Jump to content

Talk:Jats/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Only Jats of Rajasthan are in the Central list of OBC of GOI.

Jats of Uttar pradesh, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh are not Included in the Central list of OBC. They only figure in the state list. So it should be cleary mentioned that only Jats of Rajasthan( except Bharatpur and Dholpur) are classified as OBC by the Govt of India.

Akashasr (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the reservation system but am a bit bemused about this issue. The article says, amongst numerous other things, that "Some specific clans of Jat people are classified as Other Backward Castes in some states," Why is the central list relevant? And since the links that you provide are compiled by the GoI from the state lists, I really must be missing something here. I am not marking this request as "answered" because I really am at a loss. However, if your point is that the central list is different from the state lists, that you feel this is not shown, and that you can explain what the difference is between the two systems then, sure, something might need to be altered. As it stands, the article refers to the status in various states and appears not to be wrong on that point. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets take the case of delhi. The URL mentions that Shiela Dikshit(Delhi CM) accorded OBC status to jats. This means that they will get reservation benefits only under subjects which are under the control of Delhi Govt i.e any scheme run by state govt. However for general purpose(admission into Colleges, Govt Jobs) they have to be OBC under the GOI list of Delhi(which they are not) and can only be accorded OBC status by the central govt. Jats of Uttar pradesh, delhi and M.P. are treated as General by the GOI. So this should be clearly mentioned.

Saying that jats of these states are OBC only on the basis of state govt lists (which has minimal impact only on a few state govt schemes) is unfair because they are still treated as General for the purposes of general affirmative action for all purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashasr (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, forgive me but I have merged your replies and deleted the duplicated edit request template - one is sufficient because it all falls under the same heading. I don't think I've had anything to do with the OBC etc status stuff mentioned in this particular article. Can you find me a link for the central list? The last time I looked, I used the one published by the Census department or the National Commission for Backward Classes. Are those two lists even the same? I'd guess that the Census one is out of date because it was as at 2001.

The problem with the "General" class (ie: Forward Class) is that there is no list: you are FC if you do not appear in the list for SC/ST or OBC - is that your understanding also? - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

IF you do not feature in NCBC list then you are regarded as GENERAL. The lists published by NCBC include only Jats of Rajasthan(except bharatpur and Dholpur) as OBC. Rest of the jats from states such as punjab,haryana,up,mp,delhi do not figure in the list and are treated as FC. And no, the lists are not out the date. JATS are still FC in all states except Rajasthan. You can see Jats of Uttar pradesh demanding reservation in 2012. If they were already in the list they wouldn't do so.

Another URL mentions that Delhi jats fail to meet criteria for inclusion into OBC.

You can check the NCBC list of OBC from these states where JATS do not feature.

The NCBC lists are updated as you can see in the dates mentioned of OBC inclusion of communities which includes the year 2011. SO please correct it saying that only the Jats of rajasthan(except Bharatpur and Dholpur) are treated as OBC. The state lists of various states are irrelevant and have no affirmative action component. But, they only serve the purpose of helping the community to get into the actual NCBC list.14:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Akashasr (talk)

PLEASE ENSURE THE CORRECTIONAkashasr (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look through the links, thanks. However, you are most definitely wrong to say "IF you do not feature in NCBC list then you are regarded as GENERAL.". Communities that are in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes lists are not classed as General, even though they are also not in the NCBC list of Other Backward Classes. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NCBC is for inclusion into OBC. Yes I meant that in terms of communities trying to get OBC status.Akashasr (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Answered: - The article already says, inter alia, that

Some specific clans of Jat people are classified as Other Backward Castes in some states, e.g.Jats of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi,[54][55][56] Muslim Jats in Gujarat[57] and Mirdha Jat people (except Jat Muslims) in Madhya Pradesh.[58]

It does not say that they are OBC everywhere and we cannot say that they are Forward Class because that is original research - we would be synthesising numerous sources, all of which are subject to change on a fairly frequent basis. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been noticing your contribution to the Jat pages. It seems that you are more concerned about deleting everything that shows a +ve outlook and will chose to keep anything -ve despite the source being dubious: for ex Bayly being quoted 4 times in the 1st line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashasr (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Political dominance of Jats in Western Uttar Pradesh


so The article should be updated to say that Jats have traditionally dominated the political class in Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh.Akashasr (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The above sources are based on a constrained search for western+uttar+pradesh+jats. The details are:
  • Patil, Shankaragouda Hanamantagouda (2002). Community Dominance and Political Modernisation: The Lingayats. Mittal Publications. ISBN 9788170998679.
  • - forget it: it is one of Pandey's Gyan books
  • Stern, Robert W. (2003). Changing India: Bourgeois Revolution on the Subcontinent (2nd, revised ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521009126.
Now I've got to read them and look around for other sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I am inclined not to bother. Even the lead section already says

By the 20th century, the landowning Jats became an influential group in several parts of North India, including Punjab,[8] Western Uttar Pradesh,[9] Rajasthan,[10] Haryana and Delhi.[11] Over the years, several Jats abandoned agriculture in favour of urban jobs, and used their dominant economic and political status to claim higher social status.[12]

- Sitush (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Holier than thou attitude of Sitush

Why has been a single author quoted 4 diff times? 1st source is Brittanica which is not acceptable What about BALANCE.. The whole article is filled with Bayly. Other authors have been ignored. AND YET YOU CHOSE TO KEEP IT. I posted several links where Jats were described as "elite cultivating caste" , "high caste zamindars" and since they don't fulfil your agenda, you have chosen to stick to the SINGLE BAYLY SOURCE WHICH HAS BEEN QUOTED MULTIPLE TIMES.


