Talk:Jats

Edit request on 23 February 2013

Please checkout the following sources. These might help you understand the history of Jats. It is against the policy of WP to tag somebody based on the just one writer while ignoring others. I hope to get positive response from you.

1. Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B ...

By B.S. Nijjar

2. The Jats Their Role in The Mughal Empire Dr. Girish Chandra Dwivedi 3.The political and social history of the Jats Author: Bal Kishan Dabas 4. History of the Jats (Upto the death of Mirza NAJAF KHAN, 1782) K R Qanungo , Vir Singh 5. Jaton Ka Navin Itihaas (in Hindi) Vol. 1 Upendranath Sharma 6. The Jats: Vol. 1,2,3 Their Role and Contribution to the Socio-Economic Life and Polity of North and North-West India Vir Singh 7. The Ancient Rulers and their clans by Dr. Hukum Singh Podia 8. Pracheen Bharat by Dr. Satyaketu Dharmalankar 9. Bharat aur uske nivasi by Jai Chand Vidyalankar JatUser (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2013 (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. Do you have online sources for us to look at also? Vacation9 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2013

I request you to change the following line in your article "The Jat people are a community of traditionally non-elite tillers and herders in Northern India and Pakistan" To "The Jat people are a community of traditionally zamindar, landlords and agriculturist in Northern India and Pakistan"

http://books.google.com/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&pg=PP7&lpg=PP7&dq=Origins+and+History+of+Jats+and+Other+Allied+Nomadic+Tribes+of+India:+900+B+...By+B.S.+Nijjar&source=bl&ots=tE4Kc5unHn&sig=OGOtoTv7FbJdneL69OyZZyG3xQM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t0MpUZfeFOKy0QGikIGYCw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ

I gave you the list of 9 sources in my previous post. There is only one that is free online which I have included above and rest are paid. But if you search those sources on google you might get relevant snippets of their book. JatUser (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep asking for the same thing but you are not really advancing your position, sorry. Which page of Nijar are you asking us to look at? And are you aware that when there are contrasting points of view in reliable sources it is our policy that we show all of those views, not one or the other. Basically, the "non-elite" statement is not going to be removed however hard you try, although it certainly could be tempered by some valid alternate. Nijar is an ok source - he's not great on this subject, in my opinion, but he is valid. You will find that Bayly is far more respected in terms of citations etc, even though Nijar also wrote in English and worked in the US. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, it is not necessary that your sources are online but there is so evidently a contrary position being claimed here that you would need to provide some transcripts to support your position. There are ways that this can be arranged but the first step would be to ascertain the academic credentials of the authors whom you previously mentioned, just as Qwyrian did for Bayly. That aspect can be done without the need for transcripts. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at pp. 44- 50 of Nijjar and can find nothing to support your proposed change. In fact, in those pages, Nijjar spends more time talking of the Rajputs than of the Jats. And he loosely cites the dreadfully unreliable James Tod with considerable frequency. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you take a look at page 50, Nijjar has mentioned the following lines: "In agriculture Jat is preeminent. The market gardening caste; The Arian, The Mali, The Saini are more skillful cultivators on small scale but they cannot surpass Jats as Landowners and yeoman cultivators. The Jat calls himself Zamindar."

This proves Jats are landlord and zamindar. So Can you add this now to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JatUser (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in the manner you propose, no. The zamindar aspect is covered in the article but, almost by definition, cannot be the majority. For example, around 70% of the Punjab population comprises Jats and they are the major farming community. If most of those were zamindars etc, to whom are they renting their land? Nijjar is saying that the Sainis etc lag behind the Jats when it comes to an assessment of their relative strengths but he does not say that being landowners etc is a common situation for Jats, nor that this was traditionally so (which is a very precise point made in the present lead section). Would you like to rephrase your request? I mean, I can see that there may be some merit in mentioning the landowning aspect in the lead ... but we already do. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr Sitush: Renting your land to workers does not mean you are selling your land. You are still the owner of land.

How about if we can write something like: "Most of the Jats are traditionally landowners/landlords and Zamindar." or may be you can suggest something that signifies landowning and zamindar aspect of Jats on top in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JatUser (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point: if there are so many of them and so many own land as zamindars and landlords, who is renting it from them?

I'm afraid that I am stumped here because I don't think the source supports what you want to say and, in any event, I've never been wonderfully happy with Nijjar because his position often differs from the mainstream. I tolerate him because he is a published academic historian but this source, at least, can be quite weird. Out of respect for neutrality, I've cited him myself in this article but I really would rather than what he says could be sourced to someone with a bit more "oomph" and a bit less reliance on dodgy Raj sources. The lead already mentions the landowning aspect, so I really do not see what your problem is except, possibly, something connected with the nuances of the English language. Actually, "non-elite tillers" is polite as well as accurate: many sources just introduce them as "peasants". - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you insight into farming in North India like Haryana and Punjab. Jats bring laborers from Bihar and other Indian states that do all the hard work and in turn they take part of the total production of crop. That is what I meant by renting land to workers. And I agree with you that not all Jats are landlords but many are.

If you say that most sources just introduce them as "peasants" then use this term instead of "non-elite". Because "non-elite" seems racist to me and most from Jat community feel the same. And if you think that majority of Jats are not zamindars but many of them are. Then please mention that as well. Something like "Many Jats are landlords and Zamindars".

I guess we are coming close to the resolution of this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JatUser (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We can write something like "Jat is a major farming community in Northern India. And many Jats are zamindaar and landlords." I think this looks accurate and you will agree to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JatUser (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not have time for this right now. We seem to be going round in circles. You need reliable sources that support you claim that the Jats - most of them - were traditionally zamindars/landlords/whatever. But instead you are changing tense (is/were/are) and providing little to support any variation thereof. I will try to do some digging for you, if you'll excuse the play on words, but I am not very hopeful because the person who contributed the information that you are contesting is extremely knowledgeable on the subject and well-read: you name a "standard" reference work and they have already looked into it. I think that you need to approach this from a different angle, which is to read about the Jats without any preconception regarding them. Perhaps you have done that but it is not coming across that way to me. Others may think differently, so let's give them a chance to have a say in the matter. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting hung up on the actual words when I shouldn't be...but that says that Jats call themselves Zamindar. Doesn't that mean that, at most, we could mention somewhere their own perception of themselves? Also, are we even sure that he's using the word "landlord" to mean "one who rents land", instead perhaps meaning, "one who is lord over the land" in the sense of being a farmer? I'm trying to reconcile this with the rest of the claims. There's no doubt we need to keep "non-elite", since 3 different sources use that exact term; it may be possible to introduce additional wording, but not to delete that which is already well sourced (and seems to be the mainstream view). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh vs B S Nijjar

Per the article at present, Khushwant Singh says that the Jats did not embrace Brahmanical Hinduism; B S Nijjar says that they were originally Hindus prior to many converting to Sikhism and Islam. There is not necessarily a contradiction between these two statements but I am particularly conscious that many of the Muslim conversions were forcible and that many who converted to Sikhism did so only "on paper" during the Raj period and prior to that did so as a political statement against Muslim rule. I think that we will need to expand this section on religion and, in particular, the nature of the Brahmanical relationship and that which dictated movement between the three faiths. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, whatever you say here is right. This is a fact that Jats were Hindus prior to their conversion to Islam and Sikhism. Muslim Jats are a result of forced conversions during Muslim rule and Jat Sikhs were Sikhs on paper just for army recruitment and higher social status.

Khushwant Singh is definitely wrong here and his quote should be removed from the article. -Tydesoup (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Journals vs Dictionaries

In the intro of this article Jats are described as "Non Elite Tillers" based on a dictionary term from Google Books. When I suggested some good edits based on reputed anthropological journals(cited from JSTOR), they were reverted by Sitush, who seems to maintain a kind of "Status Quo" in the article.

Here is what I suggested:

The Jat people (Hindustani pronunciation: [dʒaːʈ]) (also spelled Jatt) is a Kshatriya Community found in India and Pakistan whose traditional occupation suggests to be Pastoral in nature. Anthropologists suggests that Jats and Rajputs are akin to each other and the only difference between them is that jats supports widow marriages.

Here is Sitush's text:

The Jat people (Hindustani pronunciation: [dʒaːʈ]) (also spelled Jatt) are a community of traditionally non-elite tillers and herders in Northern India and Pakistan.

-Viplovecomm (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert of changes to the lead section

I've just reverted a substantial change to the lead section, which was accompanied by a somewhat misleading edit summary. Lead sections are supposed to summarise the body of the article and thus if the lead here is going to be changed so dramatically then it is clear out of step with what the body says. Furthermore, the changes introduced poor sources such as William Crooke and the very first citation that I examined - from an Anthropos journal article on 1964-65 - does not even seem to mention the "kshatriya" term that it is claimed to support, nor indeed varna of any type. We need to discuss this stuff if it is to be included. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there is in any event a consensus that we do not usually include varna in lead sections because it often causes problems. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I hope that this will support the claim regarding Kshatriya Status: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40463659. Which CONSENSUS are you talking about. -Viplovecomm (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus can be found in discussions such as this. The article that you mention (40463659) says that they claim themselves to be kshatriya. This, of course, is a very common thing for castes to claim, for reasons such as sanskritisation. What they consider themselves to be and what others consider them to be are very different things. And that is precisely why varna should not appear in the lead section. An aside: I still do not understand your edit summary - WP:DICDEF does not apply to words but to articles. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You may also want to read Jat_people#Varna_status. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Point is your claim "Jats are non elite tillers" is based on a citation of google books, which focuses on nothing but a collection of glossary, The two citations which i quote(40457391 and 25756107) specifically links Jats lineage with Rajputs and these two articles says that Jats and Rajputs were originated from the same ancestory but the latter one has lifted its social status. It is a well known fact that Rajputs are a Martial Race and hence Kshatriyas.

Secondly if you wish to remove Kshatriya Status from the lead, you can do so, but please remove that "Non Elite Tiller" part, and revert that with edit done by me. I agree with all editors mentioned above that it is showing the community which has a martial history, in a negative light.

-Viplovecomm (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I understand the definition bit now. If you trawl through the history and the archives to this talk page, you will find somewhere that the term was cited because people were arguing about what it meant. Basically, they were making the same kshatriya claims that you are making and saying that "non-elite" was a derogatory term when, in fact, it is a term that is used nowadays by anthropologists etc as a means of avoiding stigmatisation. It was added by Fowler&fowler and has been checked by umpteen people with a fair amount of experience in handling caste articles. Including me, of course. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your co-relation of Rajput with Jat seems to be a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS. If one source says Rajput and Jats share the same origin and another says that Rajputs are Kshatriya, that doesn't mean you can deduce Jats to be Kshatriya. In any event, the matter is discussed in the body. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The No Original Research Policy of Wikipedia also says claims based on sources "A" and "B" both should be listed. SO for instance I am giving a verifiable research document claiming that Jats and Rajputs belongs to same ancensotry then you could list a counter-claim in addition to it, but you can not remove the genuine edits which other editors have introduced. Wikipedia is a community project and it can not be dictated on the whims of a single person. On this page a number of editors are supporting the notion that "non elite tillers and herders" should be dropped on grounds that it sounds derogatory in nature. But you are dictating the voices of other editors. I guess my edits were unbiased in nature because they represent both dimensions of the topic that though "Jats are Kshatriyas(Martial Clan) in nature, their traditional occupation is Pastoral in nature. Also at the same time Jats and Rajputs are akin to each other and belongs to same common ancestry. -http://www.jstor.org/stable/2843143 (Jats and Rajputs belongs to same lineage. Last Page) -http://www.jstor.org/stable/40463659 (Jats and Kshatriyas) -Viplovecomm (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting very confused regarding what it is you want to see in the article, and I'm getting a bit irritated that you keep casting aspersions regarding my intent here. Before you go any further with this, could you please read WP:TPG and WP:CENSORED, Then, could you please let me know if the following summary is what you want to see in/remove from the article:

• add: Rajputs and Jats share a common ancestry
• remove: non-elite tillers
• add: they are kshatriya

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's exactally majority of editors on this page demands. Yes wikipedia is not a place for censorship and by reverting my edits based on genuine sources you attempted to censor the community project. Please dont be bureaucratic by displaying wikipedia's policies every now and then. Wikipedia's basic policy is that an article should follow "Neutral Point of View". If your claims and sources too are disputed then why adhere to them, follow the neutral way indeed. By the Way you've invited me to Talk Page so that we can discuss and reach a consensus over your reverts. -Viplovecomm (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Viplovecomm, please be careful not to make personal accusations, and please read and understand WP:NPA - if you continue to make accusations against other people, you may find yourself blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have the feeling that you may not be understanding WP:CONSENSUS particularly well. Consensus on Wikipedia is not a majority vote. I reverted you because of consensus regarding mentioning varna in the lead, consensus regarding mention of non-elite in the lead and because your statement was not in fact supported by the source that you gave. Just because people do not like something does not mean we change it: they have to provide policy-based reasons for the change. Now, was the opening "yes" of your last reply intended to mean that the three points I had listed are what you want to see added and removed from the article? - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just a quick few notes on points of policy, folks:

1. Wikipedia policy does not state that all sources should be given equal weighting - quite the opposite, in fact. It all depends on the reliability of the sources and the balance of real-world assessment. For example, a source that fully satisfies WP:RS should have more weighting than one that doesn't - in fact, non-RS sources are usually omitted altogether. (And please note that I am not judging the sources used here - I have not looked at them).
2. Our prohibition on synthesis is quite clear. So, for example, if we have a source that says "A is X" and a source that says "B is X", then we cannot use them to deduce "A is B". Similarly, if we have a source saying "A is B" and one saying "B is X", we again cannot combine them to support "A is X". (Again, I have not looked at the actual sources - this is just a general point).
3. If we have a Primary source that makes a claim "X", in most cases we cannot use that to support a factual statement "X" - and certainly not if "X" is controversial. Usually, the best we could say from such a source is that "A claims X".

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

-So Mr. Boing, will it be justified to introduce that "A" said this about Jats and "B" said this about Jats. So we can say that "Jats are a Kshatriya Community based in India and Pakistan and their Principal occupation is Pastroalism. Some scholars claims that Jats and Rajputs have same ancestry, the latter evolved in their social status while the former did not. However other scholars claims that Jats are traditionally no elite tillers and herders.-Viplovecomm (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Boing is trying to keep out of the actual dispute about content so that he can act in an administrative capacity if needed (see WP:INVOLVED). Where do you want to show the statements that you mention? What sources do you have for Jats being Kshatriya? Why does sharing the same ancestry have any bearing on their traditional role in society as non-elite tillers? And, indeed, what was this shared ancestry? - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, at the moment I'm trying to avoid discussion of the actual content and actual sources (and I'm deliberately not even reading them), so that I can avoid WP:INVOLVED and remain free to take admin actions or offer uninvolved help if necessary. So I really can't answer the question, as that would require me to read the actual sources and form an opinion of my own. If the discussion should come to a point where it needs someone to offer a judgment on consensus, then (for now, at least) I think I would be able to better help by offering that service. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

-Share ancestry means that both communities are originated from the same point, British Anthropologists(Crooke) were of the view that since facial features of the Jats and Rajputs are much akin to each other, the community must had a common origin. This was evident from that Crooke's Article which i quoted somewhere in this thread above. Rajputs gained a higher social status but Jats did not. So Rajputs because of their higher social status have a long tendency to decline that Jats were not part of their community or lineage. I think as researchers it is our sacred duty to give even the contrary views a stand in this article, so that it will be balanced both ways. Please allow me to edit this article, and I promise you that everyone of my edit will be based on verifiable journals and Scholary articles. Let me do a little justice to the article, Allow me to explore deeper in the mist of history. Please.

Secondly "Rajput" in itself is not a community, Rajput simply means "Son of a King"(whilst Raj means-Royal and "Put" or Poot means-Son)... -Viplovecomm (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

William Crooke and other Raj gentleman-scholar "ethnologists" are not reliable. Their basis was the discredited theory of scientific racism, perhaps best exemplified by H. H. Risley and Edgar Thurston. People can't go around measuring noses and comparing skin colour to a chart and then make sweeping claims of common origin. Well, no-one can do it without ridicule nowadays, at any rate. Yes, you might argue that we should show all opinions but these people were not scholars in the modern sense of the term and their opinions are based on methodology that is generally acknowledged to be useless. As such, their opinions would be merely of historical interest.

What the term Rajput means and how it is applied are two different things. There is a group of people who are widely referred to as being Rajput and that the etymology of the name does indeed mean "son of a king" is of interest to the Rajput article but not to this one. The Jats are not widely referred to as Rajput, otherwise there would be no need for this article. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush makes good arguments. The Jat people were certainly not princes; in fact they were "treated with scorn" by the Rajput elite, per Howard L. Erdman published by Cambridge University. The Susan Bayly source used by Sitush is a top-rated reference, written by a respected topic scholar and again published by Cambridge. The phrase "non-elite tillers" is repeated by Bayly and applied to the Jat people. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead as it stands is just fine. I agree with Sitush and Binksternet. All OBCs (Other Backward Castes) in North India have for over a century been trying to upgrade their caste status. It's very different in the South, where the lower castes rejected the caste system altogether. In the north, sadly, they couldn't or didn't reach for that greater freedom. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think -Viplovecomm arguments makes perfect sense. He has given reliable sources but seems to be ignored with arguments that does not hold any water. I firmly believe "Non elite" should be removed as it is derogatory and based on glossary of a writer. You cannot tag the whole community by extracting a word from a glossary. It is not main stream view of the writer. This one word makes the whole article becomes meaningless. The onus of proving "Non elite" lies with Sitush or whoever made this edit not just based one writer but at least two or three to make it trust worthy.

Also Bayly, Susan is the only writer who is using this word "Non-elite" and no body else. Viplovecomm and other users have given several reliable sources that dispute this word. Nobody knows Bayly in India. There are more respected and reliable sources that has written books about Jats and never used this word. If a book is published by Cambridge university that does not mean it makes all other publishers non reliable. I think here onus is on Sitush to prove "Non elite" word not based on just one writer but multiple writers.

A quick Google search shows 4000 hits for "non-elite anthropology" under the Books criteria and 265,000 overall. Not merely a word coined and used by Bayly, then. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Some examples of searching GBooks for "non-elite Jats"

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

I think you need to do your homework before making wild claims such as you have done. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If I search for "Landlord jats" it gives me thousands of hits on google. You cannot say what comes on google is all reliable.

Some examples of searching GBooks for "landlord Jats"

http://books.google.com/books?id=fFCpBzD0gjAC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=landlord+jats&source=bl&ots=eetVl47WqU&sig=NpEGMds9FSHkTXxrU7r7BDgJiOY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CHLAUZzFDu3O0QGLw4GQDA&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=landlord%20jats&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rtBi1MgVD0AC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=landlord+jats&source=bl&ots=PZ4WUUfe_R&sig=g-nt4sg_7Zs2yNDYdiawjNNHfdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CHLAUZzFDu3O0QGLw4GQDA&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=landlord%20jats&f=false

If in case there are conflicting views coming on a subject then you need to mention all those. But here you have just mentioned Bayle claims.--Johnwikij (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No-one has ever denied that some Jats were landlords. There has been some doubt about the precise meaning of the word (owning land or renting it out) but, yes, some were certainly in control of land by one means or another. That does not make them "elite", nor does the first of your sources say either that they are elite or are not non-elite. (I cannot access your second source). The fact remains, that most were tillers/pastoralists etc, unless you can find decent sources that say otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

At least you agree with the fact that Jats are landlord. Here the problem is not with "tillers/pastoralists etc" but with "Non-elite". I agree some jats are tillers and pastoralists too. All I am saying is mention all the views not just Bayle view. Jats should be mentioned as landlord too. If jats were tillers/ pastoralists that does not make them non-elite either. --Johnwikij (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that "Jats are landlord". I agree that some - almost certainly a small proportion - are or were. As our article says, During much of this time, non-elite tillers and pastoralists, such as the Jats or Ahirs, were part of a social spectrum that blended only indistinctly into the elite landowning classes at one end, and the menial or ritually polluting classes at the other. but they were traditionally non-elite tillers. Note the word "traditionally". All of this is sourced and the only way you'll get it changed or see an alternate opinion added is if you come up with decent sources that unambiguously support your point ... and you are unlikely to find any because your statement is very similar to the ridiculous situation that we have seen on Wikipedia whereby it seemed at one point that almost every community in India were warriors or kings, and no-one kept animals, farmed, swept streets, cut hair etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we are not making much headway here. And it seems that you have become owner of this article and not taking other views in good spirit. I think this article is meaningless if facts are not represented correctly. The way "Non elite" is highlighted in the article obfuscate the whole article. Some jats are landowners should be highlighted in the same way on top of the article as "Non-elite".--Johnwikij (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea how many are/were landowners but we do have sources saying that some were in one place at least. However, if say 2% of Jats got income from renting land, 95% were tillers and 3 % had another source if income then we should say that in the lead section? Really? - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mind sharing those reliable sources based on which you are giving these figures? If you want to know the fact go to Haryana and Punjab. Haryana and Punjab have the highest number of rural crorepati (Millionaire). Jats are main dominating and landowning caste in Haryana and Punjab. The chief ministers of both Haryana and Punjab are Jats. Please follow this article by time of India to find about rural crorepatis: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2005-09-15/news/27491950_1_crorepati-households-small-towns

Please do not give me false figures based on your wild imagination.--Johnwikij (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern assessments do not erase the historic truth of Jat people being non-elite. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

John, you misread what I said ("if say"), your Economic Times source doesn't even mention Jats and, as I've said previously and Binksternet has agreed, nothing today can change what happened previously (that's the "traditionally" word again). - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it specifically mentioned about Jats. It talks about rural crorepati. And most of the farmers who owns land in rural Haryana are Jats. Jats as whole community have never been non-elite. Jat is a very big community. Some jats are rich and some are not. Not every person in a community can be rich and wealthy. Jats were kings of some states (like Bharatpur, Patiala etc.), Jats were farmers, land owners, tillers etc. But that does not mean whole community can be tagged as non-elite.--Johnwikij (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you are now engaging in original research and this is not permitted on Wikipedia. Specifically, you are trying to synthesise an unsourced population size with a sort-of sourced statement about rupee millionaires in order to derive a conclusion that you would like to see. And you are still not understanding "traditionally", nor issues of weight. Please can you read some of those links otherwise we'll be going round in circles here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to say Sitush. But I suggest you to invest your time and mind in writing other articles and let the other users write on this article. Because this article is meaningless with out facts. This will give you much needed break and good thoughts for other article. This is my sincere advise to you.--Johnwikij (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

JAT and JATT DIFFERENCE

VERY little information is out there about the difference between Jat and Jatt, but Jat is a tribe and Jatt is caste, they are two different people from complete different backgrounds, status and lineage. Jatt are almost all Sikhs, and Jat can be (Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim). Castes like Chamar and other daljit castes are from the tribe. This article combines info of Jat and Jatts, which is incorrect, and for some reason the word is used interchangeably. This is why some daljits call themselves Jat and Jatt call them fakes, because neither know the history, due to status and popularity within the caste system, Jatts make notice of their caste and the word Jatt over Jat is more popular and known. Basically the daljit take pride in the Jat word because of the caste system favoring upper caste but what they dont know is that all the favoring is for the Jatts not Jat. Same for Jatts that mention fakes changing their names, when they dont know the word Jat exists and its different from Jatt. The Jatts were said to be from foreign invaders, that were near and settling on the land, and so were laborers at the same time from central India, known as Jat, but were originally called Sudras. The Jatts play no role in the Hindu caste system because they emerged from outside forces, but their status is as high as Brahmin from years of rebuilding and fighting clans that took control of that region by force. Nursingxmajor (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is news to me. Do you have any reliable sources to support your claim of a difference? I know that Sikhs like to spell it as "Jatt" but every time I have queried on Wikipedia, I have been told that this is purely a linguistic & transliteration legacy. Maybe this time I'll try to get to the bottom of it myself. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, B. S, Nijjar, whose authority was recently verified at WT:INB, treats them as synonyms just as I have always done - see this. It is not well written (or perhaps typeset) but a Sarup-published book notes

Or, more accurately, Jatt [, the] double t compensating for the loss of the long a. The difference is purely dialectical and to speak of Jats and Jatts [as] racially distinct , as is done in E.H.I. IV p. 240, is absurd and misleading.

Irfan Habib, who is usually ok as a source, also uses the terms synonymously, noting that Jatt is Punjabi.

"Jat" is by far the more common spelling in English works. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)