Talk:Jats/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

GA??

I see this article has been assessed as start class. I think it meets C or B class in the current state. I also think I can improve this article by expanding a bit, adding more sources, tweaking the lead and the sections so that it can meet GA standard. I need an expert like Sitush who can mention some issues with the article (current state) that needs to be fixed. Sitush you can make a list of those issues below. I will start after I get a response from Sitush. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 21:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to continue improving this article. It has no chance of GA status at present because there is too much aggravation: one of the prerequisites for GA is stability and that obviously does not apply here, mainly because of caste warriors. Nonetheless, we should do our best to make it as good as it can be. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks Sitush, I will start improving within a week. And I'm sure I can bring the stability. I might also place a {{under construction}} or {{in use}} tag to avoid edit conflicts. If you feel any change is inappropriate, please discuss it here instead of changing it yourself. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, I can probably help too but I am revising at the moment, Jim's suggestion is a great one. I'm not an expert on these tribes but will try to help. Also there is work needed on the Muslim Jat article too, POV issues. Syanaee (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The other notable issue is the sole reliance on Susan Bayly which when reading the article in context creates POV, the word non elite-tilers crops up often. More sources would be appreciated, and also reliable sources which establish neutrality and balance. Syanaee (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The pair of you need to be careful. This is a very well-written, well-sourced article that has been substantively the effort of a few people who really do know the subject. For example, the inclusion and weight given to Bayly has been discussed time and again here. If you want to bring new, modern, reliable sources to the table (which means not using newspapers much and not using Raj sources at all) then that's fine but please don't go ripping into it and expect me to sit around and soak it up until you have finished. If you did then the outcome might well be a mass revert to the present version because picking through all of the changes could be a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We are trying to establish neutrality and consensus - your comments tone isn't very helpful and conductive in that regard. Susan Bayly is a single source, were non-elite tillers has been used, it has been discussed in this talk page before why that maybe unbalancing the article and not establishing neutrality or creating POV. I don't have a problem with the term non-elite tillers as long as it does not rest on a single source from an academic most likely discussing a 17th century tribe. Syanaee (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

<splutter> You say "most likely discussing", which suggests that you haven't read Bayly. Please do so. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have found a better source: [1] which contradicts Bayly, which talks about the Jat 'elites' the source makes clear that there was no difference between the Feudal Rajputs and the Jats, hence the uprising against the Mughals. And by the way this is a 2012 source unlike the Bayly source which is from over 10 years ago i.e. 2001. Syanaee (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen that one before, so thanks for that. It is, however, not a "better" source but rather an alternate one - see WP:NPOV for how we would treat this. I'll take a read of it so that we do not cherrypick. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I can give you the exact pages and and paragraphs in anything looks like cherry picking, it looks like the mass Bayly citations in the lead which is creating a clear issue of non-neutrality, modern reliable sources should supersede earlier citations. My personal reasoning on this is neither elite nor non-elite should be used, landowning herders is fine, if I can be sourced from reliable-multiple sources. I think the elite and non-elite terms create undue POV and neutrality issue. Syanaee (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we add the following: The Jat people (Hindustani pronunciation: [dʒaːʈ]) (also spelled Jatt) are a community of traditionally non-elite tillers and herders in Northern India and Pakistan, although this view is held by Susan Bayly however it is not consistent with the research by Eugenia Vanina in her book: "Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man" where it is claimed there had been little difference between the lifestyle of Jat headmen and Rajput feudals which was gradually turned into the struggle of the Jat elite.

To balance the article, the wording and formatting needs works. Since there are academic sources which supersede Bayly or contradict her, it should be included to balance the article. Or both should be removed as I have argued before since, I don't think this really helps. Also to note: Eugenia Vanina states QUOTE: "Jats according to Habibs findings were in the 7th century viewed as lower-case close to the 'untouchables', in the 10th century as Shudras, in the subsequent centuries as lower strata of vaishyas, in the medieval period claimed, and with success kshatriya status." Which should perhaps in a subjection, I think this whole idea of elite and non-elite issue is marred in controversy with many different views. Does anyone have a view on this and how we should go about correcting this, otherwise it would seem like clear cherry-picking one source, which wouldn't be very academic. Syanaee (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Syanaee: there are a few issues with the current lead section, the main one being an excess of citations that was forced on us because of past edit wars. A read of WP:LEAD might be an interesting exercise for you because among the other issues is that fact that leads are supposed to summarise articles, not replace them. Anything that is said in the lead should be said in the article body, almost always with more detail. So we can't (or shouldn't) just dump new stuff into the lead.

I don't have a problem with using the source that you have found but I would like to read it before commenting in detail. I'll probably be able to see a fair bit on Google Books but will probably end up having to borrow or buy a copy. I realise that other people probably will not want to wait that long. I'd remind them of WP:DEADLINE and that any amendments made in the intervening period may well get revised again when put into the context of the entire book. No big deal, provided that you are sure that you are not misrepresenting the source: it is how Wikipedia develops. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: OK I think that is pretty fair, what I will do in the meantime is, since I only have the google books sample, I have noticed the book can be bought for around £38 on Amazon, but I don't want to spend that kind of money if I can find the book in my university library University of York I'll have a read of it, but I doubt they have it, so I may have to end up buying it, or be cheeky and ask for screen shots from you to make sure everything i'm citing is in context. With respect to WP:LEAD I agree I made this point elsewhere saying you can't cram everything into the lead i.e. should state who/what the jats are and where they come from, and the rest should follow in the body. There is enough information the Vania's book which can also be included in the body namely her research which is based on Habibs work which shows how the Jats moved up in the social strata over years, since Baylay is talking around the 16th and 17th Vania's accounts are more detailed as to how the Jats were once regarded as the 'untouchables' to by the medieval period regarded as landowning elites. Syanaee (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was finding prices around the £35-£40 mark but then ordered it from printasia in the UK for £11 (free postage). Since you're still at uni, you should be able to get it through their library but it might involve a wait if they have to use the inter-library loan thing. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll get a hold of it soon, if I can find it for around £11, I wanted to ask you do you know where I can get hold of a cheap copy of Bayly's book? Easier to buy, from my exp of deal with the Uni Library might take weeks to get hold of, but I will ask once I'm there maybe on Friday since I need to use the library Syanaee (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't link to printsasia due to it being blacklisted here. Type "printsasia +uk +'mediaval indian mindscapes'" in Google for the £11 deal, which appears to be for a brand new copy. But you might want to try the library first - I know from experience what student finances are like. Do they not have an online catalogue, perhaps on their intranet? Have you tried checking via WorldCat for "nearest library to you"? The same applies for Bayly.

Places that I've used for used copies of books in the past include Alibris, Abebooks and the Oxfam shop on eBay (that shop is physically based in Oxford, so it gets a lot of student books, not all of which are about wine-tasting, fox-hunting etc!). The last Bayly book I got cost me around a tenner but I had to be patient, having waited maybe six months before a decent deal turned up. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Or copy/paste http://www.printsasia.co.uk/book/medieval-indian-mindscapes-space-time-society-man-eugenia-vanina-9380607199-9789380607191 - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush:, do you have any idea of who added these Bayly sources, I have just literally spent 10 minutes reading a sample of Baylys book and it looks like clear cherry-picking, in fact even Bayly notes the OBC states was used to gain an advantage. Someone has not read Bayly's book thoroughly enough or there is evidence of clear cherry-picking, no wonder I was wondering why two respected academics have such drastically different views. This need to be rectified immediately in my opinion as it is clear POV, and I have the proof directly from Bayly's book. I'll assume good faith but it seems someone clearly overly looked pages and subjections like Brahman Tyranny. Syanaee (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler. They're not usually far off the mark, for reasons that it would be inappropriate for me to mention (see WP:OUTING). Right now, they are on a break from Wikipedia. I have a copy of the book but have never compared/contrasted with the article. I'll do it at some point. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Maywell have been an oversight then, or the OBC content may have been added later, which might explain why it wasn't mentioned. Syanaee (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: @Syanaee: Drop me an email if you are interested, I can link you to/attach a copy of Susan Bayly's book.  NQ  talk 10:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That was the one I got for a tenner, NQ. I'm still hunting for a decent deal re: her other major book, Saints, Goddesses and Kings. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ:, I take you up on that, I'll drop you an email. Thanks. Syanaee (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ:, once I find out how to actually send an email from here lol. Advice! Syanaee (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Yeah, 530 pages, pdf - got it. Drop me an email. @Syanaee: User:NQ Left sidebar, under tools --> Email this user. You don't have email enabled, otherwise I would have left you a message.  NQ  talk 11:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush:, @NQ:, unless I'm blind I don't see it. Syanaee (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Syanaee: See Wikipedia:Emailing users for the image  NQ  talk 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Think it might be because I never added an email to avoid spam, I'll add a temp one. Syanaee (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't see what? If you mean the email link then you need to set up your own email first. That is somewhere in the Preferences section, up at top right of the Wikipedia page. If you put your email details in, the link to email other people becomes active as NQ described. Use a throwaway email address if you want. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ:, just email me on this email: (removed) Syanaee (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: thanks, I've got the email. I'll read this tonight. Syanaee (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush this article is relying to heavily on Dr Susan Bayly's description of Jats, there are many non British Raj sources which contradict Bayly's view such as Dr. Nicola Mooney:

Rural Nostalgias and Transnational Dreams: Identity and Modernity Among Jat Sikhs (Anthropological Horizons) by Nicola Mooney (Sep 17, 2011) Pg.7 and trend carries on throughout the book

If you read about Dr. Bayly its quite clear that she examines much broader concepts such as Britains affects and after affects on its colonies etc. Dr. Mooney on the other hand is much more specialized on this subject and this I think may be selective quoting because this is definetly not the not the whole picture (using the glossary?!).
If anyone really wants to include Bayly's view however controversial and contradicting it maybe, donnot put it on the beginning of the page but instead create a section about Jat identity and status and discuss the conflicting views. --Thank You --Nawabmalhi (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not relying on it. I didn't even add it but it is a reliable source. If there are alternate reliable opinions then we should state those also, per WP:NPOV. I'm currently reading a book that Syanee was also intending to buy (see above). - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Edit Request Sept 20 2014

Please delete the entire second sentence in the first paragraph or clarify to indicate that the Backward Caste status was demanded by the Jats themselves so that Jats could take advantage of the favourable quota system for jobs and post secondary education offered by the Backward Caste status in India. Without that clarification, the sentence is misleading and without necessary context - the way it is currently written, the sentence is like stating that in the 1940s many Jews left German, without an explanation as to why.

