Talk:Janjua/Archive 1

message: ====January 2006====
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 Wikipedia:Footnotes style.
* Context: More geographical and historical context for those not familiar with the Indian Subcontinent would be helpful.  Links to related Wikipedia articles in strategic places would also be an improvement.
* Copyedit: I have fixed most of the bits that did not align with Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The list of non-notable "famous people" just keeps getting longer. My guess is that people are adding friends/relatives etc. Wikipedia isnt the place for that. Id like a consensus on whether this section should be removed, kept, trimmed, or moved to a separate article. With that done, cleaning up the quote mess might be a less daunting task. Metao 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was bold, and removed all of the prominent people who didnt have a Wikipedia page. This seemed like a reasonable starting criteria for notability, and this section was definitely the place to start as part of a cleanup. Admittedly, some of the deleted people probably deserve a Wikipedia page, but this page is about Janjua, not a list of people who are notable because they are Janjua. If you re-add to this section, may I suggest you first consider if the person is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, and if so, perhaps create a stub for them as well as adding them to the list. If the usagelist gets too long, create a new page! Metao 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The name list was ever increasing and mega KB space was being used up! So thank you for your input. Ultimately, it's an encyclopedia, so thats the context of the work to be done, and I am in greement with your actions. However some of the people were very prominent in their fields which given some time I will create wiki articles for and incorporate into the article in wikilink form, or as you suggested as a list of notables instead of into this article. Can you help suggest the correct way to incorporate the quotations into the article? (any example pages from wiki would be useful, I'll pick up the technique from that.) This article was pretty much written as best as a novice user can do Im afraid! Thanks for your interest and happy holidays :-) --Raja 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your agreement. Im sorry for removing the legit people (it was clear that there were a lot that I did remove), but there was not really any other way to do it without me spending a couple hours playing with google. It occurred to me that, while I had seen it done, I had never done a quote before. So I did a quick search for "quote" and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quotation. ;) The category for templates would be the place to look - I imagine you can find a style in there which would fit. For the inline comments, Im not sure what the standard is... but keep in mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations as well. Metao 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Have completely wikified the article as best as possible. Quotes have been the main priority as well as footnoting the references etc. Complete change of format also. Therefore, tidy up tag removed.--Raja 18:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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 Wikipedia:Footnotes style.
* Context: More geographical and historical context for those not familiar with the Indian Subcontinent would be helpful.  Links to related Wikipedia articles in strategic places would also be an improvement.
* Copyedit: I have fixed most of the bits that did not align with Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: January 2006

message: Im not sure what state the article was in when the tag was removed, but it is a complete mess now.
* non-notable "famous people"
* Lack of sources (possibly mostly with the above)
* quotes that aren't wikified, and are in fact bold
Probably a bunch of redundant info too, but it needs looking at Metao 12:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of non-notable "famous people" just keeps getting longer. My guess is that people are adding friends/relatives etc. Wikipedia isnt the place for that. Id like a consensus on whether this section should be removed, kept, trimmed, or moved to a separate article. With that done, cleaning up the quote mess might be a less daunting task. Metao 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was bold, and removed all of the prominent people who didnt have a Wikipedia page. This seemed like a reasonable starting criteria for notability, and this section was definitely the place to start as part of a cleanup. Admittedly, some of the deleted people probably deserve a Wikipedia page, but this page is about Janjua, not a list of people who are notable because they are Janjua. If you re-add to this section, may I suggest you first consider if the person is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, and if so, perhaps create a stub for them as well as adding them to the list. If the usagelist gets too long, create a new page! Metao 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The name list was ever increasing and mega KB space was being used up! So thank you for your input. Ultimately, it's an encyclopedia, so thats the context of the work to be done, and I am in greement with your actions. However some of the people were very prominent in their fields which given some time I will create wiki articles for and incorporate into the article in wikilink form, or as you suggested as a list of notables instead of into this article. Can you help suggest the correct way to incorporate the quotations into the article? (any example pages from wiki would be useful, I'll pick up the technique from that.) This article was pretty much written as best as a novice user can do Im afraid! Thanks for your interest and happy holidays :-) --Raja 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your agreement. Im sorry for removing the legit people (it was clear that there were a lot that I did remove), but there was not really any other way to do it without me spending a couple hours playing with google. It occurred to me that, while I had seen it done, I had never done a quote before. So I did a quick search for "quote" and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quotation. ;) The category for templates would be the place to look - I imagine you can find a style in there which would fit. For the inline comments, Im not sure what the standard is... but keep in mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations as well. Metao 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Have completely wikified the article as best as possible. Quotes have been the main priority as well as footnoting the references etc. Complete change of format also. Therefore, tidy up tag removed.--Raja 18:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2006

