not make any mention of Raja Tanoli or Raja Mal. Instead the origin of Tanolis is attributed to Yousafzais and the Barlas Mughals. Hence, the misquote has been deleted.'' | |||
| --] (]) 04:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Not correct. The references have been provided side by side where the info relating to these claims have been made (i.e. Raja Tanoli), hence your deletions are left to be either naive or malicious to say the least. But nice try though. | |||
| == Khakha == | |||
| I will also print here the reply I gave you last month; | |||
| Our claim that the ] are a branch of the Janjua is not supported by a source and then we have a big block of text telling us what the Khakhas got up to, with sources that also failed to support the Janjua claim. The Khakha article itself is so poorly written and sourced as to be ambiguous, so I until we can resolve the issue. Part of that resolution might involve merging the two articles. - ] (]) 16:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| a) The sources that I quoted, I actually have copies of them to back up proof,so I am surprised that you question them IF indeed you have their copies as you state. I can even post a picture here of the texts in question for the ones you have questioned if you would like? I dont believe you anticipated this offer, but I more so dont believe you have consulted the texts yourself as YOU suggest. | |||
| == Incorrect & Ambiguous Sources == | |||
| b) The Janjua have no need to use another's history seeing as their own history is fully referenced and sourced as was this article until you starting inputting nonsensical 'point of view info' without any referenced citations. But regarding your delusion of Tanolis baring no attachment at all to Janjuas, it is claimed elsewhere (not by me or any other Janjua solely) of this connection and it's synonimous relevance to each other yet again were this not the case then why are people mentioning it?! I dont agree all Tanolis are Janjua, but there are true Raja Tanoli descendants (real Tanoli Janjuas) who have genelogical tables showing this and have been mentioned by even Mughal Jehangir, so where you claim that it doesn't show on the Nawab's genelogical table I cannot understand BECAUSE had he actually had a genelogical table in the first place, then surely the Barlas Mughal or Abbasi theories would be put to rest would it not! | |||
| I have found no mention of the Januja in the following sources which are erronesously cited here. | |||
| c) You have been 'revert warring' an article without any discussion at all. I have incorporated your Pashtun origin theory into the article and you completely deleted the Janjua theory? Thats rather uncivil and immature considering there isn't any mention of a 'Tanoli nation' in Hazara pre colonial era texts. | |||
| 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.38305/page/n399/mode/2up | |||
| d) Before accusing me of any nonsense please see this link which is undoubtedly a mention of a Tanoli Punjabi Musalmaan, so before badmouthing Punjabis, read your OWN history properly. And in case you call that a one off, here is Subedar Kalandhar Khan of the 91st in his full Tanoli glory | |||
| On Page 393-394, Alberuni India Vol II, there is no mention of Janjua in the Kabul Dynasty. | |||
| 2) In The Panjab Chiefs | |||
| If you want a proper discussion, with respect, according to ] I will engage with you (though I am very busy, I will Inshallah accomodate you) but if you want to be abusive (which till date I have NOT been towards you) then I will disengage and report you. | |||
| SIR LEPEL H. GRIFFIN, it is said verbatim on page 603, {http://apnaorg.com/books/punjab-chiefs/) "said the traditions of the Janjua themselves do not point to a very ancient occupancy of the Punjab. They all trace their descent from a Raja Mal, a descendant of the Pandus and of the Rathore Rajput race who about the year 980 AD migrated to the Punjab from Jodhpur or Kannauj" | |||
| The following quote I have added to the article. I found no mention of the Janjua on p 213, in vol II (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206739/page/n231/mode/2up) or in vol I (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206744/page/n229/mode/2up) | |||
| The text ''Chronicles of Early Janjuas'' by Dr Hussain Khan is written '''BY A tANOLI jANJUA''', so how can you ignore it? He was a professor of history at ''Peshawar University'' no less, so chances of a deluded Punjabi cannot be accepted (I can print his background from his book on here with an actual picture too if you want proof?). Keep things in perspective. I dont believe every person who calls themself a Tanoli is a genuine Tanoli by descent, they are all geographically named instead of by blood I believe, especially given the Swati example you give which is interesting. But to totally deny EVERY contrary evidence without debate indicates a Point of View, which isn't encyclopedic. (This is an encyclopedia, hence neutrality must be maintained. This is NOT a eulogy page to your pashtun romance). | |||
| 3) In Parvéz Dewân's Jammû, Kashmîr, and Ladâkh: The book has no mention of Januja at p420 https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Parv%C3%A9z_Dew%C3%A2n_s_Jamm%C3%BB_Kashm%C3%AEr_and_Lad/fF0wAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 | |||
| Secondly, I have not come across a SINGLE source by any historian which records Tanolis as Pashtun, absolutely none. I would appreciate a Yousafzai text which would accept them as their brethren (Again '''THERE IS NONE''') I would gladly accept a local account for this by neighbouring Yousafzais etc but again I am dissappointed here too. 'Al Afghaniya Tanoli' is a strange case. Pashtuns are not the be all and end all of all things Afghan. Syed's are absolutely not Pashtun, yet they are Afghans by localised centuries of inhabitance and cultural practice. So Tanolis culturally Afghan background is not disputed. But to change their entire history, batch them up together as one ethnic group (which you have agreed is in question anyway) is a poor attempt without doubt.--] 22:00, 21 November 2006UTC) | |||
| 4) The following book, "The History of India Indian repr.1962.vol.i, p.22,425-26" is cited but there is no mention of an author, an ISBN or any link to verify the source. I have left the source stay up for now.. but if there is no clarification will remove it. | |||
| ==Reply to Supersaiyan/Raja== | |||
| ] (]) 13:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I may have a lot more of of resources to back up my position than you have. You are only quoting what you've read in non-Tanoli Janjuas and also misquoting from the Imperial Gazetteer of NWFP. I have already said what the original Gazetteer says on page 138 - Janjuas are not mentioned there at all. | |||
| :''If you actually read what was stated in context then you would have read that it was an elaboration of the Tanolis position in the early 20th century after having been almost completely reduced by the Sikhs, but for the grace of Amb as a remaining capital and it's measurements. You must read before jumping to conclusions.''--] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Spam == | |||
| Secondly, you are on a mission to prove something that never was i.e. Raja Tanoli is in the minds of the Janjua theorist as he did not exist in Tanawal. In any case his name has never been spelt in the references as Tanawali nor tanauli. Only proper Tanawalis have been written in different ways. You are doing this to make sure the narrative is as close to the writings on the real Tanawalis of which Tanoli is a later corruption. | |||
| :''Strange, you disagree on the way the word is written in english when we know most tribal names have never been spelt consistently as one name as English being a new language in the continent? What is the relevance of this to the argument? None''.--] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{U|P,TO 19104}} and {{U|Chariotrider555}} and {{u|Abh9850}} at first I thought that there has been disruptive edit from the side of chariotrider, but after reading the version he reverted, I realise that someone had done puffery and attributed the sources which donot contain even a mention of Janjua. Plz read the above comment on talk page.Someone had posted all the sources with links that was used here.] (]) 02:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Moreover, in Rawalpindi the Janjuas are known as Kasbis i.e. those that are involvedin menial tasks - hardly a Raja thing to do. | |||
| :{{re|Heba Aisha}} Yes, I do believe that the article is not written from a NPOV, however, I think merely tagging the article would be a better solution (unless you desire to fix the article in its entirety). Chariotrider555's deletion of the whole article (while in ] intention) did not fix the problem, since ''some'' of the articles sources have merit. The problem here is not as much "Spam" as it is NPOV. ] <small> (]) (]) </small> 14:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :''My dear your false notions without resources are now proven beyond doubt! And that is simply because I have with me a copy of the '''RAWALPINDI GAZETTEER''' itself which states; ''' "....they are proud of their ancestry, make good soldiers, bad agriculturists. They are usually addressed as "Raja", and stand very high in social rank. Their widows do not re marry and they only give their daughters to Janjuas or Saiads..." ''' (2001, Sang-e-meel Publications, p105) I can even print a picture of the actual reference itself which proves this beyond doubt should you require it? Infact, I '''challenge you''' to provide me a reference where it states clearly that the Janjua are as you say, especially in a more reputable source than an official Government report on a district :-)You cannnot my friend. Infact there is noproof that a Syed would even take a daughter from the Tanolis at all anywhere. But funnily enough, just for your information, I can even quote a particular source which alleges the Barlas theory (which you purport also too), BUT states clearly and somewhat truthfully; ''' " ...They (Tanolis) are an industrious and peaceful race of cultivators; but their bad faith has given rise to the saying - "Tanawali be-qauli", the Tanaolis word "is naught". " ''' (Panjab Castes, Baloch, Pathan and allied races chapter, Sir D.Ibbetson Delhi, 2002, p93-94) and thats by someone who isn't a Janjua or any other tribe to do with India infact. All things considered, the Tanaolis allied with the British so you can't even say there was an ulterior motive here PT. And you thought you could call a proud tribe Kasbis and get away with it, lol.'' --] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Heba Aisha}} You should have a chat with the page's biggest editor regarding the state of the page, {{u|Supersaiyan}}. ] <small> (]) (]) </small> 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|P,TO 19104}}, yes I m also not in favour of delition of whole article. I have been editing caste articles for past