Further, please revise the last sentence in the second paragraph to delete the word "several" and replace it with "many" so that the sentence reads: "Over the years, many Jats . . ."

Onecaste (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

92.21.163.134 (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC) THE information on the page about jats is wrong. JAT is a baloch tribe living in balochistan Sindh and Punjab.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are Jats Sindhi by origin!?

Its mentioned in the article Jat people that Jats migrated from the Lower Indus region, does it indicate that Jats are the Sindhies by origin?.--Jogi don (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That would really be a question for our Reference Desk. The origin of many major Indian communities is shrouded in mystery and has been subject to many theories, eg: the Aryan invasion theory. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015

I know about "Jat History" very well.

and this line is not true in this article "Jat is one of the lowest caste in India those who used to be survive their livings by ploughing on the lands of Rajputs or Mughals"

Kindly send me the source address for this line and remove this line from website. It is really offending.

Abhisaharan (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove this line from 1st paragraph " Jat are one of the lowest class".

It is really offending and not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3654:4100:8FD:4CB6:FE30:F109 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Already done that line seems to have been added with this series of edits, and has since already been reverted. Cannolis (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nijjar, B. S.

I checked all of the references cited in the article in Google Scholar and noticed the ref by Nijjar, B. S. doesn't gets any GS hits at all. Solomon7968 08:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. This chap has also been discussed at WT:INB and some other venues in the past. Although he does appear to have been a historian, his efforts have attracted little or no attention and are at least in some respects out of kilter. Fowler&fowler was pretty certain that we should not use his work anywhere but, alas, is no longer active. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit URGENT!

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was NOT a Jat. This is factually incorrect. Also, please do NOT refer to him as the honorary 'Sant'. He was a controversial militant / terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagriclan (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Jaat

Remove Jaat word and source because source not an original research (Akhil Bhartiya Jaat Aarakshan Samiti) Organization name mistake in this article check other source (Akhil Bhartiya Jat Aarakshan Samiti) & (Akhil Bhartiya Jat Aarakshan Samiti). In south India & East India Jaat meaning Jāti--Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 20:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

182.186.236.39 (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Note able people in jutt families:

Muhammad Zafarullah Khan

Faiz Ahmad Faiz(Poet)

Liaquat Ali Khan

Hina Rabbani Khar(Politian)

Aminah Haq(Actress)

Ghulam Noor Rabbani Khar

Ghulam Mustafa Khar

Waqar Younis(Player)

Mohammad Irfan

Arfa Karim

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

Abrar Ul Haq(Singer)(Ali,2015).

• Without having an individual Wikipedia article, or Reliable sources to prove notability they cannot be added, as per notability. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015

Varna status is fake about jats, non of the reference proves that jats were shudra. Remove those line. Veer Rathee (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done the principal source cited - Encyclopedia of Medical Anthropology (2944 pages) - is a reliable source, whereas you are not citing any sources whatsoever to support your request - Arjayay (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2015

Hello Wikipedia Staff,

My name is Nicholas Grewal. I'm writing this message to you because after reading on "Jats" after being redirected from Jatt, I real very mis represented. I am a Grewal, making me a Punjabi Jatt with origins from the Indus Valley. Jatt's such as I are not mentioned or referenced much or at all in this article. , maybe not where you are yet because you don't know of us yet, however I hope you do a little research on the Jatts from Punjab such as the Grewal's, Gill's, Rai's, Dhillon's, Brar's, etc. I hope you understand where I am coming and why I may have been a little offended by reading this article. Thanks for taking the time to read my request.

Thanks and have a great day! Nicholas Grewal

184.147.104.167 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand your feelings on the lack of a mention, however editors cannot research information as you request, as that would constitute original research, which is not allowed on the project. What you need to do is provide the wording you wish to have placed in the article, along with a link to the source of the information. Please ensure though that it is not a direct copy of the source material, as that would create a cooyright issue. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please note, we write articles from a neutral point of view whereas phrases such as "Where I come from it means something great to be a Jatt" show you are not using a neutral point of view
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See Jatt

There is a duplicate Wikipedia article about the Jat people at Jatt. 64.134.65.105 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I redirected it to Jat people. 64.134.65.105 (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2015: Categories to add

Should any of the following categories be added?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jat_clans_of_Punjab

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Punjabi_tribes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Punjabi_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Punjabi_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jat_clans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_in_India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:North_India

64.134.65.105 (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Jat people. This should be discussed before making a request if nessecary. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation Number 73

Respected sir,

Under the section "VARNA SYSTEM" it is mentioned that Jat people were untouchables. This is wrongly stated here. The source is not authentic. It is mentioning jats as "SHUDRA" based on a statement given by M.N. Srinivas. It is offensive to the community. Because it is wrong as per the Ancient History Teachers of VAJIRAM AND RAVI (an institute of extreme repute for civil services exams preparation and holds the distinction of achieving "The all india 1st rank from 2000 to 2009, 2012 and 2014). I will try to give some reference about it as soon I find some, but in the meantime I request you to remove this "Untouchable" word from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineet mlk (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016

Change requested- addition of new line in history section.

After the line- The Jats are a paradigmatic example of community- and identity-formation in early modern Indian subcontinent. Plz add- However, according to KS Singh (former Director-General of Anthropological Survey of India), Jat people, as an ethnic group in history, can be traced back to 4th century BC.[2]. ASI's claims should also be heard by wikipedia on this one. 15:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You are violating WP:Balance by asking so! Yes, there are alternate views which are mentioned in the article, but why not add what an Indian official of the highest rank in ASI says. Do we need a consensus to add what a reliable source claim in the requested manner- with an 'however' preeceding the sentence! If any other anthropologist can be cited in the article, then why not the DG of ASI! Please reconsider! 08:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.35.152 (talk)

I have requested comments on whether Singh can be cited on wikipedia or not- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#K S Singh. If reliability of the source is establihed, it should be cited then. What an irony...even the ASI's DG would need to be commented upon on his reliability, possibly by far less qualified editors! 1.39.35.71 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

K. S. Singh says quite the opposite in a published book. And, the writing style, together with unjustified claims, is quite inferior to all other sources cited in our article. Note that Wikipedia pays no allegiance to any particular government, and whether a source is governmental source or not is quite irrelevant. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Kautilya3. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Bayly's description of Jats is misquoted and out of context

Bayly's description of Jats is misquoted and out of context as there as other academics which disagree with current description, for example Dr. Nicola Mooney - (the first McCain Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Anthropology, where she remains adjunct professor. Prior to her doctorate, she earned a Master of Museum Studies degree, and an honours Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Religious Studies, both from the University of Toronto.) (Rural Nostalgias and Transnational Dreams: Identity and Modernity Among Jat Sikhs (Anthropological Horizons) by Nicola Mooney (Sep 17, 2011) Pg.7) as well as by Prof. Eugenia Vanina (Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences) in Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man. Prof. Vania states there had been little difference between the lifestyle of Jat headmen and Rajput feudals which was gradually turned into the struggle of the Jat elite. Also to note: Eugenia Vanina states QUOTE: "Jats according to Habib's findings were in the 7th century viewed as lower-case close to the 'untouchables', in the 10th century as Shudras, in the subsequent centuries as lower strata of vaishyas, in the medieval period claimed, and with success kshatriya status." which goes far deeper then Bayly one liner which is actually pretty nonsensical in the overall article as it is a clear POV as there is no context and does not explain why when other sources and academics are stating something entirely different, and those sources are non British Raj sources and widely accepted throughout the academic community, I suspect someone has butchered the Bayly quote as it is absurd a Prof. would make such a claim without giving the proper framework and explanation, if Susan's Bayly's claim is that in its entrietly then it has to be balanced with the above sources I mentioned which are far more contextual and give the overall historical picture.

--185.125.169.24 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Please add the following picture to stress more on Ranjit Singh as he was the biggest ruler of the times inside the Jat Community

Darbar of Maharaja Ranjit Singh showing people of all religions.

Jagdeep (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not full abnd accurate

The link doesn't mentiin getae That's how I got here

^ W. W. Hunter, 2013, The Indian Empire: Its People, History and Products, Routledge, 2013, p. 251.^ a b Alexander Cunningham, 1888, cited by: Sundeep S. Jhutti, 2003, The Getes, Philadelphia, PA; Department of East Asian languages & Civilizations University of Pennsylvania, p. 13.^ a b Sundeep S. Jhutti, 2003, "The Getes", Sino-Platonic Papers, no. 127 (October), pp. 15–17. (Access: 18 March 2016).^ Sulimirski, Tadeusz (1970). The Sarmatians: Volume 73 of Ancient peoples and places. New York: Praeger. pp. 113–114. The evidence of both the ancient authors and the archaeological remains point to a massive migration of Sacian (Sakas)/Massagetan ("great" Jat) tribes from the Syr Daria Delta (Central Asia) by the middle of the second century B.C. Some of the Syr Darian tribes; they also invaded North India.^ Rishi, Weer Rajendra (1982). India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity. Roma. p. 95.^ Chakraberty, Chandra (1948). The prehistory of India: tribal migrations. Vijayakrishna Bros. p. 35.^ Chakraberty, Chandra (1997).Racial basis of Indian culture: including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Aryan Books International.ISBN 8173051100.^ The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 10 - Persia, Greece, and the Western Mediterranean Cambridge University Press, 1982. ISBN 978-0521228046 p 494

The article doesn't mention the link wirh getae or the migration to iraq which os on the footnotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleareng (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

jatt people are equal to mughlai

92.98.80.22 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Singla - is it a clan? A caste? A surname?

