Talk:Jadoon tribe/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

A sieve said to a kettle you have two holes

Intothefire/aka Sughra Ahmed Mughal re-read my comment above to know the issue with this article. Obviously from your comments you’re not an academic, if you were you would know that professors are not infallible. That’s why people do “research”. Regarding Sughra Ahmad Mughal and her derogatory comments - I remember a saying, “The sieve said to the kettle you have two holes.” - this is what the Hazara gazetteer 1907 says about Mughals of Hazara:

“The Moghals.—The Moghals number 8,311, and are scattered about the District. But it may be doubted whether the majority have any real title to be so called. Persons of low but doubtful origin, who wish to attain a more dignified status, usually assert that they are Moghals, and the introduction of the Punjab Land Alienation Act has given a great stimulus to this tendency.” I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadu Rajput (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I think you must be Sughra Ahmad Mughal - since you mention that you have put up a website and refer to it.

I can give you the references that you need regarding the various Jadoon conquests but there are some things that you must understand.

Bravery or the lack of it is an heterogeneous attribute in every society, race and creed. Wikipedia is NOT an internet newsgroup or chat room - Avoid making derogatory comments about a tribe or group of people for publication on this respected online encyclopedia. It only emphasizes your own ignorance.

An educated, professional person can always express themselves in a way that does not denigrate another.

You will find when you read further below, that "Hamsaya" is a totally incorrect description of the Jadoons, ADDED by Olaf Caroe. The original documents (see below) don't use this term at all.

You also have blown out of proportion the Pathan/Pukhtoon nomenclature issue. To an Afridi, Jadoon, Wazir, Yousafzai, etc. when they speak in Pukhto, they always say Pukhtoon or Pashtoon - but in Urdu/Hindko/English - it's the habit to say "Pathan" - that is how it is at the "ground level" - understood by the ordinary folk. No big issue for the Pathans - only a big thing for the non-Pathans. Even the term "Afghani" nowadays means, Uzbek, Tajik, Turkomen, Hazara etc i.e. inhabitants of Afghanistan.

The two books you quoted have mistakes: James Spain's book has numerous mistakes on the other Pathan tribes as well (such as on the Mohmands for instance) - but that is expected - he is not an Anthropologist. If you really want to write about Pathans use references from established Anthropologists like Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed. Olaf Caroe's book also has mistakes - like the one regarding the Jadoons not helping Abbott, when in fact it was 200 Peshawaries (mentioned in his personal diaries held at the British India Office Library in London) - also if you look on his map of Pathan tribe locations, he includes the Mishwanis - who actually acknowledge they are non-Pathans - in fact the Mishwanis of Hazara say they are Syeds - and in Afghanistan, they are recognized as "Arabs". Another is his conclusions that the Jadoon's were Hamsayas - if you look at the original papers that mention these (SEE BELOW) NO WHERE is this mentioned. It is a TOTALLY INCORRECT ASSUMPTION made by Olaf Caroe.

Here are references to the Jadoon's character, and the fact they conquered those parts of Hazara where they now reside as opposed to "passive migration" (written by non-Jadoons):

Reference: Notes on Afghanistan and part of Baluchistan: geographical, ethnographical, and historical. Extracted from the writings of Afghán and Tajzík historians, geographers, and genealogists; the histories of the Ghúris, the Turk sovereigns of the Dilhí Kingdom, the mughal sovereigns of the house of Tímúr, and other Muhammadan chronicles; and from personal observations.

By Major H.G.Raverty , Bombay Native Infantry (retired). Published London, 1880.

Author of a "Grammer" and "Dictionary" of the Pus'hto or Afghan Language; "The Gulshan I-Roh, or Selections, Prose, and Poetical, in the Afghan Language;" "The Poetry of the Afghans, from the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth Century;" "The Fables of Aesop Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language;" "Translation of the Tabakát-i-Násirí, from the Persian of Minhá-i-Saráj;" "The Pus'hto Manual," etc etc.