Akashasr (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Rejection of URL's by User:Sitush

Whenever he is not able to put forth arguments or he has to concede to mine, He still choses not to remove the content proven FALSE by me (see above)

His only reply is "links are subject to change on a fairly frequent basis" which is wrong and even he knows that.

See his talk page: He has been accused multiple times of not contributing and reverting edits by people just because these don't fulfil his agenda.

Akashasr (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality of references and the article

"With passage of time, in the western Punjab, the Jats became primarily Muslim, in the eastern Punjab, Sikh, and in the areas between Delhi Territory and Agra, primarily Hindu, their divisions by faith reflecting the geographical strengths of these religions.[20]"

This article is full of inconsistencies, Sikh Jatt strong hold was Central and South eastern Punjab, why is page locked? See "Tribes and Castes of Panjab & NW frontier Province". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffos (talk • contribs) 05:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is locked because numerous IP and non-confirmed editors refused to follow Wikipedia; in particular, non-neutral statements were added, along with unsourced information or unreliable sources. As to your specific question, I don't understand what the inconsistency in that sentence is. Could you explain more? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Misleading Information on Jat People

This Wiki page needs to be revised to be balanced as currently it appears that someone here ("Sitush"?) has a malicious agenda concerning the history and description of the Jat people. Why quote Susan Bayly's work so many times to downgrade the Jat people given that she is not even remotely considered to be an authority on the history of the Jat people. Consideration should be given to leading Indian historian Kushwant Singh and his authoritative and universally respected work "A History of the Sikhs, Volume I: 1469-1839", Oxford University Press, 1999). Here is what Singh writes about the Jats: "It is now generally accepted that the Jats who made the northern plains of India their home were of Aryan stock." (page 14) . . . The Jat's spirit of freedom and equality refused to submit to Brahmanical Hinduism and in its turn drew the censure of the privileged Brahmins . . . The upper caste Hindu's denigration of the Jat did not in the least lower the Jat in his own eyes nor elevate the Brahmin or the Kshatriya in the Jat's estimation. On the contrary, he assumed a somewhat condescending attitude towards the Brahmin, whom he considered little more than a soothsayer or a beggar, or the Kshatriya, who disdained earning an honest living and was proud of being a mercenary." (page 15)

Accordingly, the Jats have never accepted the Hindu caste system and have openly and regularly ridiculed those who claim a "higher status" than other people. This will be quite apparent to anyone who visits Jat dominated areas of India and Pakistan. It is wholly improper to use only the views of non-Jats in describing the position of Jats in Indian society.

JatHistorian (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That personal attack you have just made is unacceptable, and I have given you a formal warning for it on your talk page. You will get a positive reception here, and other editors will carefully consider the changes you wish to make and the sources you wish to use - but only if you approach the project in a collegial manner. If you come here with a battlefield approach, making accusations against editors who have already been working on the project, you will be ignored, reverted, and ultimately blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

This whole article is misleading, not based on facts and designed to harm the feelings of particular community. "The Jat people are a community of traditionally non-elite tillers and herders in Northern India and Pakistan." It is not right approach to call 'Jats' as non elite tillers before understanding the complete history of jats? This article is based on the references of Susan Bayly who does not hold command on this subject as other leading historian like Ram Sarup Joon, Kushwant Singh. My point is calling a particular community based on one author while ignoring others more renowned historians you are not doing justice to this article. You should check multiple sources before writing this article. There are several book on the History of Jats but very few are available for free online to quote you a reference. I found one reference which was available online for free. If you are writing an article about a community you need to go through multiple books to know the facts and history.

Please check the following references: http://books.google.com/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA68&dq=jat+people&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qbInUaueJuOU0QGy8IDoCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jat%20people&f=false


72.74.85.37 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Vacation9 18:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


Edit request on 22 February 2013

Ok, 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=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA68&dq=jat+people&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qbInUaueJuOU0QGy8IDoCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jat%20people&f=false

JatUser (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done Vacation9 22:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
And I've reverted. Books published by Gyan publishing are never reliable sources, since they consist mainly of two things: unattributed (and often mangled) copies of Wikipedia articles, and unattributed/semi-attributed (often mangled) copies of very old sources that are themselves not reliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.

1. community of traditionally non-elite tillers and herders this has been quoted 4 times in the 1st sentence from the work of a single author i.e Susan Bayly.

However multiple sources say that jats are "elite cultivating caste".

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vxLAK8EXo84C&pg=PA207&dq=jats+elite&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2Ya6UIm9H8LorQfC-IGYCg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=jats%20elite&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=mY8X_vlVThAC&pg=PA85&dq=jats+elite&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Goe6UIyMEI3NrQeZiIC4BQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=jats%20elite&f=false


2. Certain statements irrelevant to history have been included just because they are offensive. ex: 1750s, Surajmal removed his own Jat brethren from positions of power and replaced them with a contingent of Mughal revenue officials from Delhi who proceeded to implement the Mughal scheme of collecting land-rent.