There is an open RfC at Talk:Singla that needs more input. At the moment, the article simply redirects to Singhal, but there is an anonymous editor who is strongly objecting to this, variously claiming that it's a Jatt caste, or "a clan in the Jatt caste". I don't know enough about the topic to make a judgement either way, and there has not been enough participation to get a clear consensus. Any help would be greatly appreciated! --Slashme (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

sir the request is that in jat people page , the varna system refers that according uma chakarvarti were untouchable in 8 century wiki is considering a lady who wrote so less in jats subject specifically. which is not even worth mentioning for jats and plus she didn,t give any logic or proof for that, THAKUR DESHRAJ a great historian in a specific field JATS he writes lot of books about jats and ancestral vlineages. if jats were untoucable then why all the rajputs have same gotre and rajput was term not known before 8 century and jat was very before them, please go through jatland which provide proof plus logic . who soever is reading this please give it a worth it matters to all 1 billion jats that you are dissapointing due to this . you must go through JATLAND website for more info.

Harsh siwach (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. All edit requests must be of the form "Change X to Y" and must be accompanied by reliable sources. And, note that web sites are not reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

defining functional reasons in military section

The Jats are an Aryan people belonging to India. They did not come from Sindh but are found in several states of the Indian subcontinent. In mythology they are referred to have from the locks of Lord Shiva. The are excellent fighters and agriculturists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.242.154 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think, explanation given below should be added in military section next to "The Indian Army admitted in 2013 that the 150-strong Presidential Bodyguard comprises only people who are Hindu Jats, Jat Sikhs and Hindu Rajputs. Refuting claims of discrimination, it said that this was for "functional" reasons rather than selection based on caste or religion". As functional reasons are not clear and they should be mentioned as already there has been a case on this in Supreme Court of India.

Suggested addition:- As per the affidavit filed by Indian Army in Supreme Court, "Presidential Bodyguard is a small unit of approximately 150 troops which is placed under the President's Secretariat. Unlike what its name suggests, it is purely a ceremonial unit tasked to perform ceremonies as per the protocol at the Rashtrapati Bhawan. The ceremonial duties demand common height, built, appearance and dress for reason of pomp and projection which are important military attributes while performing such duties."

References

Jats are not Aryan, they are an Indo-Aryan group with mixed origins and they originate from the lower valley of Sindh and probably migrated towards Punjab during the Islamic Invasions of India. Lord Shiva is not a source btw, its mythology. Akmal94 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2016

Nishannt (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC) jats are lower caste

 Not done Please indicate exactly what you would like to change and where in the article you would like to see the change. And please provide a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Sources suggest that Jatts are descended from the Scythians that can be termed Jatt-Scythians or Sikh-Scythians or Sikh Jatt-Scythians. Here are the sources [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

I request that this information be added in the relationship section in this article.

Peeta Singh (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Reliable sources for history are expected to be WP:HISTRS. None of your sources is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarify

""The Indian Army admitted in 2013 that the 150-strong Presidential Bodyguard comprises only people who are Hindu Jats, Jat Sikhs and Hindu Rajputs. Refuting claims of discrimination, it said that this was for "functional" reasons rather than selection based on caste or religion.""

Jaats have been included because of the color of their dress and the attire needed for the duty. Please correct it. It does not reflect the reality and may misguide people. Indian constitution does not allow any such discrimination.

If one is mentioning functional reason then those reasons should be specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirtimaansyal (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Givnot givenof this article is based on light research and hypotheticals and assertion ?

Are these valid sources ?

^ W. W. Hunter, 2013, The Indian Empire: Its People, History and Products, Routledge, 2013, p. 251.^ a b Alexander Cunningham, 1888, cited by: Sundeep S. Jhutti, 2003, The Getes, Philadelphia, PA; Department of East Asian languages & Civilizations University of Pennsylvania, p. 13.^ a b Sundeep S. Jhutti, 2003, "The Getes", Sino-Platonic Papers, no. 127 (October), pp. 15–17. (Access: 18 March 2016).^ Sulimirski, Tadeusz (1970). The Sarmatians: Volume 73 of Ancient peoples and places. New York: Praeger. pp. 113–114. The evidence of both the ancient authors and the archaeological remains point to a massive migration of Sacian (Sakas)/Massagetan ("great" Jat) tribes from the Syr Daria Delta (Central Asia) by the middle of the second century B.C. Some of the Syr Darian tribes; they also invaded North India.^ Rishi, Weer Rajendra (1982). India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity. Roma. p. 95.^ Chakraberty, Chandra (1948). The prehistory of India: tribal migrations. Vijayakrishna Bros. p. 35.^ Chakraberty, Chandra (1997).Racial basis of Indian culture: including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Aryan Books International.ISBN 8173051100.^ The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 10 - Persia, Greece, and the Western Mediterranean Cambridge University Press, 1982. ISBN 978-0521228046 p 494

Its not clear why these are deemed not related by premise and syllogism but modern greeks and contemporary are ?

There are ample sources linking jatts to

Hittite Mittani aryan saka persian partian hun kushans mongol tartar

Too, jatts have traversed the punjab to central asia to the rest of the sub b continent for millenia and these people are a mix through migration, war, trade or alliances

Cleareng (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A recent discussion (permalink) at WP:RSN has yet again confirmed the consensus that Raj era sources, such as W. W. Hunter and Cunningham, are not reliable for articles such as this, with extremely limited exceptional circumstances. The same, of course, would apply to the works of the ancient Greek and Chinese travellers etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please address all the references As long as the referenceas are qualified as ancient or Chinese Any possible bias is clear Moreover the sources do jot differ greatly from the sources cited, or indeed, their sources Cleareng (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How is the mythical chachnama relevant ? Cleareng (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Scythian immigration theory has long been discredited. It however, appeals the vanity of many North Indians. Sadly, their ancestors were herding animals in the great Indus backwater, not in Eurasia, and before that, like all humans, even Scythian, they were hunting and gathering in Africa. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Which point are you responding to, there are a number of references above ?

Sadly for whom ? Discredited by whom ?

Are you saying saka's did not inhabit northern the sub continent ?

Are you saying the same for Hittite Mittani aryan persian kushans hun ?

Please provide your evidence because you're obviously the only person in the world with 20 20 ?

Cleareng (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually can't work out what you were trying to get across in your opening comment of this section. So it is no surprise if you, too, are now confused. You gave a bunch of sources for something that you never really made clear, and I responded that some of those sources are definitely not ok to use. That said, resorting to insults as you have just done is not likely to advance whatever cause it is that you are wanting to pursue here. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Its quite obvious (Typos to one side)

Are these sources valid ?

You imply one source isn't but don't address the rest?

Even those sources where factually The view of the British EECo in the 18 th century

If you want to maintain a page you need to consider all sources

Im struggling to understand the need for your bias, please explain ? Cleareng (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sulimirski, Tadeusz (1970). The Sarmatians: Volume 73 of Ancient peoples and places. New York: Praeger. pp. 113–114. The evidence of both the ancient authors and the archaeological remains point to a massive migration of Sacian (Sakas)/Massagetan ("great" Jat) tribes from the Syr Daria Delta (Central Asia) by the middle of the second century B.C. Some of the Syr Darian tribes; they also invaded North India.

 Rishi, Weer Rajendra (1982). India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity. Roma. p. 95

Are they valid ? If not why not? How can you have a reference that cites a view on the chachnana but argue these aren't valid ? Cleareng (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Afghanistan and recent changes to the lead

These edits introduced Afghanistan but also seem to have significantly modified the structure and (to a lesser extent) content of the lead section. Given the contentious nature of this article and the relatively settled nature of the lead, I suspect those changes should be opened to discussion first. That's why I reverted. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am pinging Fowler&fowler because they were at the heart of thrashing out the lead more or less as it currently stands and at a time when this article was incredibly unstable due to sockpuppets etc. That's why it now has editing restrictions. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, @Sitush:. That was a long time ago! Good times. As for Jats in Afghanistan, the only thing I can think, off the top of my head, is that "Jat" is also used in Central Asia and the Middle East for Gypsies/Roma, Dom, etc, i.e. nomads whose ancestors came out of India centuries ago, and spread westward, settling in many countries, including probably Afghanistan. I don't think those "Jats" have any relation to the subjects of the article, or perhaps they have the kinds of connections that belong to footnotes. Will look for some sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why can't this be added The title of this is jat? Are jat, jatt zutt the same or not where is the argument presented for the view they are or are not gypsy ? Cleareng (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Are views based on the chachnama valid ?

Jackson, Peter (2003), The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History, Cambridge University Press, p. 15, ISBN 978-0-521-54329-3, retrieved13 November 2011 Quote: "... Nor can the liberation that the Muslim conquerors offered to those who sought to escape from the caste system be taken for granted. … a caliphal governor of Sind in the late 830s is said to have … (continued the previous Hindu requirement that) … the Jats, when walking out of doors in future, to be accompanied by a dog. The fact that the dog is an unclean animal to both Hindu and Muslim made it easy for the Muslim conquerors to retain the status quoregarding a low-caste tribe. In other words, the new regime in the eighth and ninth centuries did not abrogate discriminatory regulations dating from a period of Hindu sovereignty; rather, it maintained them. (page 15)" Cleareng (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jat people. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827070315/http://www.patialaheritage.in/in/history.html to http://patialaheritage.in/in/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312131306/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Minorities-done-government-turns-focus-on-Jat-quota/Article1-797307.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Minorities-done-government-turns-focus-on-Jat-quota/Article1-797307.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation on background of Jatts to be a pastoral community which is false

As quoted in notes"jat contained large numbers of non-elite tillers. In the Punjab and the western Gangetic Plains, convention defined the Rajput's non-elite counterpart as a Jat. Like many similar titles used elsewhere, this was not so much a caste name as a broad designation for the man of substance in rural terrain. … To be called Jat has in some regions implied a background of pastoralism, though it has more commonly been a designation of non-servile cultivating people"...firstly pastoralism has not been proved to be major background of Jatts as has been pointed above also that what Rajput meant was class of people who disagreed to be slaves....also the background of Jatts does not mention the fact that the tribe migrated from the Indus river from another country outside of India and were never Indian to begin with. You have merely portrayed Jatt as a caste more so as a backward caste.