"The descent of the Jzadún Afghans, called Gadúns by the tribes about Peshawar, who change the original letter "Jz" into "g", is well known to those acquainted with the genealogy of the Pus'htánah or Afghán nation. "They are descended from Jzadún, son of Parnaey , and brother of Kakar, the two latter being sons of Dánaey, son of Ghurghusht, son of Kais-i-'Abd-ur-Rashíd, entitled "the Patan." As has already been stated (at page 9) the descendants of Parnaey who were very numerous, are said to have been ousted from their lands in Sánga'h Mandáhí, in Síwístan, became dispersed, and moved northwards at a comparatively early date. It is also clear that they became greatly scattered, and that but few continued to dwell in their early seats, a vast number having migrated into India, where many are still to be found, in the southern part of the peninsula. But we need not go quite so far south to find a number of them. Besides the Jzadún Parnís on the west bank of the Indus, there are no less than six or seven thousand Parní families at this present time still located in what we call the "Hazárah District," peopling some eighteen or twenty villages. Their chief town was Najíb-ullah Garh, but great changes have taken place in these parts, now included in the Hazárah District, since the annexation of the Panj-áb, in 1849. The Safi Afghans are descended from another of Parnaey's sons, who bore the former name, and Sáfaey was therefore a brother of the progenitors of the Jzadúns.

"The Jzadúns appear to have been located near the southern slopes of the Spín Ghar range, west of Irí-ab, about the time the Khas'hís, (MY NOTE: these give rise to Khas'hís Khel or Khakhay Khel as it is written in some accounts because the Pakhto "Kheen" is the Pashto "Sheen" and is the clan from which the Yusafzai descend from), having been obliged to vacate their old seats through the hostility of the Ghwarís, (MY NOTE: written in other accounts as Ghwariah Khel, and is the clan from which the Khalils, Mohmands, Daudzais and Chamkannis descend from. Both Khas'hís and Ghwarís were brothers), moved northwards towards Kábul; and, while the Khas'hís were dwelling within the limits of the Kábul province, on the northern side of the range of Spín Ghar, the Muhammadzís joined the Yúsufzí and Mandar tribes of that sept, and together with the Jzadúns continued with them as an associated and allied tribe during their subsequent vicissitudes.

"When these tribes made a distribution of the conquered territories after the defeat of the Dilazaks near Katlang (see page 224), and they had been driven out of the Sama'h, as will be presently mentioned, the Jzadúns took the lands in the eastern part of the Sama'h, near the Abáe-Sín, and there they still dwell. During the course of some four centuries, since the period in question, considerable changes have taken place in these parts, but not so many as might have been expected with reference to the Afghan tribes of this locality, but the Jzadúns have, since that period, pushed across the Abáe-Sín, and hold lands on the east, in Kohistán of Dharam-taur, and are said to number near upon ten thousand families. They will be subsequently referred to in the account of that district or territory

"The Jzadúns are divided into three sub-tribes, which again contain minor sections which need not be enumerated here."

(MY NOTE:The name "Parnaey" is also written in some accounts as "Panris" or "Pannis").

Here is another reference from: The People of India: A series of photographic illustrations of the Races and Tribes of Hindustan. Edited by J.Forbes and Sir John William Kaye, vol. 5, London, Indian Museum 1872.

"The Jadoons are not British subjects, though they inhabit a portion of the district called Hazara. They inhabit a portion of the frontier below, that is south of the Hussanzye tribe, lying on the right bank of the Indus, and opposite to the British town of Torbeyla. Westward their territory extends till it meets the higher ranges of the Hindoo Koosh. The Mahabun mountain, with its dense forest, lies within their boundary, and the whole tract is wild and rugged in an almost inconceivable degree. Though the Jadoons accompanied the Yoosufzyes when they descended from Kabool in the fifteenth century, and conquered and occupied the valley of Peshawaur, they claim to have an independent origin, and are separate from the Yoosufzyes. The Jadoons have spread into the neighbouring district of Hazara, and now form one of the strongest tribes of that province, occupying the central portion; their villages lying from 1,500 to 6,000 feet above the plains of the Indus. The Jadoons are a fair complexioned tribe, many of them having brown hair and beards, and ruddy colour, with grey or hazel eyes, and they are, for the most part, fair, with strong, athletic forms, extremely active, and capable of enduring great exertion and fatigue."

Another reference from:

Notes on the Eusofzye tribes of Afghanistan By The Late Capt. Edward Connolly (published after his death in the First Afghan War, in the Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for the British and Foreign India, China, and Australasia. Vol.XXXV-New Series, May-August, 1841.):

"The Judoons are related to the Kaukar Affghan tribe (i.e. come from Parni, brother of Kakar - MY NOTE) and migrated to these parts, perhaps two or three centuries ago (time of writing: approx. 1838) and are divided into two great branches, Salar and Munsoor of whom the first are settled to the east of Punjtar, and the rest in Drumtour. The Salars are said to have 64 villages, and to muster 6000 matchlocks; their government is a democracy, more rigid than that even of the Euosafzyes. I was nearly causing a quarrel at Grenduf, their chief town, by inadvertently asking who was their head Mullick. We were much struck by the appearance of wealth and comfort in their villages, which are large and populous and the Hindoos seemed to be more numerous and thriving amongst them, than in any other part of the country we visited."

....and another reference: Hillary Rose in "A glossary of the tribes and castes of the north west frontier provinces and the protected territories of the north west frontier provinces, Vol. II (A to K)published 1919, Lawrence Rd, Delhi, writes:

"The Jaduns occupy all of the southeastern portion of the territory between the Peshawar and Hazara borders, and southern slopes of Mahaban, having taken their present lands in the eastern Sama after the Jaduns and various Kashi chiefs of the Afghans had defeated the Dilazaks, and when Jahangir finally crushed the Dilazaks, they spread up the Dor valley as high as Abbottabad. Early in the 18th Century, on the expulsion of the Karlugh Turks by Saiyed Jalal Baba they appropriated the country about Dhamtaur; and about hundred years later they took the Bagra tract from the remaining few Dilazaks who held it, while shortly before the Sikhs took the country their Hassanzai clan deprived the Karral of a portion of the Nilan valley".

I could go on giving you references all night, but I think my point has been made.

So again if you look at the literature it's OLAF CAROE who calls them Hamsayas - the original documents mentioning them don't SPECIFICALLY call them Hamsayas - but ALLIES. Big difference!

In fact, by going to Hazara, which is largely a non-Pakhto speaking area, the Jadoons further preserved their "Pashto pronounced" name. The first letter of "Jadoon" is spelt with a unique Pashto letter which is like the arabic "rey" but has a dot above and a dot below. In Southern (Qandahar/Helmand) Pashto this letter is pronounced as "J" and in Northern (Kabul/Peshawar) Pakhto it is pronounced as "G". Hence "Jadoon" in Pashto and "Gadoon" in Pakhto. This further supports the account that Jadoons migrated from southern Afghanistan. Write "Jadoon" with this unique Pashto letter in the beginning instead of "Jeem" or "Gaaf" and show it to any Pashtoon from Qandahar and he will pronounce it as "Jadoon"!

No Jadoon calls himself Gadoon.

Let me give you another analogy: Consider the "Bangash Pakhtoon Clan." When you write "Bangash" you use the unique Pakhto "Kheen" which in Pashto is pronounced "Sheen" (It's like the Arabic "seen" but has a dot above and below). So if I speak Pakhto I will say "Bangakh" and if I tell an Englishmen that my Pakhtoon Clan is "Bangakh" he will always call me "Bangakh" because he does not know Pashto and so is unaware of the word changes in the language.

I hope this information helps.

Adil Khan Jadoon 74.104.102.216 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Adil Khan Jadoon!

Judged on the first couple of paragraphs that I have read in your REPLY, I came to the conclusion that it is not my worthwhile to go through the rest of your pages which I believe bear no credibility. Some of the reasons apply;

1) Repudiating the praise worthy research work of an exemplary historians like Olaf Caroe and a great living anthropologist like Dr. hab is a clear evidence of ‘YOU’ being misled by the rigidity of the primitive and antique un-enlightened minds.2) You have no idea of the criterion of the word “nationality”. Factually almost 45% of Afghan population is Pakhtuns in Afghanistan. Segmenting the entire population of a Sovereign State into groups and labeling only the minorities as ‘Afghan’ leaves no doubt about your poor knowledge, mind set and low literacy level which is so incompatible to the present modern world. 3) If you do not have the guts to take the critique then do not be open to discussion. All enlightened and educated know very well how and where to express their views.

On the above grounds it leaves no room for the enlightened to carry on any further discussion especially with you. I only respect people of knowledge, who are rational, enlightened and exhibit the protocol of communication. Unfortunately you have proven your ignorance repeatedly and beyond doubt and therefore you deserve no credibility from now on. 74.104.102.216 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding verifiability of sources etc