months and it seems that they haven't cared about policies while writing. Don't worry I will try to deal with it.] (]) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::When I first edited this page I went through every statement and source to make sure that 1. It was a reliable source, and 2. That it actually mentions the Janjuas. From there, I removed most of article as it was fully of puffery, original research, and attributed to unreliable sources. I did it all in one single edit, but if you want me do go one by one, fine, I shall do that. ] (]) 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{U|P,TO 19104}} {{re|Heba Aisha}} Can we just go back to ]? The page is full of nonsense added by ] who added 62,000 bytes worth of content with an edit summary of "Real History", and the user has only made edits to this page.] (]) 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Od}} | |||
| {{u|P,TO 19104}}, for those who are not aware of caste related stuffs..it will look like to be properly sourced but it is not so.I m working with the 'caste articles and have read much about the castes and even I have first hand experience of meeting many community. This article is nothing but a collection of citations which actually donot mention about Janjuas.They've taken stuff from various articles of Legendary kings and heroes and connected them to the caste.] (Actually the former is connected in no way to the Later) ] (]) 03:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright problem removed == | |||
| This may be an explanation for the extreme minority among the Tanolis who may say they are Janjuas because they are trying to escape their huble origins. They cannot be included in the major clans of Pakhtuns Tanolis (the majority in the region) as in such a close-knit society it hard to escape your roots as everyone knows the history of the various families among them. This has also happened to other non-Pakhtun clans within Tanol and Agror. The Shadwals have in recent years started claiming to be Awans. Thus what is happening is when some families cannot prove their link with the major, powerful clans or sub-tribes they end up claiming an association that the locals know nothing about. This is very common among Indian lower castes - please consult the relevant literature. | |||
| :''Again I challenge you to prove it. After a numerous requests for reliable sources to quote your "theories" can you provide just one to back this basic assumption up? I am aware that certain tribes did allege Rajput status to get into the Pakistani army, but were is the proof for Pakhtun wannabe driven recruitment? What purposes did this serve? Here is a link of someone who is a Punjabi Tanoli and accepted as one officially (read it for a change instead of ignoring it)'' | |||
| ] Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.jatland.com/home/Janjua. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) | |||
| I consider this appropriate for you to do as the same thing is happening in your writing. You seem to be rubbishing everything that contrdicts your position even the fact that the ruling family do not know who Raja Tanoli is and all they know he might have come from another planet as Rajputs are so fond of telling us they have lunar descent.I can use another term here to expand the lunar concept but I shall refrain from doing so in the interest of nettequest or Wiki Ethics. | |||
| :''Strange, because you just admit below that you were intentionally provocative. It's usually a sign of insecurity, but hey, glad to help. Regarding the Lunar descent, it's a given for Hindu Rajputs to believe, but Muslim Rajputs do not subscribe to it beyond a mere classing of the main branch possibly from a similar ancestor. One of '''your''' Tanoli brethren once alleged on the Tanoli page that he was a descendant of Hazrat Yousaf (AS)!!! You cant get more incorrect than that since his lineage never extended my friend, read you OWN facts before stating them for the world to see and today ridicule''.--] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For ], we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', and, if allowed under ], may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and ] properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations '''very seriously''', and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] (]) 23:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As a Punjabi you are on a mission but the only answer to this I can give you is that you as an outsider cannot impose on us your views as our folk history, written accounts for centuries have held us to be of Afghan, Turkic and Mughal origin and this is in the genes, history and traditions. It is also in the parawali/swatiwali of our conduct and in our faces. As a member of a leading aristocratic family in the region I have much more to contribute to the debate than you can as a outsider hell-bent on trying to prove otherwise that Tanolis are predominantly Janjuas. | |||
| :''I dont care who you ALLEGE to be, but the fact that you have not provided a single credible source is very strange and suspect. You havent been able to counter the evidence I produced so far and not even offered any yourself. My royal credentials don't need an ego boost on Misplaced Pages unlike your strange reason to try and accomodate your "alleged" credentials on a Janjua page, but my own direct ancestor was mentioned by Mughal Babur himself as an ally (Rai Sangar Khan Janjua) and even as close family with the powerful real Pashtun Niazi tribe (Langar Khan Niazi described as a motivating force by Babur was a maternal nephew of the Janjua). Even more strange is that Mughal Babur did not mention ANYWHERE the existence of either Tanawal, or a Tanoli Sardaar/Khan. I wonder what happened there PT?''--] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you are so proud of your roots then how come you use Raja as a title and not Singh as is the tradition among real Rajputs of Rajputana? | |||