Either remove Jaat from Jatt discussion or specifically mention the history and include that Jatt is not a backward caste.

This is total misinformation. All things you say are in reference to Hindu Rulers and the history prior to Rajput has been ignored. Avitravis (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Jats is community which found in south Asia musty in Northern India and part of Pakistan. Basically as per sources and information available in the early Indus Valley civilization and vedic books in India Jats were the main community of Indus Valley Civilization. They lived on the bank of river Indus and River Saraswati(now not in existence). Due to climatic changes they kept shifting from one place to other, mostly on the banks of rivers. The epic Books of Hindu mythologies such as Rigveda, Ramayana ,Mahabharata, mentions about the Jats. It is said and believed that Shri Hunuman was also Jat. The Baluchs of Baluchistan and Multanis of Multan in Pakistan are also Jats, refer to link https://www.archive.org/stream/glossaryoftribes03rose#page/n19/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsingh2000 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How many more people are going to comment here without reading what has already been said? We DO NOT use Raj sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, what do mean by Raj sources. as regards to the reference referred by me above is book written based on survey conducted by editor of book about the castes and tribes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsingh2000 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See my note of 8 February above. If you do not understand it, you probably should find some other Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sitush|, I seen and read your 8 Februry post as mentioned above. It early does not matter as to whether the reference book or find is in circulation or not. we have to see the contents are they reliable or not. As per my survey and travel research the castes of Jats as mentioned in the referred glossary do exist as of now and for updates of information on any community is from old and present customs. The referred book was written in year 1911 such findings Jats castes and tribe which are also prevailingas of now cannot be ignored while updating page.Rmsingh2000 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, if you do not understand that post from February and the links that it contains, Wikipedia (or at least the English-language version of it) is probably not the place for you. Your own research is irrelevant and the community has agreed for years that we do not use Rose etc as sources. This is the end of the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2017

Jagat jit singh (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the Archive >> Talk:Jat/Archive 1 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJat%2FArchive_1

There is a paragraph (repeated below) by Budrak where a sanskrit shloka is quoted to connect the Jats with Emperor Chandragupta Maurya.

Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata

The Sanskrit word Jata used here means "coming from/ born into/born of/ originatng from" . The Sanskrit root word is Ja= to give birth. It is a verb, not a noun. It has no association with the race/ tribe/ community of Jatt/ Jaat/ Jat. The correct translation is " The Mauryas come from the Kshatriya family (Vamsha can be translated into family or race)

The sanskrit root word Ja (to give birth) has parallels in English as in pro-gen-y, gen-etics, gen-eration

Mr Budrak would not have been confused by the word if he had read the shloka in sanskrit (or devanagari) script. in the word jata in sanskrit , both "a" are pronounced as the 'a' in tall and the letter "t" is a soft sound similar to the "tete-e-tete" in french, not the hard sound of t as in tomato. To be more technical , in Sanskrit , the T in jata belongs to the "dant" (dental) set of consonants and the T in Jat belongs to the "talavya" (palatal) set of consonants.

Hence jata in the shloka is definitely not referring to the race/ community of Jats.

---

The referred paragraph is

Jat in Mahavamsa Dear John Hill, Thanks for the suggestions. There is a need to find some solid historical fact. That is why I put it for discussion. I found that you have done a good work in Buddhist literature. Most of the Jats had adopted Buddhism when it was at peak. There is a need to research the Buddhist literature about origin and history of Jats. Mahavansha, provides a continuous historical record of over two millennia. At one point I find a comment about Chandragupta Maurya as under- "Mahavamsa describes Chandragupta as coming of Kshatriya clan of Maurya: Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata. (Geiger Trans p 27)." The meaning of this shloka in sanskrit is that Mauryas are Jat of kshatriya clan. Can you suggest further approach about this and links which provide material on Jats in Buddhist literature or traditions. burdak 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayjo (talk • contribs)

Ajayjo (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ajayjo

"""it said that this was for "functional" reasons rather than selection based on caste or religion""" is it possible to write it in English??

Presidential guards were based on general attire that includes clothes and similar characteristics of selected regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.98.200 (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jat people. 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66s7nr99F?url=http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/january/21/india_news/history_of_punjab_politics_jats_do_it.html to http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/january/21/india_news/history_of_punjab_politics_jats_do_it.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019040904/http://www.firstpost.com/hina-rabbani-khar/video/foreign-minister-hina-rabbani-khar/3753808q03h1H0MiMB11.html to http://www.firstpost.com/hina-rabbani-khar/video/foreign-minister-hina-rabbani-khar/3753808q03h1H0MiMB11.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jat people. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907045829/http://patiala.nic.in/html/history.htm to http://patiala.nic.in/html/history.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Source bias: some obvious doubts, interesting observation applicable to all AJGAR-like caste articles

Note: Out of respect for readers time and effort, I have made the bold summary-headings self-descriptive. Skip the details, if not interested in this topic. Read all 5 points in full if you chose to comment. I have broken the points separately, you can elect to reply to a specific-point only. Please avoid knee-jerk replies. Thanks.

A quick glance at sources shows the source bias.

1/5. All "Further reading" sources are western: Out of 23 "further reading", almost all by the western authors. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

2/5. Citations 90% western 7% non-jat, 3% jats: Out of 75 citations, 80% to 90% are by western sources, remaining 15-17% are non-jat Indians or pakistanis and barely 2 or 3 Jat authors. Where the Jat sources have been used, they have been used in non-contentious banal passages and all "interpretative claims" that could be contested have been attributed to non-Jats. There is a pattern here. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

3/5. Understand how identity works: find notable sources accordingly to add due balance Any group has several types of identities.

(3a) Self-identity: How they see themselves and how their authors and scribes write their history and identity. Jat sources of their self-identity are totally excluded here. This creates a big potential for the "systematic" bias.

(3b) As viewed by peers and adversaries: How their peers and adversaries see them. Adversaries and people formerly subjugated by a tribe have reasons for the motives/POV/biases. This might be at play here specially with synthesised dubious pov original-research like statement and cherry-picking sources that portrays jats in a light that is not congruent with 360-degree, due-balance, combining-all-good and notable sources from all perspectives.

(3c) As viewed by the unrelated and unbiased 3rd parties: Plenty of western sources here but are they all notable? Subject matter experts with due depth? First, many of these overwhelmingly represented western sources might not be unbiased specially the colonial types (lords with "white man's burden" as the savior of the old world "heathen" and "savage" brownies). Second, some of the western sources might just be regurgitating the fluffy POV from the leftist-fringe-revered-as-mainstream Indian/dalit/rival-caste sources editing martial caste articles. Third, all of these western sources then might be supported by the "rival casteist pov editors" and/or "mandal-commission traditionally-dalits (excluding neo-dalits of AJGAR)" with conscious and subconscious grudge against so called the "martial castes" in their own contemporary assertion of dalit rights/identity. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

4/5. Potential "largest" cause of the systematic source and content selection bias: Dalit-leftist editors bias perhaps?

(4a) Similar pattern on AJGAR/martial caste articles: It rather seems like a similar smartly-biased pattern on most caste based articles of "martial" and "martial-like"/equal/similar castes. What is going on here? Dalit-leftist war of assertion of identity rights (by heavily banking on the cherry-picked western sources) with a mindset of "if I did not get my rights/respect in the past, I will drown/derogate/dilute others identity pride too" kind of bias?

(4b) Make oneself big by enhancing thyself, not by cutting others down: Two ways to become bigger than others, cut others down or make oneself bigger. Making jats/rajputs/bhumihar/AJGAR, etc pay by making them smaller by introducing a systematic source and content selection bias on their articles is not the right way for dalits/leftists/naive-liberals to find self-secure and confident self-identity.

(4c) Bias and inferiority complex work in several ways: Casteism and racism are bad. Supremacist is a type of inferiority complex, e.g. my caste is superior. Holding grudges, trying to make oneself big, fighting for own rights by denying others their due rights, respect or pride is "perpetual inferiority complex". Dalits and previously oppressed groups can not become big if they hold the inferiority complex of totally excluding others self-identity (no due balance). It ruins the fun of creating or contributing to wikipedia. I stand for everyone's egalitarian rights, dalits, GLBT, feminist only to the extent where their rights do not come at the expense of others fair and equal-opportunity due rights. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

5/5. AJGAR/dalit-leftist editors soul searching: All editors need to search their soul. AJGARs, please do not embellish with fluff. Dalits and leftists, please do not dilute the AJGAR's respect/pride/self-dentity by the systematic selection bias by keeping out self-identity AJGAR sources, and apply the same-and-consistent notability criteria for inclusion/exclusion of AJGAR sources that you have applied to all other non-AJGAR sources. Food for thoughts. Thanks you. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It is simpler than this. See WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with reliable sources guidelines, my concern is mainly with cherry picking sources and harder-to-catch smart distortions. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the text: Biased source, poor synthesis based on limited study

The text attributed to Uma Chakravarti is contentious. Remove it.

Rationale: No balance, undue, poor source, bad rephrasing/synthesis, dubious, agenda/pov.

1. Uma is not an expert on jats: She is an expert on Buddhist studies, not on jat history. She is not an expert of this subject matter, which makes her poor source/subject-matter-expert on this topic.

