|The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Please familiarize yourself with the sanctions authorized for this topic area before making further edits.|
|Threads older than 6 months may be archived by.|
Some one hindu is messing with this page
- This article isn't "run" by anyone. Like all Wikipedia articles, it is the result of consensus based on policies and sources. If you have some actual sources that you would like to suggest that would support changes to the article, feel free to suggest them. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No it's not run by original person as its reliable references and sources are constantly being removed by biased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I am agreed with you, Now we need to find out how to contact the Wikipedia management and complain about it, This person QWXYAIAN is biassed and irrelevant and he has no authentic sources arguments and proofs and he or many other Hindus like him are using our source of information against us. SIMPLE ARGUMENT IS This article is about JANJUA RAJPUTS and not about Jatts, They can set up their own article under JATTS,
AS I have checked information about Jatts, I could not find a single article of JATTS who mentioned Janjua as Jatts, Even on wikipedia No JATTS Article is accepting Janjua as Jatts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- There is no real "Wikipedia management". Wikipedia is a community created endeavor, governed by a set of community created rules. If you want to complain about me, the fastest way is at the administrator's incident noticeboard, but I have to warn you that when you do, your own behaviors will also be scrutinized...and that my experience tells me you'll come out looking worse, given that I'm trying to require reliable sources and you're both suggesting changing it based on your own personal opinions. As for your last point, you can't just decide that this article is about Janjua Rajputs, given that there are reliable sources that say that there are also Janjua Jatts. And finally, I'm not Hindu...heck, not only am I not India, I've never even been to India. So...yeah. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have given several ref underneath, I don't think so you can have access to all these books and I am sure you are a Hindu or belongs to some kind of lower cast like kammi faimly of Janjua Rajputs so I can understand your mentality , so no worries pointing fingers would not make you one of our Royal family so I will suggest you, do your family profession work, and don't try to become some selfmade historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome to think whatever you want, but, like I said, I've never even been to Indian. As for the sources, a quick scan through them shows them to all be British colonial sources from around 1900 (or reprints of them). Such sources are pretty much useless except as the opinions of a small number of colonial overseers who pretended to be historians without training or any sort of historical method or, really, allegiance to fact-finding. If you produce some sources that meet WP:RS, you're welcome to provide them. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sure you belongs to some kind of low class inferiority complex family , Clan history only can be defined by that clan who belongs to that, our families used to kept record verbally and written, so our statement is enough to prove, We are what we are, we don't need to give you proof, ref what we have given weather colonial or mughal or before that , it is enough to proof that our clan history is true, what you are saying its just like that IF I ASK YOU YOUR FATHER'S NAME and on your reply I can refuse to admit that and can say that I am you father, you don't belong to janjua Rajput clan or any clan so you can not not understand it, AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION YOU CAN NOT DENIED COLONIAL , MUGHAL REFERENCES , BEFORE ISLAM there is no any other authentic sources which proof some thing is true or fals, NOW YOU CAN TELL US WHICH KIND OF PROOFS YOU WILL ACCEPT, PROOFS from MAHABHATATA according to Hindus it was written 1.5 million years ago lolzzzz
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Some more of Sanpals descendents traced
Hello sir after doing some research i have come across following information on Janjua sub-tribes. One is this family tree of the Narma rajputs. Which confirms Ghumman and Raniyal as their brother tribe but also shows few more tribes like the Thathal and Narma as also belonging to this tribe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Narma_tree.jpg Also the Ghanjial are Janjua descent found in many numbers in Gujrat, Sarai Alamgeer also in Muree hills. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed the following paragraph.
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Old page history
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.
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)