Talk:Johal

Genetic data
Recently 2.222.68.184 replaced the "Origins" section, commenting that "Genetic data completely refutes any migration into north west india at the time suggested. Cunningham did not have genetic information, but his assumption was based on the pro western centric history of india, genetics refute his work". May be 2.222 is correct, but whatever he added constitutes original research, since his genetic text says nothing of Johal. Neither he provides the references from sources which directly say that Cunningham was in error.

The correct layout of the section must be as follows (supplied by thorough references).
 * In the past an opinion existed that Johals ...bla...bla...bla...
 * This opinion was based on the following evidence: ....bla...bla...bla...
 * Recent genetic studies suggest that this theory may have insufficient foundation {citations needed}
 * Other suggest that in fact Johal originated in ... based on the evidence... {citations needed}
 * The old evidence may be alternatively explained... {citations needed}

The above outline is based on the following principles
 * Old erroneous theories are facts. They are facts of history of the scientific research, and as such are of encyclopedic vaue.
 * All discusions, conclusions and controversies  mentioned in wikipedia article must be directly referenced.
 * All discussions in the article must bear direct relevance to the main subject of the article.
 * Complete rewriting of an encyclopedic article cannot be based exclusivily on 1-2 very specific scientific articles. At best, these articles must be presented as an opinion, unless somewhere else it is stated that these articles represent a new consensus or at least a notable alternative theory. Loggerjack (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but there are mutiple issues with your edit. Incorrect referencing. WP:Reliable. WP:Synthesis. ThanksS H 11:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Your sorry not accepted. Please expain in detail.. From my part, my edits are explained in edit summaries: I resrtored an old piece of thext, inappropriatelty deleted, and added a bit new. Please state your disagreement with each separate edit, in article history. Loggerjack (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have binned all the genetic stuff. Let's start over, discussing it here first. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; genetic stuff does not belong to this article. There is no genetic data directly for Johal. Loggerjack (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your edit summary "it is seems blindingly obvious, eg: jattworld?)". What's wrong with jattworld? What is blindly obvious? While I agree with your edit, your explanations are hardly helpful. Loggerjack (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I am not wasting my time explaining something that you agree with. I've got rather more important (to me) issues to contend with. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I agree with your removal of general genetic data, but I don't understand the reasons for removal of "White Huns" part. Unless you explain yourself, I am restoring it. If you think that your time is more valuable than mine, you have a serious problems with attitude, colleague. Loggerjack (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oi, stop the attacks now. You said that you agreed with me; now you say that you do not. It is not my fault if you change your mind and/or fail to express yourself clearly. If you reinstate whatever it is that you now wish to reinstate then that will constitute edit warring and you'll be heading for a block. You will have to wait: we are not all in similar time zones etc. And I do not respond well to people who are unnecessarily rude. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what you wrote "Since 19th century there is an opinion that Johals(Jouhals) are direct descendent's of Hepthalites, also known as White Huns. White Huns were a division of the Massagetae, who invaded North India during AD 460-470. Thomas Watters (British Acting Consul General in Korea from (1887–1888) [51] writes "country (North-West of India) was conquered by the Yeta (White Huns), i.e., the Yets or Gats apparently near the end of our fifth century. The Yeta, who were a powerful people in Central Asia, in the fifth century, are also said to have been of the Yue-Chi (Kushan) stock---". The leader of the White Huns called "Toramana" was throned in AD 495 and established his capital at Sakala (modern Sialkot, Punjab). According to Inscriptions, the full name of the king was Maharaja ("Great King) Toramana Shaha JAUVLA (Jauhal). Later, In A.D. 510, Mihirakula succeeded his father as the "Great" king. Alexander Cunningham says Jauvla was the name of their tribe or clan. According to him, the name of the Jabuli tribe of the White Huns is still preserved in Zabulistan (land of Jauvla, today's Zabul) and their language called "Zauli" also still existed in the tenth century AD [45]. Furthermore, White Huns or Jauvla are the direct ancestors of dark-age times Jat clan name called "Jauhla" and modern days "Johals". In AD 520 Mihirakula succeeded his father Toramana Jauvla. In turn Mihirakula was succeeded by his son called Ajitanjaya and after the disintegration of their Indian empire the Jauvala or Johals secured for themselves Zabulistan or Jabulistan. It is interesting to note the remarks of Sir Cunningham [45] concerning the reading of a coin of White Huns "But in the two Pahlavi legends of the reverse I read on the left and to the right Zaulistan (Jaulistan)". This says it very well that the actual name is "Jaulistan" (land of Jauls or Johals) instead of "Zabulistan"."

I am returning to my Featured Article work now but will look in here later. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "51" that appears in the first paragraph makes me think that you have copied this from somewhere, and you have not said where. That in itself is a no-no.
 * The issue of "51" aside, that paragraph is unsourced, which is also a non-starter
 * The entire palaver about White Huns has bounced back and forth on numerous articles. You are going to have to provide rock-solid, modern sources if you want to include it here, and those sources will have to mention the Johals specifically in connection with the WHs otherwise it is WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * The second paragraph uses jattworld.com as its source. That is not a reliable source because it is effectively self-published by what amounts to an advocacy group. You need independent sources, not ones connected to Jats. Dhillon is mentioned: there are a fair few Jat historians out there and most of them are proponents of fringe theories, mixed up among the good stuff. Some, such as Ram Swarup Joon and Bhim Singh Dahiya, have been rejected entirely by the Wikipedia community; others, such as Dhillon and Thakur D., have to be treated with kid gloves. Basically, if you can find other reliable modern sources to support them then you'll be ok, but using Cunningham and the like is simply not acceptable.
 * That paragraph also looks like an unattributed copy/paste (the number "45", for example) and it is badly phrased (eg: "Sir Cunningham").

Obviously you didn't look into edit history of the article. I did not write this text. As I said in edit summaries, I merely restored it after it was deleted by the person(s) who wrote all that genetic stuff. If you feel insulted when I reminded you that you have to respect my time as well and start threatening me with blocks, then you have really big problems with the attitude towards colleagues and have really poor understanding wikipedia policies.

Now back to the article. Since you are busy, you could have answer ony the questions I asked. I asked what's wrong with jattworld. YOu say it it unreliable, I believe you. Case closed, nobody insulted, everebody happy. Why was it so difficult to do this at the very beginning?

You may go to your Featured Article. I have no further issues in this page. I hope you will keep your eye on it against refilling with improper content. Loggerjack (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this article for a long time. The burden is on you, even if you are restoring prior content. My knowledge of WP policy is indeed imperfect but, I rather suspect, is far greater than yours. India-related articles generate a phenomenal amount of heat and I've been dealing with them for some time now. In any event, you changed your mind and as a consequence of that vacillation I supplied a response. We're done. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've read the last SignPost and understand your frustration. Apologies for being not very polite and impatient. Loggerjack (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)