3. However the REVOLT OF 1669 which is imp. from the POV of even indian history has not been mentioned.


4.Jat states of the 18th century should be renamed as Jat states since the 16th century since the 1st jat kings were the ranas of gohad in 1505. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA75&dq=jat+gohad&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IIq6UKSeIY79rAfw_4DADw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jat%20gohad&f=false

Akashasr (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


5. There should be a separate section for mythological origin of jats.

I am struggling to deal with this rapid influx of criticisms but would note right now that two of the sources given in this section are simply not acceptable - please see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. I will try my best to go through the rest of the stuff soon. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Taking your points in order:
  • 1. Your second source is not acceptable (Gyan). I agree that it seems odd to cite Bayly in the manner that has occurred. I need to check your first source.
  • 2. How do you know that the statement was included just because it is offensive? Is it offensive? Please be aware that we are not censored. You'd need to show that the source is unreliable.
  • 3. So tell us about it
  • 4. Source is Gyan & indeed one of the most notorious that I am aware of - not acceptable
  • 5. Fine. Sources?
- Sitush (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


I agree with the removal of "traditionally non-elite tillers and herders". Because:
1) Calling a group/community (which is still existing today) as "non elite" is like calling all Negroids or members of a Negroid tribe "slaves" or "primitive" beings. The fact that Baylyl has been quoted three times from the SAME source is a little bit eccentric, and the fact that her work is titled "Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century..." actually defeats the purpose of "non-elite", which brings me onto my next point...
2) Jats have been in prominent positions of North West India's fedual hierarchy since the 16th century. Looking back at the history of this talk page, I believe JagNatha has quoted many many times from various sources (which I was just about to quote) which have just been ignored by yourself. Hopefully it saves me the quoting.
3) A very reliable source on the genealogy of the Jat Rana's of Gohad which Akashasr mentions can be found: Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana, C.S. Bayley

RealityExplained (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...a better solution would be to change the word "traditionally"...I can't think of how to rephrase it. It's clear that we need to include the description, but maybe we need to focus it more from "traditionally" to a specific time period. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well since the first Jat "elite" titled 'Raja'/'Rana' appears to be documented in India in the 16th century, maybe 'traditionally' should be replaced with 'prior to the 16th century'? RealityExplained (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, scrolling through the history of the talk page, there are many edit requests from JagNatha earlier which I think should be considered. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jat_people&oldid=487999691 RealityExplained (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Just because one or more elites appeared in the 16th century doesn't mean that suddenly at the time they all become elite. As for the prior suggestions, we're not going back to a discussion from 2011. If there's some point in there that you think is worth raising, then start a new section at the bottom of this page; be sure, of course, to read through the whole discussion and consider why the changes weren't made before. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source

My simple question is what make Susan Bayly as reliable source on history of Jats while others not? I think WP policies are not being followed here while writing this article. JatUser (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

First, please only use that template when you are requesting a specific change to the article. If you just want to have a discussion, start a new thread here without that template. Bayly appears to be a reliable source--she's a modern writer, a Reader at Christ's College, an anthropologist who specialized in Indian caste and religion, and, most importantly, that book was published by Cambridge University Press, one of the most prestigious publishers of academic literature in the world. I don't see any reason why that would not qualify as a reliable source. Which source is it that you want to add? Qwyrxian (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. 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 [1] in nature. Anthropologists suggests that Jats and Rajputs are akin to each other and the only difference between them is rather related to their social status.[2] [3]

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.[a][b][c]

-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"
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)

Sitush obsessed with Sikhs ans jatts

Why can't you provide a balamced view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening claim

Why is the opening claim singularly referenced I.e. susan bayly non elite . There is also this Second reference from her book p138

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&pg=PA138&vq=Jats&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1

Jattnijj (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Jattnijj (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent to your query above, you tried to insert page 138 of Bayly and were reverted by someone. Rightly so, since you were obviously cherry-picking: please do not take material from sources without first reading for the context. Please read that entire chapter from Bayly, after which you will hopefully understand. In brief, she is saying that those "fresher race" etc statements that she quotes are the work of bizarre and discredited scientific racism theories that were propounded by such gentleman-scholars as H. H. Risley, Edgar Thurston, H. A. Rose, Denzil Ibbetson and so on. The opinions of all of those people are generally dismissed as incompetent by modern sources, they are unlikely to have any place in this article and even if they did it would certainly not be as a means to mislead people as you were doing.

I did advise you to spend some time reading past comments on this talk page. I really do think that you need to do this otherwise you are going to become very frustrated, very quickly. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok didn't realise western scholars of the past were also writing propaganda. Thanks for broadening the point for me.

What would you call the caste system construct?

using a singular reference is also cherry picking.

Jattnijj (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What SItush or I would call the caste system is irrelevant; what is relevant is what reliable sources say. And using a singular reference is not cherry picking if you read the entire context of the reference, understand what it means, evaluate the quality of the author/publisher, etc. Are you interested in having a civil conversation per our rules or not? Qwyrxian (talk)

14:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh hi oxy

I think its fundamental, sorry. The usage of a paradigm by the source implies a position in itself.

Wasn't that sitush point on scientific rascism?


Going to have to split my time as I see there is a page om brahmin s that isn't using reliable sources and references too - can you help on there too?

Jattnijj (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We paraphrase sources; we do not interpret them. I, too, am coming to the conclusion that you need a break from here, sorry: please can you try reading some of our policies before editing this or any other article. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Jattnijj, you are on thin ice at this point. At least three editors have suggested a 2+ week block or indefinite topic ban, reasonable suggestions as far as I'm concerned. If you continue with you WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and failure to carefully read our WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies, I will follow through on the block suggestions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I was directed here for the discussion.

Please advise if you cant provide responses to arguments.

On a positive note im taking what I've learnt to improve references on other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


Sitush I see you are active on the brahmins page but haven't applied the same rigour there on references. How is the best way to do this together?