| :''Because we are not Hindus of Rajastan (Note the Khanzadas of Rajasthan since conversion never adopted Singh as their middle names either), besides, Singh is a name, not a title, i.e. have you ever heard of any Rajput calling themselves the "Mahasingh of such and such"? Ofcourse not. Raja is a hereditary title and hence it us used, as documented above. I do hope that helps you understand us a little better :-)''--] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The tern Khansahib is used for all Pakhtuns regardless of whether he has it as his surname formally. Non-Pakhtuns and non-Mughals who use the name usually have been given it as an honour by the British rulers. Does this mean that those non-Pakhtuns and non-Mughals who have adopted this name are their descendents? Should I or adpot Sir as a title because Sir Akram Khan was thus honoured by Queen Victoria. | |||
| :''Why not? You seem to allege that you have adopted a geographical reference as a surname, which is just as equally justified. This term is actually in contrast to what I have read as the name "Khan" is used, never "Khansahib" consistently. The term Khan is actually an original Mongolian/Mughal title. Where you can now allege the title to suddenly be conferred only by the British exclusively is certainly an erroneous and ducious misconception sadly contrary to history. Name me one Pashtun family who used the name Khan prior to the 12th century please? Infact you cannot provide me a single Yousafzai or Mughal source that presents Tanolis as either brethren or accepts you as a genuine Pashtun origin, although I have quoted sources on your ] of sources who state that you are not accepted as ]. Even the Pashtun discussion page users refused to accept you as Pashtun, but you keep vandalsiing the evidence presented on the Tanoli page to distort it. Then you ludicrously allege that I rubbish YOUR evidence? If I remember correctly, I actually INCORPORATED your Pashtun theory into the Tanoli article and left it to the reader to decide for themselves, encyclopedically. You wiped it off and now allege wiki ethics. Hypocrisy at it's best.''--] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I shall enter into this debate with you and answer some of your other erroneous assertions later. I think this is enough for now. I have been rather provocative in places and this was my intention to take this debate to the next level. Pakhtun Tanoli: 22 November 2006 17:05PM | |||
| :''Likewise I am ready for this debate as you have pretty much been playing games on wiki for the past few months and being elusive when requests for proof and debate were made.'' | |||
| :''My ultimate position is that Tanolis are a very mixed people today who have no proof of their ultimate ancestry. Janjuas have resided in strong positions in Darband and NWFP regions of Chach which is actually historically documented by the Mughal emperors no less, which you can in no way dispute as false, unless the Mughals were also involved in the "conspiracy theory" you purport. Infact Janjuas proud position has been well documented, so your ridiculous claims are certainly in poor taste rather than genuine fact. '' | |||
| :''Basically, let's stop the silly games and get down to a healthy discussion. I am not here to offend and if any of my "previous" work has done so then it has truly been without intention. Let's work together in a healthy way and try to resolve this matter''. --] 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Pakhtun Tanoli sockpuppets==== | |||
| I know you've been answered in an up front manner above, but that doesn't mean you still continue playing your childish games on this aticle and change things without consultation. Cease and desist from your ill debated edits and discuss them here and let's work together in an adult manner. If thats too much for you, then further action may result against you.--] 11:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Punjabi Raja's Persistence== | |||
| Please do not threaten me again on this site. Until we resolve this matter desist from putting anything on Tanolis in this article. You continue to quote from the Gazetteer which is a misquote. I have all the relevant references and original texts. You neither a Tanoli nor someone from any part of the NWFP. One or two dubious sources do not make a fact. You are one of those people from certain part of northern Punjab who are usually barbers and use Raja titles. Give me a little time and I shall shut your mouth on this matter with a scholarly reply. Until then go back to hairdressing or put a sock in the puppet mouth of yours. I have responded in l;ike manner to you so now stop reverting to your text. Pakhtun Tanoli: 18:41 24th November 2006. | |||
| :I think you misunderstood my reference of ]. It's a term for people who avoid logging in and changing articles or using other IP addresses, names etc . You changed the article etc. I will however remove the said part of the gazzetteer, but it is merely a reference of the size of Amb and nothing more. I dont expect a scholarly reply from you, you havent done it so far so I wont hold my breath. Until then the article stays. And I will continue to threaten to report you if you continue your poor conduct here. --] 09:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Pakhtun Tanolis ridiculous vandalism== | |||