2. Synthesised by Uma and then worse resynthesised by editor: The link to citation takes read to this passage which is not same as the text included in the article. This is highly and unacceptably synthesised phrasing.

3. Limited context dubiously extrapolated to all: Uma's own observation (point 14 in the link) is bases on her reading of S.N. Srinivas (point 16). Srinivas's study is extremely limited to the castes of "Rampur", limited in scope, context, geographical reach. Basically his book is not at all representative sample of jats, in depth or breadth. This is extremely dubious statement for her to make, and even worse for editors to UNDUElyextrapolate it to apply to all jats with No balance.

4. Source does not say what the article includes: This chain of 2 poor sources cherrypicked and synthesised badly has led to a contentious passage currently included the article which is not at all in line with the [poor] sources due to the "chain" of pov synthesis. Multiple points of failure by uma, srinivas and editor.

5. Radical "fringe" goes "mainstream": She is radical "feminist" and "leftist". When did this kind of "fringe" became "mainstream"? This is absurd.

6. Do not grind axes: Low quality fringe source (Uma) quoting another limited-context study of Srinivas, and then synthesised by editor in very questionable manner. How did it get incorporated here? No pushing of POV agenda please.

Take Action, Registered editors: please remove the following passage from the "Varna status" section
Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, and with some Jats striving for zamindar status after the Jat rebellion of the 17th century.

Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. If you think Uma Chakravarti got it wrong, you need to find alternative reliable sources that say so. Your opinion is not enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Its not my opinion. The text attributed to Uma Charavarti should not get into this article in first place. Because the text/claim (that i have asked to be deleted) currently included in this article is not in line with the source. Anything that is not in line with the source, needs to be deleted. That is very simple and straightforward. Inserting the distorted POV text, by simply plugging it against some author who did not even say those things in the source cited, is a big no. In case it gets reinstated please address all my concerns point by point, I have put ample effort to explain my objections. A vague simply because IP complained [so ignore it] is not a good enough reason to brush away those concerns without addressing those. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

Delete the dubious synthesised pov passage, not in line with sources and sources are poor quality. Secondary and fringe source is not notable (fringe/radical/fiminist-leftist Uma is neither the subject matter expert on jats and nor the unbiased source). Even primary source Srinivas quoted by the secondary source Uma is "limited context" to Rampur which has been inaccurately extrapolated to all jats. The worse part is the synthesis by editor (which might not be delibrate). How did it get included here? Wikipedia guidelines insist on notability, due balance and no-bias, etc and yet [due to such dubious passages] wikipedia itself is considered a bad/taboo source in the academic world. See the detailed objection/rationale here and delete the passage below (from Varna status section).

Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, and with some Jats striving for zamindar status after the Jat rebellion of the 17th century. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reinstated it. Sorry, Uma Chakravarti is a well-known scholar and her observations cannot be deleted, just because an IP complains. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why reinstate? The text attributed to Uma Charavarti should not get into this article in first place. Because the text/claim (that I have asked to be deleted) currently included in this article is not in line with the source. Anything that is not in line with the source, needs to be deleted. That is very simple and straightforward. Inserting the distorted POV text, by simply plugging it against some author who did not even say those things in the source cited, is a big no. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Gap in article: between migration from Sindh to post-mughal rule

Please insert the following sourced text. Feel free to rephrase/correct. Also, I am not sure of the conventions if M and S should be lowercase in Mughal and Sultanate, please correct as per applicable guidelines.

_____ Below this line ______

Jats were in a stronger standing during the Mughal period than that of Saltanate. According to Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak's Ain-i-Akbari (1595 CE), during the 16th century of a total of 8 sarkars and 232 parganas of Delhi subah and 13 sarkars and 203 parganas of Agra subah, Jats had zamidari of 64 and 22 parganas respectively.

_____ Above this line ______

Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

I don't understand what you are wanting to say here. Are you trying to say that the Jats were stronger than the Mughals? In any event, your first source is not reliable as it appears on Beall's list of predatory journals. I am also fairly sure that the second source has been deemed to be unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

"the Jat community saw radical social changes in the 17th century, when the Hindu Jats took up arms"

is incorrect, it was sikh Jats that took up arms against the Mughal Empire under the leadership of Guru Gobind Singh Ji AyushisTyagi (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The cited Avari source clearly states that the Hindu Jats were the first to take up arms. Sikhs etc certainly did oppose the Mughals eventually, as the source also mentions, but the impetus seems to have come from the Hindus. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

Hi, I would like to add that Chottu Ram was a Jatt. Anti4ITCELL (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Need permission to edit

Kindly Sir, I need permission to edit some, there is some unclear information added to article, i am a professor of history Professor. Dev Yadav (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

42.106.20.193 (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2017

An article with an agenda. Not acceptable by genuine experts on India. The Jats are an indigenous Aryan Race of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.217.74 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

please change jat to jaat 103.217.245.145 (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Why? Jat seems to be the more WP:COMMONNAME Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No change needed: Jat is the most common spelling in the historic as well as contemporary usage. All other variations Jutt, jatt, jaat are already redirected here. Casteism is bad, and on top harping over the minor-in-usage spellings is not good. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sir maharaja ranjit singh is a sikh jatt please add maharaja ranjit singh and kaputhala reasat jatt Gurpreetsingh56 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Jathera worship is not restricted to Jats

The following line needs editing:

"Jats pray to their dead ancestors, a practice which is called Jathera"

Jathera worship in common among many other caste groups in Punjab. It is not uniquely Jat trait. Here is a reference on Jathera worship found in Dalit castes:

Singh, S. (2016). Dalits in Punjab: Cultural Assertion and Heritage Reconstruction. South Asia Research, 36(3), 356-376.

You can easily find references for other rural castes, high or low, in Punjab who also have the culture of Jathera worship. Please edit this accordingly.

--Brhamos (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The article does not say it is unique to Jats. If we go down the road that you suggest, we will be saying that "they breathe" in every article about mammals etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Quotation from Encyclopædia Britannica should be edited, as its population estimates are out of date

From an older article on Jats from Encyclopædia Britannica, the following is quoted: In the early 21st century the Jat constituted about 20 percent of the population of Punjab, nearly 10 percent of the population of Balochistan, Rajasthan, and Delhi, and from 2 to 5 percent of the populations of Sindh, Northwest Frontier, and Uttar Pradesh. The four million Jat of Pakistan are mainly Muslim; the nearly six million Jat of India are mostly divided into two large castes of about equal strength: one Sikh, concentrated in Punjab, the other Hindu.

But some of its parts don't make any sense. For example, it is written that there are just nearly six million Jats in India, whereas in the previous sentence, it is stated that they constitute 10 percent of the population of Rajasthtan, which alone will come to around seven million Jats. Moreover, Encyclopædia Britannica itself has removed these estimates on Aug 04, 2016.

Therefore, it is requested that the following updated text should be substituted from the Britannica article :

In the early 21st century the Jats constituted about one-fourth of the populations of Punjab and Haryana; nearly 10 percent of the population of Balochistan, Rajasthan, and Delhi; and from 2 to 5 percent of the populations of Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Uttar Pradesh. The Jats of Pakistan are mainly Muslim by faith. The Jats of India are mostly divided into two large communities of about equal size: one Sikh, concentrated in Punjab, and the other Hindu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.229.62 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Encyclopædia Britannica is not a quality source, and reliable secondary sources are preferred over it, as mentioned at WP:RS/P – see Encyclopædia Britannica's entry at WP:RS/P#Sources. I have surely seen academic sources which have state-wise population estimates of Indian Jats. In fact, one of the cited sources of this article – namely ref 14 of the present version – also has the population-related details. Here's the relevant quote from it regarding their overall population estimates in South Asia (in 2009):

According to recent population estimates, the total population of Jats in South Asia is roughly 30 million. This population projection is based on information collected during the 1931 Census, which was the last to report caste affiliation. At that time an estimated 8 million Jats lived mostly in India and Pakistan. The current estimates are proportional projections based on the region's total population growth.

So, we don't need to use Britannica for the information which has already been covered in the modern academic sources. And we shouldn't use the non-HISTRS, unreliable, speculations from Indian media. Anyway, I will provide their state-wise estimation in the coming days. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2019

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It is not up to others to find sources for you but you should provide them yourself. This especially applies to points 2-4 of your request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hello dear Wikipedians, can anyone tell me that where the below lines of this page are written in the cited sources:

BELOW THIS LINE

---

1. "degraded Kshatriyas" who, as they did not observe Brahmanic rites and rituals, had fallen to the status of Shudra.
2. Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, and with some Jats striving for zamindar status after the Jat rebellion of the 17th century.

---

ABOVE THIS LINE

I din't find above information in the both cited sources. May be both are false, please check the sources and make changes accordingly. Ashok (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I can't even see the sources but I do know that I have seen the "degraded kshatriya" bit elsewhere. The article has had a lot of edit warring in the past, so it is possible that citations have got mangled. I'll try to go through the history tomorrow to work out when these things were introduced and who did it. If I don't update here please remind me. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It first appeared here on 14 March 2010 but with some different sources. The account that added it is no longer active. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the Uma Chakravarty book is linking to the wrong page. I can't see p. 23, which is what it does link to, but I can see p. 106. I'm too tired to check it word-for-word right now but it's definitely on the right lines. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

AshokTodawata, you are correct regarding the first source. It doesn't mention the "degraded" bit. Here's the relevant quote from it:

There is considerable disagreement among scholars over the caste ranking of the Hindu Jats. Throughout the 1900s, several scholars and Jat politicians and activists have used three very different labels for Jat identity. While some have identified the Jats as members of the warrior group (Kshatriya) (Qanungo, 1982), others have argued that they belong to the “backward castes.” Freed and Freed (1993) argue that until 1958, the Jats were not considered members of the three twice-born varnas. Instead, the Jats were ranked as “clean menial workers” (Shudras). Some suggest that the Jats rank below the Rajputs in the warrior group primarily because of the practice of widow remarriage (Lewis, 1965).

