Talk:Jugni

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing is strange
This article is not written in an encyclopedic way. Also the English is not idiomatic - is seems to be a literal translation from Indian. There are no external references to support the article. Is any of it true? Ogg (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi's Version
Rabbi's Jugni does not only deal with Kashmir. It also deals with the modern times and life in cities like Delhi & Bombay. Sarmast (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much random content added
I just noticed very high density of random content added. Let us put a structure in place. I am adding the latest "Jugni" rendering - Jugni Naughty Aey. Jugni Naughty Aey is sung by Mikka Singh in bollywood Movie Tanu weds Manu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simarprit (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Basic problems and factual errors
Im sorry to say that this article seems to be rather weakly organised and structured and lacks any cohesion--in addition it has several basic factual errors relating to the history and development of the 'Jugni' as a musical form or style in Punjabi, which to the best of my knowledge, has been around at least since the 17th-18th centuries, evolving over the ages. It seems that the article has been written without even taking the trouble to consult some of the essential sources, including published scholarly sources in Punjabi, Urdu and English, and reflects just personal opinion/s by and large. I would strongly recommend that this article be reviewed by some proper experts and thorough amendments made. Thanks. (Mumtaz Khan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.30.69 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way the supposed 'invention' of the Jugni in 1906 (?!) is in itself a major fallacy-- I wonder how the author has come up with this? The Bishna-Manda hypothesis is not a reliable one, and although there might have been some Punjabi folk singers/'Mirasis' of this name living around then, and although they might have contributed to some extent to the development of the 'modern' Jugni, I know of at least three (3) earlier references: (a) in a ''Punjab Gazetteer' c 1880s or 90s, whilst refering to Punjabi folk music; (b) in a 1947-48 volume by Sir Malcolm Darling, the well-known ex British colonial civil servant who worked long years in the Punjab and was accounted to be something of an expert on the region's literary/cultural history as well as its land tenure system and (c) a more recent research article published in a Pakistani university research journal circa 1990s. I shall try to dig up all three references and post them here. However, all three agree that the Jugni was an oldish, indigenous folk musical form, also related to the 'Tappa' and 'Mahyia' forms, and was probably developed c 17th-18th centuries in the Central and Eastern Punjab zones; that it contained both secular/political/social comment/s and spiritual elements, depending on its 'use' at a particular time, and reflects Sufic and Vedantic/Bhakti influences too. Also, it became very popular in the Punjab during the later part of Sikh rule and early British times (1840s-1850s) and to an extent, a 'vehicle' for popular expression/resistance,too, probably. I hope this helps in clarifying some aspects. (Mumtaz Khan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.30.69 (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that the concept of the female firefly/Jugni and the 'Jubilee' linkage/adaptation later, is what Bishna-Manda came up with, as part of the form's evolution, no more and no less. Alam Lohar and his son Arif Lohar were the next singers to make major developments and innovations. (Mumtaz Khan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.30.69 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Context
For this article, I reworked the lead section to clarify the context, and added a "See also" section. If these updates are not agreeable, please alter to improve. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)