I'll still be active here but want to read Susan s book ans look for other peer reviewed sources, maybe mot just social anthropology based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't interefered in this article for a while, and most users know I'm a Jatt-Sikh, however your origins have no place in Wikipedia. All we are interested in is WP:NPOV, with WP:RELIABLE references. From your behaviour Jattnijjyou don't seem to understand the concept WP:AGF. User's Sitush and Qwyrxian are both fair and WP:Balance 'd in their opinions. They have helped me developed several Jatt and Sikh based articles. I suggest rather than trying to second guess and make disruptive edits, your work with editors. Thanks SH 16:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


Great maybe you can also help develop the brahmim page with the same rigour.

16:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs)

You really don't understand the concept of WP:AGF do you? SH 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you guys always write in code?

Jattnijj (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh good faith? In what respect?

Btw have you seen the pages on the so called dasam granth and sarbloh, what's your view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

plz delete --> The Jats participated in both, World War I as well as World War II, as a part of the British Indian Army.[60] Jats professed Hinduism but many converted to Islam - often forcibly - during the period of Muslim rule in India. Subsequently, significant numbers converted to Sikhism, and particularly so in the Punjab. B. S. Nijjar notes that "... the Sikhs became as fanatically anti-Muslim as the Muslims had been anti-Hindus" and they joined armies in opposition to the Muslim rulers.[60]

b'coz of argument @ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jat_people&diff=568813881&oldid=568712335 117.207.190.125 (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how those are related; the source marked #60 seems to be from a University of California press, which is generally considered to be a good publisher of academic work. What Fowler&Fowler removed was not that source. But maybe I'm just misunderstanding you--could you explain why you think F&F's removal is somehow relevant to this particular work? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Easiest Way to Correct this Wiki Page

This talk page is not a place for you to rant and rave about your POV. If you want to provide some reliable sources to support your proposed changes, you are welcome to do so. But if you just want to complain, find another website. There have been no valid criticisms, because all of them are just like yours--people spouting their own personal opinions without any references. Well, that's not how Wikipedia works. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Many Wiki users who are interested in the history of the Jat people or are Jats themselves have pointed out glaring anti-Jat biases and inaccurate statements about these people on this Wiki page. One would have to be totally ignorant, close minded, and biased against the Jat community to deny that the Jats have dominated the economic and political landscape in both Indian and Pakistani Punjab for centuries. It is an undeniable fact that every Jat, by definition, is a landowner. The Jats have historically not been and currently are not just peasants in the European sense but have been warriors, landlords and rulers throughout northern India and Pakistan. Indeed, Punjabi folklore and legends romanticises the Jats of all people (look up the stories Heer-Ranjha and Mirza-Sahiban). This WIki page itself acknowledges many Jat kings and maharajas over the centuries. So, this Wiki page appears quite silly and without credibility to start of describing the Jats as "non-elite tillers . . .".

It is disingenuous and malicious for the person who has hi-jacked this Wiki page to only describe the Jats in his own biased manner. It is quite apparent for people who are even vaguely familiar with the Jat people and their history, that this Wiki page is inaccurate at best and deliberately derogatory at worst. The many many valid criticisms about the contents of this WIki page demand a new editor for this page - someone who is not so close minded and feels he has a god-given right to describe a community that he either does not understand or simply resents or hates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJatt13 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, as Dr. Baldev Singh once wrote →

    India will remain mired in religious, caste, linguistic and ethnic strifes as long as Indians don’t come to terms with their past history objectively and learn from it.

    ← Abstruce 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)



Hi Qwyrxian

As an academic I have a number of oncerns with the content and scope of this article. There are a multitude of questions which I could ask but will on this occasion confine myself to only a few. Firstly I would like to know what qualifications you possess in the fields of Indian history either anthropology and or linguistics? Do you for instance possess a Phd? What refereed articles have you published in international journals with regard to caste formation and ethnic identity in India? Do you have any qualifications whatsoever relating to Ancient Indian history? What makes you an expert with regard to historical patterns of migration in Northern India, cultural history and group formation? There are a number of problems with your approach which make large portions of this piece read like utter dribble. I would not quote from it even if my life depended on it! Firstly to dismiss the work of Sir Henry Rose and Sir Denzil Ibbetson is quite remarkable and of course nonsense. They undertook years of extensive fieldwork and provided invaluable information with regard to the religious and social customs of the peoples of the Punjab. Both were high minded liberals from the ICS with outstanding academic qualifications. Most of what they managed to do cannot be repeated today. Rose's study is an exhaustive account written in three volumes. Lets have some balance here and their unique contribution acknowledged. In the main body of the text you state that the Jats migrated from the Sindh into the Punjab? Where is the lingustic evidence for this migration ? Over what time period did this 'migration' occur and are there contemporary accounts which can count as primary sources of evidence? Why is there no reference to Sindh in the folklore and social customs of the Punjabi Jats? Language contribution is very important here and cannot be dismissed. Are you seriously suggesting that there were no Jats in Punjab or other areas of Northern India prior to this? Why is there no exhaustive timeline? Which groups lived in the Punjab at the time of this migration? What impact did the migration have on the existing social order? Who held the land and how did the Jats take possesion of it? Why is there no reference to the Jat/Rajput connection ? Why do several clans of the Jat Sikhs in particular (Gill, Sidhu, Brar, Randhawa) claim this connection? Were they mistaken or stupid ? Was Rose an idiot for making this connection? What about the recent DNA studies which confirm that the Jat ethnic group migrated into India as a largely compact social entity? Why is there no timeline? Or would that involve serious academic research the kind which you are unable to undertake? When did the Jats enter India and how did they relate to the existing social, religious order.? What precisely is a 'non - elite tiller'. A quite extraordinary phrase and one which I have not encountered before in any of the academic literature. You are not an expert and should stop presenting yourself as one!