But, as mentioned by Sitush, the "degraded kshatriya" bit has appeared elsewhere. Here's a quote from one such source:

The Sudras or Shudras, or fourth varna, included the servile indigenous castes, who were not entitled to the initiation ceremony of rebirth, and were, therefore, not twice-born. Below the Sudras, divided into clean and unclean Sudras, were the untouchables. There was also a connection between the first three varnas and the Indo-European invaders of the Rigvedic age. The Jats are believed to have entered India during the Scythian invasions,² and are accorded Sudra status in the Hindu hierarchy. Indera P. Singh³ points out the tradition that in the Vedic period the Jats were degraded from their position of Kshatriyas to Sudras by the Brahmans as a punishment for defying the Brahmans.

I could've provided the full quote, but the remaining part just contains the basic details of caste hierarchy.

BTW, Marenco has cited Indera P. Singh of Delhi University. Although I am not sure, Marenco may have cited Singh's this work, as its page no. 495 (or the chapter's 17th page) states:

The predominance among the Sikhs of Jats, whose hatred against Brahmans seems to be traditional, has been another cause of the break away from Brahmans. As long ago as the Vedic period, Jats were degraded from their position of Ksatriyas to "Sat Sudras" by Brahmans as a punishment for defying Brahmans. The Jats of the Hindi speaking part of the Panjab, of Delhi, and of Uttar Pradesh do not seem to have much respect for Brahmans either.

Note that anyone can register free of cost at JSTOR and read the above chapter of Indera P. Singh.

I will look at the second source tomorrow. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Ah, Sitush has already provided the appropriate link and page no. of the second source. The author states that Jats "appear to be untouchables/chandalas in the Sindh region in the eight century", but she didn't explain the context or reason for her speculation. I mean she didn't state that Jats were untouchables: they just seemed like that way to her in a particular context. I guess there might be other sources which label Jats as untouchable with proper context and details, although I couldn't find any such source in my cursory search today. Note that, as far as I can recall from a previously read source, Jats were put under some restrictions by few rulers at a particular period in Sindh, and those restrictions were similar to the ones which were applied to untouchables. But they were applied on Jats to curb their rebellious nature, not because of them being untouchables. Anyway, I will try to find an appropriate source. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition of alternative spelling

Jat(also spelled:Jatt and Jaat) should be added as they were previously present. They are commonly used spellings.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

Jats have been owners of the lands they tilled, and took these lands historically by occupying them in hostile manner. Jats have always challenged and refused to pay any taxes on their lands, even when they were annexed, and word"Peasant" doesn't fit the description to land owning community. Peasant applies only when a person is tilling land owned by someone else. 106.51.29.188 (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please clearly state what change you would like to see. You also need to provide reliable sources that support your change. --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

"Traditionally involved in "warfare" and agriculture, the Jat community "has been wilding arms at the north west frontiers of Sub Continent from ancient times, when they settled here, republic by their customs, Jats have constantly refused to accept supremacy of one over others, and never elected kings to rule them. Adept at warfare , they opposed and killed many a invading leaders in their territory including famous ones like Mohammed Ghori. Jats revolted against unjust rule and did even adopt buddhism and sikhism as means to consolidate themselves and rise against prevalent kingdoms. Before settling as land holding farmers, Jats were occupied as warriors by major kings and kingdoms, right from central asia till north west India, where they finally settled by occupying most fertile lands. Jats saw radical social changes in the 17th century, when the Hindu Jats took up arms against the Mughal Empire during the late 17th and early 18th century.[4][5] The Hindu Jat kingdom reached its zenith under Maharaja Suraj Mal of Bharatpur (1707–1763).[6] The Jat community of the Punjab region played an important role in the development of the martial Khalsa Panth of Sikhism; they are more commonly known as the Jat Sikhs.[7]" 122.171.55.17 (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sceptre (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus However, there is a consensus for the disambiguation page to be at Jat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on further review, there is no consensus for either move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Jat people → Jat – Jat is a redirect with target Jat people. If "Jat people" is the primary topic for "Jat" then the article should occupy the base name title. (If, however, there is no primary topic for "Jat" then the disambiguation page Jat (disambiguation) should be moved to Jat). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Move disambiguation to base name - No primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• The article shouldn't be moved to Jat because articles for ethnic groups are normally titled with either the plural (Jats) or with the natural disambiguator (Jat people, the current title) – see WP:NCET. According to this guideline, Jats might be slightly preferable, but it's all ultimately down to which form is more common in sources. As for the suggestion to move the dab page over to the primary title, that's not on the table: there is a very clear primary topic, the Jats are one of the major ethnic groups of South Asia, and the dab page only lists a couple of fairly obscure other topics (just look at the pageviews). – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Move disambigaution page to base page title per User:Zxcvbnm -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – This article is clearly the primary topic here, as it has been continuously getting extensive coverage in scholarly sources as well as in Indian media for many decades (under the titles of Jat people, Jats, and Jat). Actually, this topic has been getting coverage for several centuries, although the sources from pre-Indian independence era are now considered outdated. No other listed topic has received such coverage both quality-wise and quantity-wise. Also, the article's present title is also suitable as explained by Uanfala in their policy-based rationale. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC) cross out the inadvertent misrepresentation of Uanfala's comment. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

After having another look at the sources, Jats is indeed the most appropriate title, as it is used most frequently for the subject, along with meeting WP:NCET. So, move to Jats. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose or move to Jats. Jat is a singular or adjective; Jats is the name of the people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origins of Jats

Hello, Oldperson. Recently, you added some problematic content here while trying to help an anonymous user at WP:Teahouse. I will revert you as this project neither accepts non-scholarly, outdated, Raj-era sources nor genetic studies for caste/community/ethnicity-related details. Actually, the genetic report cited by you has sourced its content from Jatland.com (which is an unreliable open wiki & is listed at spam-blacklist), Ram Swarup Joon, Raj-era sources, Indian media, etc. And pretty much all of them are considered unrelaible for caste-related articles on this project: see here and here. If that wasn't enough, they even cited a WP user who isn't even a scholar. In fact, these type of genetic studies aren't even linked externally in articles like this one – see here for a relevant recent discussion. In short, we rely on just scholarly sources for caste-related articles, although we do use media reports for government's caste-related relevant notifications—see WP:HISTRS for sourcing standards.

Regarding the origin of gypsies, this is what a modern, scholarly source states:

Although the European gypsies are known to have originated in northwestern India, being apparently descended from a lowly caste of genealogists and minstrels called the Mirasi or Dom (from the latter are derived the terms Rom and Romany), there is no evidence to link the criminal tribes with this particular caste.

As far as origin of Jats is concerned, the Aryan/Scythian stuff is indeed covered in scholarly sources. But as already explained, your unreliably sourced study cannot be used for that purpose. So here are few scholarly sources for these details:

1) Aparna Rao (1992)

Little is known about the early history of the Jat, although several theories were advanced by various scholars over the last 100 years. While some authors argue that they are descendants of the first Indo-Aryans, others suggest that they are of Indo-Scythian stock and entered India toward the beginning of the Christian era. ... In other scholarly debates about the origins of the Jat, attempts have been made to identify them with the Jarttikā, referred to in the Hindu epic the Mahābhārata.

Note: Dr. Aparna Rao has extensively researched on South Asian nomads, pastoralists, etc. And here is her profile: [9]

2) Stephen Fuchs (1973)

The overall analysis of the nomadic tribes in northern India suggests that they fall into three main categories: (a) one group belongs to a basically primitive foodgathering and hunting stage of culture; (b) the second group belongs to a more advanced culture of jungle dwellers and primitive cultivators, akin perhaps to the Doms, and the aborigines of north-eastern India in their past; and (c) a third group which probably belonged to originally predatory nomadic tribes, immigrants from central Asia, such as the Jats and Rajputs.

Note: This source's Google Scholar Citation Index is 214

3) Rima Hooja (2006)

Jambho-ji provided help to the people and their animals, and became known for this as much as for his piety. Probably he had already started putting his eco-friendly tenets into practice. In the early winter of 1485 November, he formally initiated his uncle, Poolo, as first his disciple. His following grew rapidly thereafter, taking on the shape of a distinct sect. Followers came from different castes and sub-castes, and included the Jats (probably descendants of the Scythians who entered India in early historical times), Rajputs, merchants, as well as lesser castes.

Note: Dr.Hooja's profile: [10]

4) Marenco

The Sudras or Shudras, or fourth varna, included the servile indigenous castes, who were not entitled to the initiation ceremony of rebirth, and were, therefore, not twice-born. Below the Sudras, divided into clean and unclean Sudras, were the untouchables. There was also a connection between the first three varnas and the Indo-European invaders of the Rigvedic age. The Jats are believed to have entered India during the Scythian invasions,² and are accorded Sudra status in the Hindu hierarchy. Indera P. Singh³ points out the tradition that in the Vedic period the Jats were degraded from their position of Kshatriyas to Sudras by the Brahmans as a punishment for defying the Brahmans.

5) William A. Noble (1987)

As Jats are considered to be the descendants of Aryans, it follows that the houses of the Jats in the Upper Ganga-Yamuna Doab result from the changes. To avoid confusion over its meaning and the dreadful connotation which the word Aryan was linked with during World War II, I will instead use the term Indo-Aryan to encompass people with related languages who came from Inner Eurasia into Iran and India, and who had a strong pastoral bent. While Jat origins will probably remain an unsolved mystery, Westphal-Hellbusch and Westphal (1964: particularly 94-99) present a realistic yet simple historical analysis. Apart from their evidence for ancient pastoral ties between Jats, buffaloes and camels, they consider Jat ancestry going back to the earliest lndo-Aryan migrants who drifted into South Asia in the few centuries before and after 1500 BC to be possible but unprovable. By contrast, they believe that Jats are not primarily derived from the indigenous (probably Dravidian) and non-Indo-Aryan inhabitants of South Asia. There is no doubt that Indo-Aryan tribal herders lumped into a Scythian category filtered into South Asia from Inner Asia for centuries and from as far back as the close of the second century BC. Much of Jat ancestry therefore is liable to be derived from these pastoral people who could easily settle among and mix with earlier herders.