| :''Instead of deleting the arguments which show your intent and character how about actually speaking with me reasonably and engaging the issue? I am more than satisfied that the article reflects that not all Tanolis are Janjua (but distinguishes that ''' ''some''' '' are both Punjabi and Janjua) is that what you have problems with? I cannot see what evidence you can provide to dispute this. Infact, if anything, you've been absolutely abusive on the ] page and your vandalism here is more than obvious too. I am offering you a chance at a clean slate and proper discussion, will you play ball or be immature again? ''--] 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have deleted the tanoli section of the artcal because thres no evdence to substantiate any of the drivel included on this page. Raja Tanolis a fantasy and you are mistaken to publish such nonsense. Tanolis are a proud pashtoon people who are made of Turks, Mugals and variaus afghan tribals. No panjabis are among them. Get your facts right. There are many books that say janjuas are jats and gujars are also same as rajputs. What you say to that. Unlike you pashtoons are not descendants of hindus and sikhs. Please do your puja and repent. | |||
| :''And yet again it has been reverted due to your poorly debated position. Infact, the points you stress have ALL been referenced should you care to read it. Nice try Pakhtun Tanoli but your poor behaviour is not very indicative of scholarly attributes. Puja/worship is a subjective thing. Maybe you should consider it for the attacks you have done?....''--] 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Tanoli back again...==== | |||
| There is no evidence of Tanoli Khan as either being in Hazara nor ever existing. Secondly, Khan as a surname of any Punjabi including Janjuas, whose rajput origin is also disputed, is of recent times. | |||
| :''Not true, in fact, the handwritten memoirs of Emperor Babur, he clearly mentions the Janjua Chief as ''' "Sankar KHAN Janjua came, presented a horse..."''' (The Baburnama, W.M. Thackston, 2002,p273) Infact the Rajput status of the Janjuas was actually mentioned by his illustrious grandson Akbar no less. Now although you have just been '''PROVEN''' here to be incorrect, you have cleverly avoided '''all''' my above points in other sections. ;-)'' --] 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The word tanawali is strictly used for Tanawal dwellers of Tanawal mountain range not because of a person called Tanoli. I have already mentioned elsewhere why tanawali is also pronounced as tanoli in Hazara. '''There are no specific Pakhtun tribes called tanoli''' or tanawali mainly because majority of them are from various clans of Yusafzai and others from Karlugh Turks, Swatis and Barlas Mughals. | |||
| : '' '''THANK YOU FOR PROVING YOURSELF WRONG'''. If there are no Pashtun tribes called Tanoli (as YOU have ADMITTED above) then why are you then adding their name into the Pashtun tribes list?! Contradiction at it's best it seems. I have alleged this all along and to this day also believe what you have just admitted is right and '''have''' incorporated that into this article. But your incivil anger/intellectual difficulty is hindering you from understanding that there is a proven Janjua presence in Darband from early ages which you can NEVER deny.''--] 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The reason they so vehemently oppose being Punjabis is because of their comparative status with other pakhtuns in their region. You are a base Punjabi who is so intent on clutching at straws that you are pedalling discredited theories. For your information Mr Singh (I believe this is the right appelation for a Rajput)I am a very scholarly person and you are not. Your information comes from unreliable internet sources pass it on as critically evaluated output. It is anything but. | |||
| :''Interestingly, no Janjua has ever been recorded in Hindu times to have been a Singh so you are incorrect. The appels of Dev and Paal have been used. I have asked you for '''1''' solid proof to refute my above points, but other than childish immature rants, you have failed uttterly''.--] 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am very busy doing a lot of marking currently but I shall provided evidence for my assertions. I suggest you do the same. In the meantime stop deleting Tanolis from the Pashtun tribe list and also do not include them in the Janjua section of the spurious history of Janjuas. Stick to the usual story and leave NWFP out of Punjab. | |||
| :''I dont have to do the research seeing as my assertions are ALL backed up with sources, '''but you do''' seeing as you always promise to bring proof, but consistently failed. Instead of a scholarly debate (that keep going on and on and on about) you just try and delete the page where you have been shown up. I dont think you can dispute anything now that you have proven my point in the above paragraphs! Better late than never eh?--] 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Another sad attempt with again no proof==== | |||
| Nothing has been proven. I have all the sources and a critical analysis/evaluation to back up my assertion. You Mr Singh only depend on 2 or 3 sources. The proof of the pudding is in the various references I have given including Tanawali ones - | |||
