Separate page for Kingdom of Junagadh[edit]

should have separate page for the old kingdom and its modern day location --80.1.250.215 (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas[edit]

Is it true that the original name meant "city of the Yonas"?

Nope - that is an urban legend. "Juna" as used in Junagadh has nothing to do with "Yona" or "Yavana". In Sorathi, or the colloquially spoken gujarati, it translates as "Old fort".

Yavana,Jana, Gyan, Dnyan

Yavana, Jana, Gyan, Dnyan, all have some relation.

vkvora 08:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijna

Fixed the grammatical tones in some paras. Was moving to present tense from past tense. The tense is correct and consistent now.

References[edit]

Some references have been supplied, so I removed the unreferenced tag today. Many more verifiable facts are needed.Fconaway 01:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three new images are added[edit]

I have uploaded three images in this aricles, which are desperately needed. I also arranged history of junagadh. Please search more information of this beautiful city and add in this articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadia gaurang (talk • contribs) 10:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Chudasama history[edit]

previous information regarding this topic was bias , so i have corrected it , kindly don't remove my edits , thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raakuldeep (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the poor sources used, I'm not sure it should remain. The previous content seems slightly better sourced, but it's unclear from a glance.
What's presented in this article should accurately summarize Chudasama Dynasty. Given you've written that with no others' involvement, it's of no help.
I suggest getting Chudasama Dynasty reviewed, and incorporating the removed sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ronz , i have mentioned other authentic sources like Gazetteer_of_the_Bombay_Presidency , which is a government press release , kindly refer page no 110 TO 150 & Page no 419 of Gazetteer_of_the_Bombay_Presidency , this information is more relevant to this topic , in previous content chudasama referred as Ahirs which is irrelevant , that is why i have corrected it , Please review it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raakuldeep (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "authentic". Government sources even less so. British Raj sources which basically collected folklore are terrible. Please see WP:RS and WP:HISTRS for the acceptable sources. In any case, I have reverted your contribution because it was incomprehensible. Please use your sandbox to experiment and polish the content before attempting to addit again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect that detailed, academic histories should be available for use. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junagadh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junagadh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro's revert[edit]

@Gotitbro: Will you please self-revert your edit, as it is quite misleading. Note that the delimited area on the political map labels both Junagadh and Manavadar as part of the territory claimed/disputed. This is important to note in the article as it relates to a government's official position, and as such would be disruptive to entirely omit. My edit had mentioned the issue in the Annexation section, in order to assuage your concern on mentioning it in the lead while reverting someone else. Also, the category is well-sourced and meets the criteria used for other articles e.g. Kalapani territory. Mar4d (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how my edit is misleading as I was only asking for discussion for a cat on a claim that is not new. Firstly, the claim is not limited to the city on which the cat is being added, we should be careful with adding that cat to territories below admin level 1; secondly, the dispute is not a active dispute as well. I would also like to include Kautilya3 in the discussion on if and where to put the cat. Gotitbro (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro: Could you provide an existing precedent or supporting policy regarding the categorisation. AFAIK, that is not how this category is used. Also note that whether a dispute is "active" or not active is not something that we would decide; that is what the sources and the government's claims would determine, for which there is obviously enough material. Mar4d (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the category "Territorial disputes of Pakistan". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 and Mar4d: What I'd like to clarify here is where do we add the category exactly, should we add it here [the city], to all the places claimed [including Manavadar] (which would be overdoing it) or simply to the district. If you are fine with having it only here, I'll self revert my edit. Gotitbro (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, it should go in the Junagadh State page. To do anything more would need a discussion at the WikiProjects. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an incorrect categorization as that princely state is no longer extant and this category is for current disputes (you cannot have disputes on non-existent entities/territories). Now that I think about it, this is probably the best place to put the cat as most people are likely to end up here and this is the main article of the dispute. Placing it on the district doesn't cut it either as the claims are larger than the district. Gotitbro (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine by me. But only one entry for Junagadh. Somebody looking at the category page shouldn't have to sort out which of them is the real place that is disputed.
I noticed we have Bantva Manavadar as a page. That can also have the category, because it was apparently regarded as a separate state in 1947. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In principle, the territory in contention corresponds to that of the erstwhile Junagadh and Bantva Manavadar states. Manavadar, as is understood, is presently part of the Junagadh district. In the enlarged map available here, there is a delimitation of the Junagadh region, and Manavadar is also labeled within the close-up map. The map is analogous to this one, in the subdivided areas where Junagadh and Manavadar are transcribed. Note the two effectively Indian 'exclaves' on both maps, which are surrounded by Junagadh but not part of its territory. On the Pakistani map, the solid green line represents the boundary of Pakistani provinces, and it is present on the outline of Junagadh. The solid yellow line represents the Indian boundary/territory. For clarity, I will agree to the above and support adding the category on the Junagadh and Manavadar articles. Mar4d (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added the category to both the pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Mar4d (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories