Talk:Jayapala
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Jayapala was copied or moved into History of India with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Jayapala was copied or moved into Sabuktigin with this edit on 19:41, April 26, 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Zabul?
editIs Zabul supposed to be Zabulistan? --Dangerous-Boy 09:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Jaipal was a Gurjar from Khatana gotra (khotanese), I have conclusive proofs that will clear all confusions but not to be wasted here on wikipedia. All the articles are being edited by some idiot who deleted the Shahi khatana title from this article and now everyone is claiming jaipal. All his contemporary rulers and relatived were Gurjars. Trust it or wait for a book based on archeaological and genetic proofs that will establish it forever. The Real Rana (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Ashokh, please do share your "proof" because this is Wikipedia and talk is cheap while sources are not. Akmal94 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Ancestry of Jayapala
editAncestry of Hindu Shahi is mentioned in hindu shahi article. It needs to be referenced here
Why someone undo it ?@Vif12vf Zain engineer (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- You added the claim that he has a Janjua, and another editor has recently added the claim that he was a Jat. And I've seen other claims (such as Brahmin etc.) by editors trying to promote their own social group. First of all, the caste/ethnicity/tribal affiliation doesn't belong the lead here as per MOS:ETHNICITY, especially when it's contested. Secondly, the sources that you folks are citing are outdated books, including those by colonial civil servants such as Wolseley Haig and Vincent Arthur Smith: as discussed several times at WP:RSN (example) and elsewhere, these are not acceptable sources. utcursch | talk 07:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)