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OR. Please also note that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and no expertise is required to contribnte to it. Experts are, of course, welcome, but only if they comply with our policies and guidelines. In addition, there is neither a deadline nor a point at which an article becomes complete. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

Dear Sir- I would request you to remove the following verbiage from your update "are a community of traditionally non-elite tillers and herders in Northern India and Pakistan.[a][b][c] Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh" This not the proven history of Jats, pastoralists are mobile and Jaat didnt travel too much to earn that term. I am phd in history and working in united states as lecturer. I strongly feel this information is misleading. There are many theories about jaat and definitely what you mentioned is not a prudent one. i wouldnot quote any right verbiage to insert but will highly recommend to remove the one above. More than wiki I personally feel that answers about Jat community is more informative on yahoo link http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061018065955AAmtssE. In my opinion it would be good to perform a profound research before writing on this community. Thank you . Legitimateinformation2013 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to conduct "profound research". When you do so, please feel free to report the results here. You may want to first look at the rest of this talk page and its archives, and you'll see that we've already discussed this subject extensively based on what the actual sources say. But, who knows, maybe you'll find something other editors have missed. Please note (though I assume you should know this) that answers.yahoo.com is essentially the exact opposite of a reliable source--please find academic articles published by high quality book publishers or in academic journals. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I Second Professor's request as I also feel that referring Jats as "non elite tillers and herders" in the intro section of the article is derogatory in nature. When I tried to replace that many months ago with the help of many academic research references cited from JSTOR, a user reverted my edits, saying that 20th Century British Anthropologists were not able to do accurate research regarding History of Jats. He based this derogatory remark on one modern writer called Susan Baily. I feel that projecting the article on one person of group's POV is not a good idea, let other users be allowed to make necessary edits, and when many people are objecting to a phrase than it must be replaced with a more balanced one.

-Viplovecomm (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We are not censored and we are obligated to reflect statements made in reliable sources. You've been here before, as you say, and thus presumably you have not yet managed to find a reliable source to contradict what it presently said. If/when you do, we can include it along with what is already said - that is how we achieve balance at Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Prime minister not referenced

There isn't a reference here - admin please source a reference, presumably easy, given he was a public official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleareng (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Just semantics ?

Can we have a reference that shows the logical link for jat jatt jutts zutts etc. Are they one and the same?

B s nijjar makes a claim but does not reference or provide a logical link.

As a side note is it acceptable to have a definition from a glossary which isn't referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllogic (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Jat and Jatt are synonyms. This has been discussed on more than one occasion in the past, although I cannot spot it in the archives. Nijjar is not a particularly reliable source, btw, but if you want to provide a source for the synonymity then feel free to look for one. As far as I am aware, the association is recognised by all contributors who are from the community itself & thus although that is not ideal, it will suffice for what is really a pretty minor point. I suspect that any other spellings are archaisms, rather as Hindoo is, and I'd have no objection to their removal. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, So that is a no. There is no reliable reference. I'm still searching for a reference - this statement needs to be removed, until a reference is found. Contributions from these communities are not relevant. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleareng (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Im all out here, cant find reliable references either.

Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllogic (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

History section

Should we add the nomadic pastoralist definition, c7th century, Nomads in the Sedentary World to the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllogic (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC) 

== Are a community of non elite ==

Is this definition useful and complete given the nomadic pastoralist claim c7 century and now that 'they have abandoned agricultural pursuits in favour of urban jobs'?

Why cant the quotes the author uses be in plain English (to define these people) I've read the book on Google its confusing, but must admit I don't understand why she uses the 'caste' system - what is its relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pllogic (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is useful because it is their traditional role. Caste is largely a matter of tradition. Bayly is one of the best sources around and it is not for us to question why she might sometimes take a walk around the houses when describing things. The issue has been discussed on numerous past occasions here. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is it the best source? I've also looked on line at this ref and its in a glossary and unreferenced. It is for us to critically evaluate sources - are you new to this?

What has caste got to do with this - what place does an archaic belief system, of one people and time, have to do with defining people now and near history? If we are sticking to occupation here why not complete the occupations list? For example: Whats wrong with adding the nomadic pastoral point, peasantry and whatever they do nowadays?

I think we need better academic practice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue for this paragraph to be more useful you want something broader than what these people did as an occupation before and do now! As it stands the opening is one dimensional and quite bland - What is the character of these people? Where are they from? How has their history evolved? Where are they now? Are there any controversial or ambiguous points we can add to capture the readers attention?

Who are the admin here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the prior discussions and please note that this article is not merely about the caste today. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


It would be constructive to respond to questions and try not to conflate points - are you the admin?

These points raised seem - on the face of it - uncontroversial and NPOV - what is the issue here?

Look, it is obvious to me that you are either sockpuppets or meat pupoets, perhaps brought together through comments made on a Jat-related forum elsewhere. Admins carry no special status on Wikipedia but you should note that various admins have in fact commented on this situated in the past. Aside from discussions that can be found here, there is also a thread at the top of the unarchived section of this talk page right now. You can keep on bleating about it but I'm not going to keep responding to you and yours unless you can find some reliable sources to contradict the claim. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

POV baylyl susan & christopher; Nijjar etc.