| :''Strange, you havent provided a shred of evidence yet, although your claioms have been disproven completely above.''--] 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| you seem to be in denial of the fact the so-called descendents of 'Tanoli Khan' do not list this mythical figure among their ancestors. You do not have the history of the prominent families of Tanawal, nor their geneology, their relations to other Pakhtun tribes in the region and you are a Punjabi to boot. Raja Tanoli may have existed but not on this planet - only in on the moon before his progeny came to earth as the rajput story seems to clearly say. | |||
| :''Nope thats what the Hindu Rajputs believe, not the ]. Please be specific. No Muslim Janjua believes this story, but it's reference has been included to maintain the dignity of their ancient Hindu heritage, which you seem to be rather prejudiced against.''.--] 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Secondly, I have had students of Punjabi Hindu origin whose surnames are Janjua and they insist they are Jats and not rajput. So your story does not stand up. More than one british historian has questioned the assertion of many 'rajputs' in the Punjab, particularly in what is now Pakistani part of the old Punjab Suba. They maintained that there is no difference in the origin of Jats, Gujjars and Rajputs. | |||
| :''And thats your proof?! Thats pathetic. I can provide over 30 known Tanolis today who will state that you are lunatic and lone voice. BUT you cite British sources, but when I cite them as quoting on record that they believe Tanolis to be of Hindu/Indian origin you deny it. Again further contradictions!''--] 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And given that being called chaudrey, Jat or even a Gujjar in the NWFP in general and Tanawal/Agror vallies specifically, is tantamount to being called of illegimate birth, I rest my case here. Don't worry i shall be getting back to this issue very soon in the new year. Till then keep on surfing the 'net for unreliable information to back up your attempts to put janjuas at par with Pakhtuns but you never will as I am here to expose your fraudulent claims. | |||
| :''Considering the Janjua hold the titles of ]s and ] (none of the 3 you mention above) you are again proven wrong. Janjua have records (both their own and mentions from others) to prove their own ancestry, unlike the current non Janjua Tanolis (i.e. you) dont know whether your mongolian Barlas or Pashtun Yusufzai (2 completely different races let alone tribes), so the definition of "not knowing who your father is "(i.e. illegitimate birth) can be deduced who that best fits... Either way, your useless claims with no proof (what proof are you crying about, you haven't provided any??!!) leaves me to one conclusion. You are proofless and little else. Your prejudice against Punjabis is comic at best. '''But the fact that you have admitted above that Tanolis are not a Pashtun tribe is enough of a slip up to say the least'''. Look again at the article, I have added sourced citations of where Tanolis are known as NON Pathans :-)''--] 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have not admiotted to anything of the sort. As for illegitimate birth I can safely say that among Punjabis there is the opinion that Pathans were very with their (Punjabi)women and this is quite clear in the physiognomy of many in northern punjab - could this be the explanation of Janjuas naming themselves Khans and not Singh as this is the proper thing to do. It seems Sikhs steal the name Singh off the real Rajputs of Rajputana and the Punjabi fake Rajputs steal Khan from real Afghans and Mughals. herein lies a dillema for you my friend. rather than going round denigrating family tress of the Tanawalis trace your own and you might even find you are an illegal Pashtun from the wrong side of the bed. Until a mass scale genetic research proves you and your community Rajputs i better keep quite if I were you. | |||
| :''Is that scholarly proof reply? You cant answer my points and rebuttals so now you want to get personal? I am disappointed. You failed miserably to argue your point,'' :-)--] 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Proof of Raja's point==== | |||
| I got personal because you got personal. You also misrepresented me - I I did not admit to anything of the sort you say I did. | |||
| :''Firstly thank you for a post with a civil tone for a change. But I contest the fact that I said anything that warranted the above poor comments. You clearly said in the above post '''"There are no specific Pakhtun tribes called tanoli"''' then why are you contesting that they are throughout wikipedia? Read it above, you typed it yourself.''--] 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I contest the fact that a Raja Tanoli lived and if he did it was certainly not in Tanawal nor anywhere in contemporary NWFP areas. The fact that some British sources cast doubt on Tanolis being Pakhtun is nothing new as they said the same for Swatis,Jaduns and Dilazaks. This is apparent in the Gazetteer of Hazara District 1883-44 (see page 64). | |||
