Talk:Janjua
 | 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 Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
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. |
Removed the following paragraph.[edit]
Removed the following paragraph: "The detailed document recording the administration of Mughal Empire under Akbar, refers to the Janjuas as a tribe conquered by Afghans", which was cited with an Express Tribune Op-Ed article.
I read the Ain-e-Akbari, and it mentions no such thing. Perhaps if such a thing was mentioned in certain translations, then people can share it. Newspaper Op-Eds are not reliable sources of information any way. Secondly, Babur mentioned Janjuas to be rather independent people. It's highly unlikely that they got conquered by Afghans during Akbar's era as no such incursions are recorded anywhere in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.32.94 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Old page history[edit]
Some old page history that used to be at the title "Janjua" can now be found at Talk:Janjua/Old history. Graham87 12:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Characteristics failed verification[edit]
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.[1]
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.[2]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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 [[1]]? 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)