I see there are a few different views on this subject (and traumaticaly reading through haphazard, incomplete and arguments often at crossed purposes) fail to understand why NPOV can't be adhered on this article. There are atleast these three authors (see title) who have different views; along with the other ideas of arya samaj claiming indo arian descent, someone claimiing scythian descent, some gypsy, pastoralist, agricultural and peasant. ....... I think claims for and against a belief system like the caste system - which as I understand was an elitist idea of a few groups- needs to qualified here too. Whatever people claim I.e. ancient grandmaster warrior v labourer! Evidence first (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. - Sitush (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Check lead section for POV

See sections above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. It has all been discussed before, as you have been told, and you've come up with nothing new. You can't adopt a head in the sand approach. - Sitush (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This article had mixed "Jat" and "Jatt" but both are fundamentally different races

Jat (also written at jaat) but jatt is only written as Jatt. Sidhu clan is also a jatt clan not a "jat" clan. All of the article needs to be rebuild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.177.27 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


What are you saying dude, Sidhu's are also hindu and muslims. I'am a Sidhu from haryana and I'm hindu jat. Some sidhu's are muslim too in pakistan. All Jats were hindu some 600 years back, now some are hindu some sikhs and some muslims. It does'nt matter now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justruth6 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just drop this, please. Unless both of you can provide reliable sources to support your various contentions, it is going nowhere. This page is for discussions related to improvement of the article, not a battleground for personal musings and the perpetuation of inter-community (intra-community?) rivalry. Please see WP:TPG. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Famous Jatt (not Jat that is different) Icons (wiki editor can add this info)

Basically a rant, deploying a spammy link. Please read WP:TPG and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Achievements of the Jatt (not jat that is different) Brotherhood

ICON'S NAME JATT CLAN RELIGION CATEGORY DESCRIPTION REGION

Jatt Dhanna Dhaliwal Bhagti(no religion but uddenly Spiritual Master Enlightened Spiritual Rajasthan Bhagat starting believing in god) Mystic

Pir Baba Kala Sandhu Ancestor Worship[Ancient Pagan] Clan Warrior Clan Warrior of Ancient Punjab Mehr Ji Shaheed Punjab and Supreme Worshipped Ancestor 

                                                                                                of the Sandhu Jatt Clan

Sant Jarnail Singh Brar Sikhism Spiritual Leader and The Supreme Spiritual Punjab Bhinderanwale Brar Warrior Leader of Sikhism in 

                                                                                                  the 20th Century



- See more at: http://www.jattworld.com/online/great-jatt-icons

Now, you see most are from Punjab, one or two from Haryana and few from Rajasthan. I prove my point that Jatts now are mostly from Punjab. My ancestors too were from Rajasthan. (Jais) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvog (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Article's mention about Sikhism and Jat is absolutely incorrect.

Many of jats (Not jatts, they are different) follow hinduism. They live in states other than Punjab. (India)

But Sikhism is followed mostly by Jatts (not jats, they are different) Only Jatts live in Punjab. (India.) Some Jatts also live in Haryana. (most of them live in area bordering punjab.)

I am a JATT SIKH, I live in punjab and I know what's what. Will soon find a reiable source to make changes in complete article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.177.27 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Jat or Jatt is similar thing just the difference is because of change of language. Hindu jats on haryana/punjab and punjab/rajasthan border are also called Jatts, specially in abohar and fazilka. Jatt sikhs are called jaats in some parts of haryana surrounding delhi area. Just because religion is different it doesn't mean blood or dna is different. Think about it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justruth6 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much as per my last comment in the preceding section, please drop this matter. The Jat/Jatt issue has been discussed to death here in the past and nothing new is being presented by either of you. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

References and language used in this article is not true and words used are derogatory. It should be edited and the person who locked should be revealed to see why he did that and make changes as per his own will.This is not a true and correct history of Jats. Jats were and are mentioned as rulers by Islamic rulers before Rajputs both in Sindh and current Punjab, even today they are rulers. This article must be removed or changed.

RajNeeti2014 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This article uses scholarly sources. See WP:RS#Some_types_of_sources. Reliably sourced content cannot be removed. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

Incomplete history. Bias apparent

DRQRKH (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

Please remove the words non-elite as they are unnecessary and derogatory towards the community. 1. They do not provide an accurate account of the community. 2. The page lists various kingdoms and rulers that were Jat, and hence conforms to a general definition of elitism. 3. It is also worth noting that any large community cannot be generalised as elite or non-elite.

It is my humble request to remove the judgemental content that does not seem to have a factual as it is derogatory in nature, a writing on a topic cannot be considered as fact as the writer is biased and opinionated, and only expression opinion, not fact.

Kind regards

122.162.14.120 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed umpteen times previously. It is not going to happen because reliable sources do refer to them as non-elite and we do not pander to the vanity of those about whom we write or the strictures of some archaic religious texts. That some became rulers etc does not alter the fact that the vast majority traditionally plodded up and down fields and got their hands dirty - a worthy way to live one's life. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please define 'reliable sources'? they are only referred to as non-elite in Susan Bayly's book.
"Close to the sixteenth century they had large areas under their zamindaris in and around the Punjab, in particular the Rachna and Bari Doabs and in the west of the Yamuna in the sarkars of Sirhind, Hisar, Firoza, and Delhi of suba Delhi"
The Crisis in Empire of Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707-1748, Muzaffar Alam

(comparing Ain-i-Akbari records)