Dear Wikipedia editors/users, hello. Aprt from other problems with this and other articles-- A number of articles here, in the WP Pakistan especially w r to various tribes and 'notable' individuals of or from these tribes and communities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seem to be quoting from a source which is in itself not properly verifiable and is not generally accepted as authentic research in academic circles, to the best of my knowledge, of many years of teaching and research at university level in Pakistan and abroad. I hope that people will not take offence but I refer to a volume in Urdu by the name of Tarikh e Sarfaroshan e Sarhad (np, nd) i.e. Lit. A History of the Heroes/Martyrs of the Frontier Province, which was supposedly originally written by the late Muhammad Shafi Sabir, as a brief monograph in the 1990s or possibly earlier; and probably later made up into book form? Now, this particular work has been chiefly crticised as a work on 2 counts (a) verifiability of refs/sources since the late Sabir did not cite many sources at all, in support of his statements; and (b) its highly biased/prejudicial slant, basically written to 'please' important figures and communities here and with a very one-sided promotive angle, which seems to cater to the cupidity of people/individuals and groups. Later on, this work was picked up by an organisation or online site http://www.khyber.org a pro-Pashtun and 'celebratory' site for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa people and communities to promote and puff them up--I think a brief cursory stuudy of it and its articles would convince one of this-- which is run by a group of pweople probably based at a college or similar institute in or near Topi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In any case, the site has by and large printed or posted whole chunks of this work by the late Sabir, only mentioning his name but not any sources/refs at all. Hence, any reference/citation taken from this book and/or this site (see famous people or 'heroes' section) in turn, becomes rather redundant and suspect. I would hope and request that please, all editors/users here shall ONLY cite proper, verifiable and thorough sources/research and with as full a citation as possible. And DO please avoid using these 'sources' listed above. Thank you very much AsadUK200 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Thanks for raising this issue. I think that you should take this to our reliable sources noticeboard for discussion, since you say that the source is being used in several articles. You might consider notifying the Pakistan and India wikiprojects that you have done so, because of it being an Indic language source, and you should probably consider also leaving a note on the talk pages of those articles where you have seen it being used and consider it to be inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Sitush, hello, and thanks. Yes I plan to do this and shall add both to the WP Pakistan and India sites. An article/stub I created today also had a ref added from this same source and also a couple of others. Thanks for your help and guidance AsadUK200 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Sitush

Sitush: Quoting articles from 1841 is NOT incorrect. In fact that is what a PROPER researcher does when he/she writes history – they go to the PRIMARY source. You obviously have not had training in research. This is one of the drawbacks with the internet and with Wikipedia – any person regardless of qualifications becomes an “expert” and trying to put actual facts down especially in social sciences / history becomes very difficult, as we are seeing with a simple article like this.

I am surprised no-one has pointed that out to you and that it is coming from you – someone who is pretty active on Wikipedia. The sad thing is that you must be innocently butchering other articles as well. The present stuff you wrote partially from Olaf Caroe’s book is based on works written in 1841 from Persian translations (and earlier)!! However, Olaf Caroe colours his writing with his own views and unfortunately in the process changes important facts as noted in the ABOVE DISCUSSION. This is the reason why real historians/academics refer to the primary source whenever possible especially if it’s controversial and the passage needs to be read as it was originally written and not interpreted by another person. FYI, Olaf Caroe’s writing was published in 1957. ALSO, Olaf Caroe does not mention that the Jadoons were with the Yousafzai when they were pushed out of Kabul by Mirza Ulugh Beg. Jadoons joined them at a later point in time along with other tribes. You are adding your own assumptions.

An analogy would be the Dead Sea Scrolls. That’s why they are so important because they were written earlier than the other texts we base the Bible on.

Another analogy: a diary of a person living in India in 1800s and explaining how the caste system is and people’s attitude is important to make available because it captures a very important moment in time. To state that some of what was written on Jadoons is “Raj romanticizing” is also incorrect - you are adding YOUR feelings on this. No-one is asking for your interpretation. Better to leave the original piece as is and let the readers make inferences. This is the beauty of Wikipedia.

I have put back the original accounts. These are the ORIGINAL texts that PRESENT DAY researchers refer to. This is very good that Wikipedia will have these hard to find texts here ready for the serious researcher to use. …and Sitush one final thing: some of the articles on Jadoons will not have any references because it is THE FIRST TIME JADOONS are putting that information in writing. So Wikipedia will be their FIRST reference for that. This is the great thing with the Wikipedia experiment. It is giving remote tribes (and little heard of topics) throughout the world a platform to tell their story – some of which has never been written before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulberry sky (talk • contribs) 00:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

>Please read WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. If you have an issue with Caroe then I suggest that WP:RSN might be worthy of consideration - you could be correct in your opinion of him. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

SITUSH - thanks for directing me to that place.