message: 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)
thread_title: Pakhtun Tanoli sockpuppets

message: 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)
thread_title: Punjabi Raja's Persistence

message: 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. ;-) --Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.--Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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?--Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanoli back again...

message: 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.--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope thats what the Hindu Rajputs believe, not the Muslim Rajputs. 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..--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And thats your proof?! Thats a pathetic answer. BUT you cite British sources (dubiously), but when I cite them as quoting on record that they believe Tanolis to be of Indian origin you deny it. But you confuse 'some' Rajputs ancestry with the mainstream here. Bhattis, Jarral, Janjua, Johiyas are all branches of the same main patriarchal aryan dynasty, so your point is negated there.--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Im not surprised they do, as in the Tanoli that you wrote you state that upper tanwal is considered a "backward area"! Here's a link in case you want proof Considering the Janjua hold the titles of Sultans and Raja (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 and that upper tanawal is backward 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 :-)--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. But either way, Khan was a title that was conferred, an equivalent to ruler, which originated with the Juan Juans  (who strangely enough, are sometimes referred to as the ancestors of the Janjua!) and it was later adopted by the Afghans from the conquering 'Khanates' of the Mongolians and Turks. So who stole it from who?! ;-) --Raja 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another sad attempt with again no proof

message: The article has extensive info regarding Muslim Janjua Rajputs, because most citable and referenced information available is of them only. If there are any Hindu or Sikh Janjua Rajputs who come across this page and have any information regarding their specific history, please contribute to the article or get in contact with me directly by clicking on my username and I will aid the incorporation of that info into this article for you if you prefer. 
It is very important that our Hindu and Sikh counterparts contribute to this article.
Many thanks --Raja 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu Janjua Rajputs