| :''Wrong. The Colonialists weren't the ones casting doubt, they recorded that OTHER Pashtuns didn't consider them as Pathans in blood although they accpeted they were more similar to them than any other local race such as Awans, Gujjars, Gakhars etc, i.e. although "similar in culture" they were not Afghans by blood. I in return contest that Tanaolis are a Pathan tribe (as admitted by you above and earlier by colonial researchers)but are more likely a Hindkowan tribe. Difference obviously is, you fail to prove your assertion above, yet I have proven all mine (with your help ofcourse).''--] 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Conveniently you fail to mention that elsewhere in the same publication it is mentioned that the author states, rather ambioguously, ''The fact is that there are many tribes, not really or at least certainly of Pathan origin, who have by long association become so assimilated to the Pathans that is difficult to separate them; while they themselves often, though not always, claim to be of Pathan stock'' p. 64.This says assimilated not integrated as the two terms mean totally different things hence you cannot separate Tanolis from Pakhtuns. | |||
| :''Wrong again. This point is included here but have actually proven my point. The fact is that they follow their respective regional practices. But strange that you present this info, because you keep deleting this same info from the article?! BUT what you have CONVENIENTLY FAILED TO MENTION is that just a little below the SAME PAGE as you quoted it clearly states RATHER AMBIGUOUSLY, '''"I (Major Wace) ought to explain that in classing Saiads, Swathis and Tanaolis and others as races allied to the Afghans, I DO NOT mean that they are allied to them in blood....and no Afghan WOULD ADMIT that either Jaduns, TANAOLIS or Swathis ARE OF AFGHAN BLOOD"''' It's comedic that the reference you quoted to prove your point actually ended up proving mine!'' | |||
| :''Now let's see, you say ''"This says assimilated not integrated as the two terms mean totally different things"'' but on the source page YOU quoted, it states that Tanolis are ''"NOT allied to Afghans in blood"'' and that NO Afghan tribe accepts them as so either. Then it appears that the Tanaoli's "assimilation" is purely cultural and "possibly" ethnic (through marital relations with prominent tribes. In fact Langar Khan Niazi, the king of the Niazi's in ]'s time, was a maternal Janjua according to Babur in his memoirs, so marriages amongst prominent tribes of ANY ethnicity amongst Muslims was/is practiced.) as opposed to your implication "of complete assimilation that you cant tell them apart, hence they must all now be Pathan." In fact I counter your point and suggest that it was INTEGRATION by (and I quote from the actual source) ''' ''"long association"''' that resulted in their assimilation to be grouped as allies to Pathans although not by blood.'' --] 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Furthermore, it also comments that 'The majority of the Tanaolis have forgotten their Pashtu tongue' p.61 - if were not Pakhtun or from Pakhtun areas e.g. Mahaban in Swat across the Indus then why would the author say they tongue was Pashtu? The same author repeats this for Swatis, Dilazaks and Jaduns so are you going to call them them non-Pakhtuns as well? There is a lot rto say. Send me your address and I'll post you my book as soon as it is off the press. | |||
| :''Thats incredible, because on p60 of the SAME book, it says, '''" The inhabitants of the Tarbela....those of the Takheli and of the Tanaoli villages on the bank of the Indus, all speak Pashtu, but they know Hindki as well, ...the Majority of Tanaolis have forgotten their Pashtu tongue."''' Now this confirms clearly that ] is a commonly spoken language in the ''Tanawal'' areas, yet the Tanolis themselves only speak ], so the idea of it being "forgotten" is absurd (how can a whole clan forget a language that they spoke over generations, when their own subjects speak it daily in their kingdom?!) If the inhabitants speak it, it is likely THEIR mother tongue as opposed to the Tanaolis, who funnily enough it states 3 pages later are NOT an Afghan tribe by blood or origin. Again you have proven my point! Are you claiming that only Pashtu speakers are Pashtun?! In that case the whole of Peshawar is Pashtun! Ofcourse not, how can a language determine an ethnicity? This is a very weak argument Mumtaz. I do agree with what you say regarding the multi ethnic/tribal make up of what is a Tanoli today, so I dont see why you are arguing an agreed point here..... But you can keep your book, if you haven't provided any proof here of your assertions, I doubt your book will. But thanks for the offer anyway, and for proving MY points (in fact your book maybe useful in proving my points, lol). Now remain civil or you will be blocked for your behaviour again.''--] 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:01, 18 July 2024
 | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
 Archives | |||
Index
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Characteristics failed verification
I have moved this sentence from the article to here because it is not supported by the cited source:
The tribal system of loyalty to the clan is still adhered to, and they tend to only align with other tribes of equally high social rank and reputation.
This is not an accurate paraphrase of anything on the cited page of the source (or in that chapter, for that matter). All that the authors write about Janjuas, citing a source published in 1915, is:
Socially dominant Muslim tribes such as the Gakkhars, Janjuas and Awans and a few Rajput tribes, concentrated in the Rawalpindi and Jhelum districts of the Salt Range tract of western Punjab, accounted for more than 90 per cent of Punjabi Muslim recruits.