I have a question and disagree with wikipedia's stance (?) I'm surprised. It would be incorrect to quote a secondary source if that secondary source is unreliable / biased /incorrect. It defeats the purpose of sharing correct information and knowing what actually the facts are. For instance, what you wrote about Jadoons being expelled together with Yusafzai is completely incorrect. I have never read that anywhere. Jadoons were not with Yusafzais at that time. Even Olaf Caroe doesn't lay that claim! Also if you mention the source and write the texts in quotes and do not lay claim to that text as yours -that is accepted practice. That's not plagarism. I really think we are not doing any credit to Wikipedia if we do not include these texts under Jadoons. Believe me these are hard to find texts and historians / social scientist that write on Jadoons need to be aware of them. Also, what does wikipedia say about topics / tribes on which there very little written? (no secondary source) Wikpedia is the platfrom for those tribes / topics. When the wikipedia project started, the "purpose" was to be slightly different from Brittanica and these references especially on social science topics because people that belong to those regions would be able to contribute and tell "the world what the real situations is" "at the ground the level". That original stance is more appealing and gives Wikipedia that edge - as long as it does not become a slanging match. I'm sure we can iron out our differences instead of "I delete , you delete, I delete, you delete" etc. that doesn't really help anyone. Take care, Mulberry Sky. (P.S. Also the pakhto pashto the name change is correct. That is the pashto and pakhto versions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.3.136 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

...as an after thought, Raverty's work can also be considered a secondary source since he is

basing it on primary texts he translated from Persian and which therefore were the primary source....so we're still in compliance!

I have reverted you per my earlier comment, WP:BRD and WP:RS. I hate to wikilawyer here, but the only way that you are going to get those old sources into this article is by seeing them through WP:RSN or some similar process. There is a widespread consensus that they are unacceptable at numerous other articles. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the answer to your query regarding what we do when there is little written about a subject is that we write nothing. Should we propose this article for deletion on that basis? In your comment about Britannica, you have massively misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia and you appear also to have misunderstood the {{citation needed}} tag: feel free to remove the entire "History" section if you are confident that it cannot be supported by reliable sources. - 08:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sitush Part 2

Sitush,

You should re-read these as you have misunderstood the message (WP:BRD is not a policy). Wikipedia is open to contributions from amateurs and so guidance is definitely needed for these individuals.

Interestingly you fail to delete what you have written (or what you maintain to be “correct”) in the history section, yet there is no citation given! And yet you are quick to delete my contributions for which I have given genuine references - and which would withstand any academic peer review –

Furthermore I have opened up a new section separate from the history section. I have freedom to do that. My section is an important contribution to the article and is backed by references. More than I can say for your part. Also the citation by Hiliary Rose (Rose, H.A. A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province) is actually a re-publication in 1997 of the book that originally was written in c1911. Why is that allowed? Republication of the same book now makes it usable in your view? It is exactly people like you that destroy the hard work and time of contributors to Wikipedia. The internet with its accessibility to information has spawned a generation of pseudo experts, and it is in occasions like the one we are having that they get exposed because it is clear that you are neither an expert in this area nor have published professional academic/research articles that have withstood the rigors of peer review. - Mulberry sky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulberry sky (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm. You cannot even name the source correctly - see H. A. Rose. I am more than content to see him gone from this article. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush - re-read what I wrote above... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulberry sky (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mulberry sky, I haven't read all the discussions here and this is not a subject I know anything about, but what I do know is Wikipedia and I know this edit you keep putting in is not the sort of thing that we are trying to do with this encyclopedia. First off, it's made up mostly of long quotations and is what is known as a primary source. In Wikipedia we prefer secondary sources to primary sources (please read WP:SECONDARY) for a variety of reasons. But if you are going to use primary sources for your edits then at the very least you need to summarize them so we can get rid of those long quoted passages. Finally, please read up on WP:CITE so you can make your references look like they should in Wikipedia. If you need any help on this stuff (that's not specific to the content of this article) you can reach me on my talk page. SQGibbon (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Important information below citing primary sources that are not freely accessible - please keep available for readers

I think you must be Sughra Ahmad Mughal - since you mention that you have put up a website and refer to it. I can give you the references that you need regarding the various Jadoon conquests but there are some things that you must understand.

Bravery or the lack of it is an heterogeneous attribute in every society, race and creed. Wikipedia is NOT an internet newsgroup or chat room - Avoid making derogatory comments about a tribe or group of people for publication on this respected online encyclopedia. It only emphasizes your own ignorance. An educated, professional person can always express themselves in a way that does not denigrate another. You will find when you read further below, that "Hamsaya" is a totally incorrect description of the Jadoons, ADDED by Olaf Caroe. The original documents (see below) don't use this term at all.