message: It is not vandalism to delete the disinformation contained in the article at the very top of it even. The one source quoted is based on a lie that has been challenged again and again in the historical literature, in the print media and historians of the Sarhad. If you do not desist I will have to flag this article as disputed. This article seems to be the brainchild of just one person who seems to be going all over the Wikipedia putting in his rubbish to uphold his lies in Janjua. Let me reiterate there is no truth that the Janjuas ever had any presence in the Frontier areas even before the arrival of Afghans, Turks and Mughals. Nazar Rabbi 2:33 PM 31 July 2007
:I challenge that. There is a neutral source written by a Syed of the NWFP (dare you negate him?) (thats is from the book, "The Foreign Policy of Pakistan" by Syed Mehtab Ali Shah, IB Taurus 1997, p233) and also an ancient Mughal emperor (Tuzuk i Jahangiri). Besides, the Janjuas of Haripur have even provided a general to the Pakistani army, General AK Janjua himself. If you have the proof, provide it. Otherwise get lost, you've been found out again Mumtaz. Your immaturity has reaced new levels. Thankfully this page is a permanent record for all to read and see how your points have not only been negated, but completely proven malicious and fraudulent. In fact, how about showing me once source to counter it? I have provided at least neutral sources to support it. You have YET to rpovide one to counter them effectively at all. Jealousy is a curse my friend ;-) 
I have 'Tuzuk e Jahangiri' with me. Please quote page and chapter where it is. The said book has Janjuas nowhere near Frontier districts but far away in Bhir even in Neelam Valley. 
:Ofcourse. The books stating this source are quoted from, 
*"Chronicles of Early Janjuas", by Dr. Hussain Khan of Peshawar University, 2003 iUniverse, p1 and 26 under the chapter Janjuas in Hazara. He is actually a Janjua of NWFP himself lol!
*Jhelum District Gazetteer, 1904, p93
:But aside from them, Syed Mehtab Ali Shah's book;
*"The Foreign Policy of Pakistan" by Syed Mehtab Ali Shah, IB Taurus 1997, p233 which itself records that Janjuas who reside in Haripur are also Hindko speakers. 
:Now I openly challenge you yet again to face this and offer a reputable source as a counter. I rest assured that other than lies and empty homophobic threats, you will offer nothing. I am not suggesting Tanolis are in fact Janjuas, we've got past that. But there are a smallnumber of Janjuas settled in Haripur and Shamasabad. Thats what your disputing, despite the proof prsented before you. In fact even in Ain i Akbari it records that the Janjuas were chiefs of Darband itself!
The so called Janjua general is a settler in Haripur not a native. 
:Prove it. What proof do you have to quote this? None? Surprising....
Thirdly, who the hell is Mumtaz you keep rabbiting on about. 
:You, you sock puppet.
Can you as a son of a sikh not take that there people who disagree with your concocted tales which have no historical evidence? Get over it - you are a Wiki 'historian' with no basis for any of your assertions. 
:I belong to the most celebrated Muslim Rajput clan in Pakistan. To the contrary my article is completely backed by sources. But YOU have thus far, for over a year now, NOT offered a single source to negate my points. I took your pitiful kanjar name out of the article, and now you try to hide the history if the Janjuas of even Haripur? Have you no shame for your malice? How insecure and anal is that!
If you continue with this I will report you to the site controllers or whatever they are known as.
:Go for it. I'm not the one that was banned remember? YOU WERE
You cannot keep on erejecting any challenge to your fraud accounts. 
:Erecting? Am I causing you erections?! Besides, I reject your silly challenges because you never have any proof my dear fellow. You are just a small time midget crying about wanting to be a Pathan when your own people openly reject it and cal themselves Turks, Mughals etc etc etc. So many fathers and so little proof. There is a name for people like you ;-)
You read somewhere on the 'net that Shah Rukh Khan's maternal grandfather is a Rajaput and you jumped straight in and made him a Janjua - you are wrong on both accounts. 
:Prove it. I never stated he was a Janjua. An article is available stating he was a Maternal Janjua, but I have since clarified this and found that his mother was adopted by a Janjua Raja General. This has since been shown in a neutral and reflective way. You on the other hand try to deny your other theories and cry about my people. If I remember correctly, you tried to make my own clan member Amir Khan a Pathan? He couldn't stop laughing at your envy, lol. You are clearly in awe and can't leave our history. It's natural, many tribes are envious of our repute. Hence your behaviour is explained, miserably Anal.
Finally, if you are a man and wish to meet me to know who I really am then make arrangements with your friends etc. so that all of us, your side and mine, can ascertain our respective identities. Are you a man or just a pretend one for Wiki pages only. 
:Your pathetic threats are causing me to yawn excuse me...("YAWN") we Rajeh dont fear any cowardly mongrels, like you. Our warlike proud position is undisputed in the Salt Range and currently in the Pak army and the boxing ring. But for your info, I'm in Ratala, Tehsil Gujar Khan district of Islamabad. Bring it on anytime, we Rajeh love teaching you mongrels a lesson, lol. Infact we have some peshawar derived mongrels subjugated as our kasbis and farmers of our Jagirs. You are great agriculturists according to many books I have too, lol. You people couldn't even take on the Gakhars near you who established their Khanpur in your areas, what are you gonna do with us hardcore Janjua Rajeh of Potohar!!! The Rajeh of Matore Kahuta, Darapur Jhelum, Kashmiri Khakhas, Malot etc would have you mongrels publicly castrated. But for the record, this page is clear evidence of how I ripped your every claim apart with cited proof yet you have NEVER come back with any valid proof of your anal claims. You cant hide the disgrace you have faced here ;-)
You've been proved to be a liar before by other people and it can be done by me. I am keeping tabs on your 'contributions' to other articles and discussionm pages too. Nazar Rabbi, 17:12, 1st August 2007
:You have yet to prove yourself 'truthful, let alone prove me a liar. Are you blind? This whole page is a worldwide testament at how a Tanoli tried to be a Pathan, got proven that he isn't and he became so anal, he cant leave the people he is secretly in awe of. It's Freudian you know, sons are always preoccupied with their baaps ;-)--Raja 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mumtaz is back