Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:20, 8 December 2006

India Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup

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.

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Footnotes 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.

-- Beland 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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.--Raja 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --User: Pakhtun Tanoli 14:47, 15 November 2006

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;

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.

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.

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.

I will also print here the reply I gave you last month;

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.

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!

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.

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

If you want a proper discussion, with respect, according to wiki ethics 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.

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).

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.--Raja 22:00, 21 November 2006UTC)

Reply to Supersaiyan/Raja

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.--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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.--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, in Rawalpindi the Janjuas are known as Kasbis i.e. those that are involvedin menial tasks - hardly a Raja thing to do.

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. --Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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.--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (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?--Raja 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 :-)--Raja 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 Tanoli of sources who state that you are not accepted as Pashtuns. 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.--Raja 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. --Raja 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.--Raja 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 sockpuppet (internet). 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. --Raja 09:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pakhtun Tanolis ridiculous vandalism

Instead of deleting the arguments which show your intent and character you've done here 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? --Raja 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject India articles