I have no objection to the reintroduction of the sentence about Janjua characteristics if accompanied by a citation that verifies it.
References
- The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia Gyanes Kudaisya, London 2000, p. 207
- Gyanesh Kudaisya; Tai Yong Tan (2000). The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia. Routledge. p. 207. ISBN 0-415-17297-7.
--Worldbruce (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Khakha
Our claim that the Khakha are a branch of the Janjua is not supported by a source and then we have a big block of text telling us what the Khakhas got up to, with sources that also failed to support the Janjua claim. The Khakha article itself is so poorly written and sourced as to be ambiguous, so I removed a bunch of content until we can resolve the issue. Part of that resolution might involve merging the two articles. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect & Ambiguous Sources
I have found no mention of the Januja in the following sources which are erronesously cited here.
1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.38305/page/n399/mode/2up On Page 393-394, Alberuni India Vol II, there is no mention of Janjua in the Kabul Dynasty.
2) In The Panjab Chiefs SIR LEPEL H. GRIFFIN, it is said verbatim on page 603, {http://apnaorg.com/books/punjab-chiefs/) "said the traditions of the Janjua themselves do not point to a very ancient occupancy of the Punjab. They all trace their descent from a Raja Mal, a descendant of the Pandus and of the Rathore Rajput race who about the year 980 AD migrated to the Punjab from Jodhpur or Kannauj"
The following quote I have added to the article. I found no mention of the Janjua on p 213, in vol II (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206739/page/n231/mode/2up) or in vol I (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206744/page/n229/mode/2up)
3) In Parvéz Dewân's Jammû, Kashmîr, and Ladâkh: The book has no mention of Januja at p420 https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Parv%C3%A9z_Dew%C3%A2n_s_Jamm%C3%BB_Kashm%C3%AEr_and_Lad/fF0wAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
4) The following book, "The History of India Indian repr.1962.vol.i, p.22,425-26" is cited but there is no mention of an author, an ISBN or any link to verify the source. I have left the source stay up for now.. but if there is no clarification will remove it.
Abh9850 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Spam
P,TO 19104 and Chariotrider555 and Abh9850 at first I thought that there has been disruptive edit from the side of chariotrider, but after reading the version he reverted, I realise that someone had done puffery and attributed the sources which donot contain even a mention of Janjua. Plz read the above comment on talk page.Someone had posted all the sources with links that was used here.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Heba Aisha: Yes, I do believe that the article is not written from a NPOV, however, I think merely tagging the article would be a better solution (unless you desire to fix the article in its entirety). Chariotrider555's deletion of the whole article (while in WP:BOLD intention) did not fix the problem, since some of the articles sources have merit. The problem here is not as much "Spam" as it is NPOV. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Heba Aisha: You should have a chat with the page's biggest editor regarding the state of the page, Supersaiyan. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- P,TO 19104, yes I m also not in favour of delition of whole article. I have been editing caste articles for past months and it seems that they haven't cared about policies while writing. Don't worry I will try to deal with it.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- When I first edited this page I went through every statement and source to make sure that 1. It was a reliable source, and 2. That it actually mentions the Janjuas. From there, I removed most of article as it was fully of puffery, original research, and attributed to unreliable sources. I did it all in one single edit, but if you want me do go one by one, fine, I shall do that. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- P,TO 19104 @Heba Aisha: Can we just go back to ]? The page is full of nonsense added by Am7777 who added 62,000 bytes worth of content with an edit summary of "Real History", and the user has only made edits to this page.Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- When I first edited this page I went through every statement and source to make sure that 1. It was a reliable source, and 2. That it actually mentions the Janjuas. From there, I removed most of article as it was fully of puffery, original research, and attributed to unreliable sources. I did it all in one single edit, but if you want me do go one by one, fine, I shall do that. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- P,TO 19104, yes I m also not in favour of delition of whole article. I have been editing caste articles for past months and it seems that they haven't cared about policies while writing. Don't worry I will try to deal with it.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
P,TO 19104, for those who are not aware of caste related stuffs..it will look like to be properly sourced but it is not so.I m working with the 'caste articles and have read much about the castes and even I have first hand experience of meeting many community. This article is nothing but a collection of citations which actually donot mention about Janjuas.They've taken stuff from various articles of Legendary kings and heroes and connected them to the caste.WP:SYNTH (Actually the former is connected in no way to the Later) Heba Aisha (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.jatland.com/home/Janjua. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category: