|WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted; page level editing restrictions may also be imposed. Enforcement and/or appeals should be requested at WP:AE.
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jat people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 2 months may be archived by.|
- 1 Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2017
- 2 Please remove the text: Biased source, poor synthesis based on limited study
- 3 Source bias: some obvious doubts, interesting observation applicable to all AJGAR-like caste articles
- 4 Gap in article: between migration from Sindh to post-mughal rule
- 5 Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2018
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- 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. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:05, 10 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.
- 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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2018
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (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.
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. 184.108.40.206 (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. 220.127.116.11 (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. 18.104.22.168 (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. 22.214.171.124 (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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
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 ______
- 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
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
"the Jat community saw radical social changes in the 17th century, when the Hindu Jats took up arms"