Note: see my next edit summary for relevant details.

6) K.S. Singh (1998)

Popular local tradition attributes their origin to the matted hair (jata) of Lord Shiva. Another tradition connects them with Jata, one of the sons of Brahma, the Supreme Being. According to Binglley (1899), Jat is simply the modern Hindi term for Yadav or Jadu, the famous Kshatriya lineage to which the demi-god Krishna belonged. Early writers like Pliny and Ptolemy trace their migration from the Oxus to Hindustan, about a century before Christ. Russell and Hiralal (1916) however argue that the Jat were comparatively late migrants who invaded India between the second century BC and the fifth century AD and had obstructed Mohammed Gazni around the tenth century AD from marching towards Gujarat. One of the widely discussed views of historians, including Cunningham, Tod, Vincent Smith and Jackson, is that the Jat belong to the Indo-Scythian hordes, who invaded India between 200 BC and AD 600 and finally settled here. .... There are some scholars who relate the Jat to one of the Rajput tribes (Ibbetson 1916; Rose 1919; Crooke 1896). All theories of origin are speculative. Most likely the word jat is derived from jatta, a generic term for cattle-grazers and camel-breeders, moving in a group (jatha). The current research suggests that the Jat alongwith cognate communities migrated from Central Asia.

Note: see my next edit summary for relevant details.

I guess we can either summarize major points of some/all of the above sources or we can add details from selected sources (with attribution) to the article. Pinging those who were the main participants of the genetic study related discussion @Sitush, Fowler&fowler, and Fylindfotberserk: obviously others are also requested for inputs. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the elucidation. I have a question about this statement of yours: "Although the European gypsies are known to have originated in northwestern India, being apparently descended from a lowly caste of genealogists". Is that a mistype? Or are you saying that there is a caste of genealogists and that genealogists are considered lowly, or that this particular caste of genealogists is considered lowly?

I am only vaguely familiar with India's caste system, but know enough that the basis for defining castes have changed over time. From what I understand the original caste system set up by the Aryan invaders (or Scytho Indians as it were) were based on ethnicity (race, melanin content) as it existed then. I am aware that caste is a touchy, indeed a sensitive subject in India and among Indians. And that the idea is repugnant to persons in the west who are inclined towards eqalitarinism (such as myself).

In that regard articles which touch on caste are as much a minefield as any articles touching on religion, politics, ethnicity, and sometimes even sports.Oldperson (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient response. I have checked the source again, and that wasn't a typo: this particular caste of genealogists is considered lowly. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

NitinMikApologies for taking 2 days to get back to you.This statement "particular caste of genealogists" blows my mind.

Genealogy is either a vocation (for which a person gets paid) or an avocation (an unpaid hobby), but as a caste? That literally blows my feeble mind.. I thought that there were four castes. Based on your response I googled castes in India and learn that there are 3,000 castes and 35,000 subcastes. Foolish me I thought that there were only four official levels: the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, then On googling I learn of six • Brahmins, Kshatriyas.,Vaishyas. ,Shudras.,Adivasi,Dalits.

The last one is a word I’m familiar with constant enemy of Dr Who. Now I learn there are thousands or tens of thousands, but I still blows my mind that genealogists are considered a caste and lowly at that. That should really shake the wikitree.Oldperson (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As the cited source states, they are genealogists and minstrels, not just genealogists. This project has a poorly sourced article about them: Mirasi. BTW, there are many Brahmin genealogists, and they are on the top of caste hierarchy, e.g. see Hindu genealogy registers at Haridwar. Secondly, as you are now realising, this topic is very complex and contentious. That's why it is under discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Thirdly, this section has inadvertently ended up with a lot of off-topic comments already. So we shouldn't add more to that. Otherwise someone else will (rightly) collapse/remove our comments. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, genetics is not allowed in caste/community articles. We had a consensus. Secondly, Raj era sources, B. S. Dahiya's books and all those fanciful origin theories from Krishna, Shiva's locks, Goths, etc were removed from the article in the past. This edit felt like I'm in early 2010s. AIT is no longer valid. What we have is "Indo-Aryan migration theory", and as per genetics and archaeology, it was quite complex and there were multiple waves of migration, with different admixture levels. For example, the people with supposed Indo-Scythian descent had very high levels of Y-DNA L unlike Brahmins and Khatris which were R1a dominant. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I agree. We should accept only mainstream genetic studies: they are too many, and too varied. I guess genetic studies with very high Google Scholar Citation Index (let's say 100+) might worth a mention, but even that would require a consensus.

Regarding your Brahmin-related point, I guess Brahmins across India differ genetically from each other, e.g. Razib Khan (2019) states that:

As a rule of thumb, the further north and west a population in South Asia, the genetically closer it is to populations from the Middle East and Europe. Additionally, traditional upper castes such as the Brahmins are also closer to populations from the Middle East and Europe. Scheduled castes and tribal populations had the least affinity to people from the Middle East and Europe. ... The interplay between caste and geography can be subtle. Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh and Jats from Punjab both exhibit closer affinity to West Eurasians than Brahmins from Tamil Nadu. But Chamars from Uttar Pradesh exhibit less affinity to West Eurasians than Brahmins from Tamil Nadu.

From this blog of Razib, it seems that Haryanvi/Punjabi/UP Jats, Punjabi Brahmins, and Punjabi/UP Khatris are among those who have the highest Caucasian & eastern Baltic genes among Indians. Anyway, that's just a blog, and I don't know a thing about genetics. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually there's no point discussing genetics here since it is totally banned from caste articles as per consensus, not to mention genetics is much more complex than what a single research, blogs and news sites publish. The Harappa admixture analysis, the one you posted, is considered flawed and very much outdated as per experts at dedicated genetics forums, since the population groups with which a sample is compared to are modern and Indians didn't descend from modern NE Euro, E Asian, Pygmy or Caucasian. Moreover, different admixture tests can show different admixture levels since they use different formulas and have different set of DNA to compare a sample to. Since I have other docs on Harappa, I can say that generally, the Brahmin and Khatri groups of Indo-Gangetic plains (Punjabi Brahmin and Khatri, Bengali Brahmin, Bihar Bhumihar, UP Brahmin) have similar high levels of NE Euro, the Khas Brahmins with a little higher on average similar to Jatt Sikhs. Haryana/UP Jats (highest detected in a UP Jat) have much higher NE Euro. Unlike NE Euro, Caucasus ancestry is decreases as one moves from Indus to Gangetic plains, higher among Punjabi Khatris, Kashmiris, Gujarati Brahmins and lower among Brahmins of UP, Bihar and Bengal, with Khas having intermediate levels, and also some of the lowest Caucasian levels were detected among Gujarati Brahmin and Punjabi Khatri samples. Highest Mediterranean element detected among Bengali Brahmins (one sample highest among all Brahmins), Khas Brahmins and all Jats. Among Jats themselves, Sikh Jats shoed much higher Caucasus ancestry than the UP/Haryana Jats. That being said, new researches using ancient DNA also show diverse results, for example, in one research, UP Brahmin showed 24% Steppe MLBA and in the next research they showed 51% steppe MLBA! And these are most likely the same samples considering nowadays, they analyse samples from the ones already existing in the data bank. On top of that, individual to individual variation also need to be considered. According to 23andMe v5 however, every Indian whether Jat Sikh or Southern Indian tribal, is "Broadly South Asian". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

FylindfotberserkBaning or prohibiting genetics smacks of censorship,and censorship bespeaks a need to hide something.. So why is genetics in relationship to caste banned?

On the other hand I totally agree that ethnicity casting on the basis of genetics is useless, for the purpose of determining origin. Samples upon which they are based are small and self reporting. Entertainment value, not to be taken seriously.

On the other hand the distribution of Y haplogroups is useful in tracing population and societal changes.

For instance the genetic make up of the caste system today is not what it was, say, 2,500 years ago, due to social changes, intercourse between different castes, migration, even conflict and rape. But the spread of haplogroups can be traced backwards to a source and approximate time.

I am deep in the weeds of genetic genealogy. I’ve tested my YDNA SNP’s. I was surprised to find that my SNP tree was a subclade of a SNP that is found in two Indians, and that this parent clade appeared south of the Caspian sea about 2,300 years before the present at the furtherest reach of the ancient Indian empire, how it ended up in northern England about the time of the 1st crusade posed a mystery that required historical investigation, and ultimately speculation I speculate that my deep paternal ancestor was a Vaishya at the time of Arab invasion, but his deep ancestry is a subclade of R-Z93.[[[User:Oldperson|Oldperson]] (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, my only point was that neither Brahmins are a homogeneous group nor Brahmins and Khatris are one of a kind among Indians, as your R1a1 example made them to look like (at least to a layman like me). But you have clarified that now. Just for the record, the quote from Rajib's essay of 2019 is based on the mtDNA, Y chromosome, & genome-wide analysis: the link of his 2013 blog provided by me is obviously outdated and unreliable. Anyway, if scholars will ever see some clear genetic pattern in any community/caste/ethnicity then it will become part of the mainstream, and will find its way here as well.

Oldperson, you didn't ping Fylindfotberserk properly. BTW, here is a relevant quote from the concluding paragraph from the Rajib Khan's essay regarding genetic origins of Indo-Aryans:

Many groups in south and east India show little impact from the steppe pastoralists. And yet these populations also exhibit fascinating variation which hints at unexpected histories. The India that the people from the steppe expanded into was not a homogeneous formless whole, but already textured by its own complexities. The Indo-Aryans were only the latest of the prehistoric migrations to leave their mark upon the mosaic of South Asian genetic ancestry. Solving the mystery of their origins and arrival is only the opening chapter, not the conclusion.

In short, we can't make heads or tails of it as of now. That's why we should wait till any genetic study becomes mainstream. Also, it seems you didn't check the link of the relevant discussion provided by me.

Coming back to the Aryan/Scythian theories, they have aleady made their way in secondary as well as tertiary scholarly sources. So they should be summed up here. Let's wait for someone knowledgeble about this topic to give inputs regarding how we should sum up the above sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@NitinMlk and Fylindfotberserk: This statement of yours I totally agree with "the people from the steppe expanded into was not a homogeneous formless whole, but already textured by its own complexities", as I stated I am not a geneticist but I have dug deep into the weeds and roots of origins of people. Take the Scythio-Aryan/Sarmatians they were a genetically heterogenuous peoples. Unavoidable, as they were nomadic, lived in yurts on wagons, were "horse people", and apparently a warrior society (necessary for survival in that era).They also expanded into the Xingjian Province of China, the Tocharian Basin,left mummies whose DNA has been extracted and found to be R-Z93, but that is not the only YDNA associated with them as they absorbed and comingled with many populations. The north Ossetians are believed to be living Sarmatians, they too are a mixture of YDNA Hg's, but the dominate hg is G2a, which incidentally is also that of King Richard III of England, but I understand it is pretty well represented in western Europe.

Point is, even though the Scythio-Aryan invaders were of heterogenuous DNA, there was a dominant YDNA hg, and as I recall R-Z93 shows up most dominantly amongst the Brahmin class, and amongst the Pakistani's whose Brahmin ancestors converted to Islam, againR-Z93+, Z94+ is not exclusive to this class, In fact it has shown up in Malaysian Indians see this Discover Magazine Article. PS the very sight of the word Aryan makes my stomach roil, thanks to the Adolph fellow, however the Iranians have no problem with it, and I understand it means "noble" or "nobility", much like the English word Gentleman or (contentiously) the Spanish hidalgo (son of the goth)

Oldperson (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There were multiple waves of migration (the word "invasion" is not used nowadays), and Scytho-Aryan is not a group. The groups that claim Vedic (Aryan) ancestry that are part of the 4-tier caste hierarchy like Brahmins (especially of the Gangetic plains) and Kshatriyas typically have R1a as the most dominant haplogroup. The ancestral people to this group likely entered the subcontinent earlier than the ones claiming Indo-Scythian ancestry like Jats, Gujjars that typically have L1a2 as the dominant Y-DNA and were outside of the Indian caste-system. It should be noted that L1 might have originated in India itself and very high percentages of L1a1 (sister clade of L1a2) is typical of Southern Indians. The proto-Indo-European Yamnayan burials were overwhelmingly R1b, without any R1a. R1b is very rare in South Asian populations but sometimes occur at elevated levels in some nomadic and/or isolated populations like Newars of Nepal, Agharias of Odisha, Lambadis of Andhra Pradesh. All in all genetics is much more complex than associating it with few specific Haplogroups.

That R1a map in the discovery blog is a copy of the map published in the Underhill 2009 study. In other words, it represents only the populations studied. It doesn't mean other populations do not have high R1a. Not to mention, the Indian subcontinent part in the Underhill looks like an exact copy of R1a map from Sahoo 2006 research. The map doesn't correlate with the percentages in Underhill. I believe I've talked about this in 2010. The frequency table linked in R1a table has many other high R1a Indian population.

Rajiv Khan would say whatever his calculator shows, which is likely based on Harappa. There are other calculators which would show much different component values, steppe, Iranian, onge or whatever. Check Lazaridis et al. 2016, according to which the south Indian Mala Dalit caste shows 18% Yamnaya ancestry. Note that in Harappa that is a very high percentage for NE Euro(proxy for steppe) for Indian populations. If we leave these Indo-Scythian groups like Jats, Gujjars, Kambhojs, etc aside, we'll find that Steppe component has a caste based cline, rather than a geographic cline, atleast in the Indo-Gangetic plains, but it gradually decreases and Iran farmer/Indus periphery/BMAC?(possibly) increases as one moves southward from the Indo-Gangetic plain. Besides, whenever we take the whole regional group data together, steppe ancestry would decrease because of groups like SCs, OBCs, STs, some mid-castes. Moreover, many genetic studies make illogical comparisons. For example, they would select tribal samples from region A and Brahmin samples from region B, and then claim region A has minimal XYZ ancestry. IMO, it should be more balanced. End of nerdy - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, there was a consensus in the latest discussion that only those genetic studies should be summarised here which have been covered in scholarly tertiary sources. And the most experienced and competent editors of caste-related articles have participated in that discussion. In fact, in the very first comment here, you mentioned that "genetics is not allowed in caste/community articles. We had a consensus." So, what is the point of writing here (again) such a lengthy comment regarding your views about genetics of whole India? The other editor seems to be very much interested in genetics, but they refrained from posting their views once they were made familiar with the complexities and the standards of this field. Now, after reading your views, they might get tempted to write their views on genetics here (again), which will turn it into a WP:SOAPBOX. In fact, this section already contains multiple off-topic comments.

Secondly, it is the independent, scholarly sources provided by me which describe Jats to be of Indo-Aryan/Indo-Scythian/Central-Asian origin, rather than the Jats "claiming Indo-Scythian ancestry". Having said that, you can neglect the source of K. S. Singh. They were a bureaucrat, not a scholar. Still, they tried to sum up all communities of India, and ended up making a mess of it. Their state series is considered unrelaible. But their national series is acceptable when we don't have any quality source, which is not the case here. BTW, they have indiscriminately listed every theory of the origin of Jats, as one would expect from a non-expert like them. And I listed them here just for the sake of it.

Thirdly, geneticists like Razib Khan know regarding latest updates and unreliable methods of their field. They don't need general public like us to speculate regarding their methods – see edit summary. I guess, during the Rakhigarhi findings, articles like this one also mentioned that Jats are "marked by pronounced R1a Steppe ancestry", although those articles are probably unacceptable per this project's standards. Anyway, all of this genetics talk is pointless because of the aforementioned consensus. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

I notice that this discussion is going all over the place. Can we get back to the paper that is proposed to be cited here (Mahal and Matsoukas 2017)?

Oldperson can you please state in your own words, what this paper is saying? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Huh? There is no paper proposed to be cited here, and your mentins of Mahal and Matsoukas is the first mention either in the article or hereOldperson (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mahal and Matsoukas are the authors of the papere you cited here, twice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a scientific research paper on genetics, which is not allowed in caste articles. No point in discussing it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Edits

1. Clan system subsection: Change "groups" to "castes", at least pipe it to groups (group is ambiguous term) or castes (more clear). As per the wikipedia guidelines, do not just literally copy the source, instead use a more correct and self descriptive term.

"The Jat people are subdivided into numerous clans, some of which overlap with other castes."

2. Remove statement about Paki General Bajwa. Too many Jat generals in India too. This does not belong in this article. Pakistan is not more powerful, responsible or bigger economy than India. Indians are not in this article, rightfully so. They all belong to the List of Jats, not here.

3. Remove sourced dubious statement that British considered Hindus of inferior martial quality, they heavily recruited Dogras, Rajouts, Hindu Jats, Gorkha Hindus, Maratha Hindus, and so on. This statement defies logic. As per wikipedia guidelines, even if a nonsensical statement is sourced, it must be removed out. My guess, that edit likely came from a misguided "supremacist Jat Sikh" editor. Keep racism out. FYI, Nanak and all of Sikh Gurus were not Jat.

4. Add a sourced reference that Jats are the dominant part of The Establishment (Pakistan). The Establishment is controlled by Punjabis Sunni Muslims. It includes other castes but most numerous and socioeconomically dominant caste in Paki Punjab is Jat.

58.182.172.95 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the mention of General Bajwa, as this project requires self-identification in case of BLPs – see here for details. Other points have already been explained by user Eggishorn. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2019

Add this link to further reading section - https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaJats.htm 188.170.192.246 (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC) 188.170.192.246 (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Better suited in external links section. 188.170.192.246 (talk)

 Not done: Per #2 of WP:ELNO, as the provenance of the information presented at this link cannot be ascertained.  Spintendo  19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2019

In section Demographics (Post-independence estimates), this is mentioned : In 2012, the Hindustan Times reported that the Jat people in India were estimated to number around 82.5 million (8.25 crore).

This appears to be an error. They have overstated the population of Jats. Simply by looking at the estimated percentage of Jats in the states where they live, it can be concluded that this is an incorrect estimate.

Edit request: this line should be removed.

The Hindustan Times article says : The Jat population in India is believed to be around 8.25 crore.

Well, their "belief" is not presenting a correct estimate.

This estimate is based on belief and not on a proper study or a relevant census (no such mention). The newspaper article does not cites or mentions where the data is sourced from. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done An estimate is an approximate calculation or judgment of the value, number, quantity, or extent of something. It is a rough calculation which the person or persons doing the calculation reasonably believe to be as accurate as possible given the limitations imposed by whatever conditions which may have circumscribed their collection of said data. These estimates are always based on the estimators belief that they are presenting the most likely scenario possible. Stating that these calculations are estimates simply implies the possibility that the calculations may contain errors.  Spintendo  19:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see the content in the next section to understand why this should be removed. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

A sentence in the introduction says, "Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh,[1][2]..."

Edit request: Please remove the word originally from the sentence as none of the two sources/writers cited have said that on the pages mentioned in the references. The sentence needs rephrasing. Thanks you, 188.170.173.178 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 188.170.173.178 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done You have a point. Stating definitively what any people were "originally" either requires us to pick an arbitrary point in time and call that the people's origin or is misleading. If we truly want to talk about "originally", then originally the Jat people, like all branches of 'Homo sapiens', were hunter-gatherers in the savannas of Africa. To state that here would, however, be so concerned with originality as to be meaningless. So I just said "previously" and left it at that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)