If the Ain-i-Akbari states that the Jats to be intermediary title-holding 'Zamindars'; than how can they be considered 'traditionally non-elite'. Peasantry, yes. Nomadic origins, yes... 'Non-Elite' to define a community is absolutely crazily absurd!
Also considering the fact that, as per the Jajmani System (Social/socio-economic structure), that would put the upper-strata of the Jats higher than most of the population at the time (apart from Kings, Subedars, Wazirs, Dewans and other's in the Imperial Mughal Administrative Framework).
And with regards to 'Jat is an elastic label applied to a wide-ranging, traditionally non-elite'; looking at Susan Bayly's quote from 'Caste, Society and Politics in India...', that is completely and totally unreferenced and her own opinion. Nowhere does she mention the time-period of the discussion, or which particular historical accounts she is analysising to actually come to the conclusion that she is coming to. I think Susan Baylyl's book being considered a 'reliable source' with regards to a modern community/identity being labeled as "traditionally non-elite" is more than questionable.
I would like you to take a read of the bottom quote taken from her book which is being used as a reference, Sitush, at point out: historical sources being analyzed to come to her conclusions of Jats being 'non-elite' community; and a term for a 'villager' and not a 'caste'.
"Of course these areas still contained large numbers of non-elite
tillers. In the Punjab and the western Gangetic plains, convention
denned the Rajput's non-elite counterpart as a Jat. Like the 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. Even well
into the nineteenth century, a male Jat was understood to be a man of
worth but not a follower of exacting lordly codes."
Surely, her opinions should hold no value in this article, even if they are published in a book.
The context of this quote is the 17th century, and in Punjab and Gangetic plains. If you regard Muzaffar Alam's translation/comparison of the Ain-I-Akbari as a reliable source, then they are Intemediary Zamindars (a relatively important socio-economic class) by the 16TH century Punjab (which is Non-Khalisa, i.e. there are no vassal overlords or kings, the revenue of their lands and villages are paid directly to the mughal administration representing the empire i.e. the Subedar of the province). So we can deduce that her opinion is factually inaccurate with regards to Punjab atleast.
Also, what's your opinion Sitush, is 'non-elite' being used with regards to comparitive 'varna-status' amongst the orthodox caste-ridden hindu's of the time? or is it being used in a socio-economic sense? or is it being used as an occupational comparison? 'lordly-codes' is vague and doesn't mean anything. -- so the quote is, again, in-accurate and can be considered nothing but an opinion.
I am more than happy to debate you, Sitush, on the use of this quote from Susan Baylyl as reference. Not only is the quote Out Of Context (we aren't talking about the 17th century, Jat's as a people/community, still unquestionably exist!), but the quote is in itself inaccurate for the above mentioned reasons.
- CaptainGSingh (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have closed this edit request as there does not appear to be consensus here. I have no comment on the merit of your request, but please feel free to continue this discussion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this the right place for discussion?
Well, there have been many questions about the accuracy of Susan's work in the past, no? And with regards to labeling a community as 'non-elite' due to her perceived status of them in the 17th century, that is simply absurd?
Is 'Sitush' the only user that gets the final say in this article? - looking at his previous edits, on other articles too, the book seems to be a bible for that user. CaptainGSingh (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It was suggested you need consensus, instead of even trying to seek this, you simply reiterated your personal point of view, and attacked another editor.
Deriding a source, does not make it invalid - if you can provide equally reliable sources, and obtain consensus, the article could be changed to explain that reliable sources reflect different points of view, and quote the differences, but not just to remove the point of view which you dislike. Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. You understand that the evidence I have provided clearly factually overrides the use of 'non-elite' in Susan Bayly's work.
The time period which Susan Bayly is talking about in that particular context is the 17th century. I have already established that Jats where established titled zamindars in the 16th century. For that exact time period:
"The social layer of the landowning peasants was, no doubt, heterogeneous and the existence of a rich and powerful rural elite is rather well corroborated by various sources (Social and Attitudinal Changes in Medieval India: Thirteenth-Seventeenth Century, Satish Chandra, 2009)", "...The very content of these prohibitions testified to the fact that there had been little difference between the lifestyles of the Jat headmen (of the Khalisa lands - i.e. no 'Raja'/autonomous-overlords exist) and Rajput feudals (of Rajputana)."
Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man, By Eugenia Vanina, pg. 197 - 198
Surely, if they have an elite 'kingly' lifestyle in the 17th century, have formed autocratic kingdoms in the 18th century with 'vassals' (from the empire's own crown lands, i.e. they weren't serving a 'local king' but the emperor and his representatives directly, which makes them a 'local elite' in the 16th century Anyway), are considered the landed gentry in the 19th century... then surely, common-sense would dictate that it isn't wise to label a community as "traditionally non-elite" when the identity is based around their post-17th century status. And as I've said earlier, even in the 16th and 17th century, there is much evidence about Jats forming 'rural landed elite' class. Is there anything else I need to say/provide? CaptainGSingh (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor's Caste Should be Identified

It is imperative that each of the editors of this page honestly identify their respective caste as there is an apparent anti-Jatt bias on this page. The Indian editors of this page are not Jatts and are hell bent on presenting a misleading description of the Jatt people by refusing to change or delete entries from dubious source material.

05:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onecaste (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

Hi I would like to make a request to be allowed to make some edits in the text. "Jats professed Hinduism but many converted to Islam - often forcibly - during the period of Muslim rule in India." This particular sentence needs explanation. My contention is that professing Hinduism or Islam was more of a choice according to the popular culture of the region Jats were living in than by force. During that period, the most potent form of Islam which practiced was Sufism and because of its message of universal love, freedom and equality it was more attractive religious practice than Hinduism for Jats who for a log time have been uncomfortable with the Brahminical Hinduism. Therefore, to say "often forcibly" would not be a correct way to say. 107.142.40.132 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, provide a reliable source to verify your claim. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Jatt community is not considered as backward class in whole of India. In Punjab they are not backward class. Check references here http://www.ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLuTMjHNGD7tLAGJDr0rFZ6gMGSwas4awBZ3V8jx3Mgj8npfKT7loLNQ. Only Hindu Jats are taken as backward class not Sikh Jats. This page in its beginning mentions all Jatts as backward class which is not true. 143.210.122.208 (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (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. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification re OBC Status

Please add the following sentences after the first sentence in the opening paragraph to clarify the implication of the inclusion of Jats on the OBC list:

"India's National Commission for Backward Classes argued before India's Supreme Court that the Jats are a forward community mostly of zamindars (i.e. landowners) and that they should not be included on the caste based reservation list. [source: The Times of India, "SC issues notice to Centre on reservation for jats", April 1, 2014] The inclusion of the Jats on the Other Backward Classes list was done at the insistence of the Jats themselves as this would provide Jats preferential treatment for seats and posts in schools, colleges and government jobs in India." [source: "SC Refuses to Stay Centre's Decision to Include Jats on OBC", The Times of India, April 9, 2014.]

Onecaste (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting (although not unusual) development and I'd be grateful if you could provide links to the newspaper stories - the ToI has a website, so presumably they are on there somewhere. I think that your proposal is too detailed for the lead section, which is intended to summarise what the article says. However, some changes both to the lead and to the body itself would appear to be justified. It's the old story of people jostling for position: first they wanted to promote superiority through zamindari-related connections (despite mostly being peasants) and now they seem to be seeking an inferior position because it brings with it the benefits of reservation!
Have any other news outlets reported on this? Although unlikely to be wrong about the general situation, ToI is not the greatest source out there, so perhaps something from, say, The Hindu would be preferable. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see The Hindu, "Punjab gives BC status to Jat Sikhs", March 5, 2014. The Hind confirms the above description of the Jats and affirms the generally held view that the Jats were granted OBC status under pressure from the Jats, including the former Chief Minister of Punjab, Captain Amarinder Singh, who was also the president of the All India Jat Mahasabha. The Jats are generally acknowledged to be a landowning class (including by the reputable and highly respected National Commission for Backward Classes) and their description in this Wikipedia page is at odds with this generally held view. You are right though that the Jats want the OBC status as it is economically and financially advantageous to obtain that designation due to favourable treatment of groups classified as OBC under India's caste reservation system. Onecaste (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, either the whole section of caste classification be removed or be balanced, otherwise it gives an inaccurate description i.e. POV due to the lack of balance, I have added The Hindu source as to why the Jats have been included into the OBC, as this balances this article, and gives a true and accurate account as to why the Jats have been classified as OBC under India's reservation system. Syanaee (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dubious WP:OR violation

I have added the dubious tag due to finding discrepancies in the cited content, and in the commentary namely on the second citation tag, p.201 does not mention what the commentary from the editor is implying this is clear case of WP:PRIMARY/WP:NOR therefore the I would like a consensus on this. @NQ:, @Sitush:, @Jim Carter and Jim Carter - Public:, @Vacation9:, Problematic: [1] it mentions only the latter few bits, but takes out of context the entrie page, it is issue of POV to support one pariulcar claim, as I mentioned before, there is alot in this book which says positive things about the Jat, but all the citations from above source only mentioned all the seemingly negative ones to support the POV, it needs nenturality, hence the tag, the page does mention Jat but it is out of context to support the other two citations. WP states: "...Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation..." the three circular references violate this subsection of the policy. I'm being generous here with adding the dubious-tag because of the WP violation it would have been sufficient to remove that entire content, but hopefully we can fix the neutrality issue without taking such drastic course of action. I'll be for responses for a fews to establish rationale if there are no logical explanations as why the content should be left I will go ahead and remove the entire section, since it does not conform to wikipedia policy, unless reliable/verifiable secondary sources can be provided to support the three citations. Also, the issue of the OBC is already addressed in two books one which is used here and the other one which I mentioned, and there are also published news articles as to why the Jats have classed themselves as OBC, its to gain preferential treatment, which is an important and ironic point, since the Jat have as it is mentioned claimed to have established themselves as the landed elite during the middle ages, so now or how are they claiming OBC status which isn't very elite just so that they can gain a benefit from the system, this duplicity needs to be mentioned in the article since its important to the whole narrative. Since many Jats (falsely) claim this was forced on them by oppressive elements in India. Syanaee (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't anything to do with WP:PRIMARY - Bayly is a secondary source. As I alluded to in a section above, all of those cites relate to use of the word "non-elite", which was the point that Jats who frequented this talk page claimed to be wrong (usually, they claimed that they were kshatriya and always had been - a very common thing to happen on Wikipedia).
Since the source supports use of "non-elite", there are really two problems. Firstly, it may be that the citations are slightly misplaced since I see no mention of OBC, although that quite possibly is because the OBC bit was added later by someone else. Secondly, the weighting may prove to be unfair given the Vanini source that we've recently found. Fowler was quite keen on "non-elite" as a term because, apparently, it is commonly used nowadays. Certainly Bayly uses it but we may end up having to compare/contrast her with Vanini and perhaps others, which could result in us saying in the body something like, According to the anthropologist and historian Susan Bayly, the Jats were a 'non-elite' group around the Xth century. Vanini describes them differently, as a 'xxxx'." Then the lead section would have to say something like There are differences in opinion regarding the social status of the Jat people at various times in history. We really need to read the Vanini book properly and it looks like I'll have to re-read the Bayly one. Oh, what joy :( - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your points on the historical timeline and using that method that would be the most accurate and balanced. I think in the end both views will have to be included I am personally not aware that the term-non-elite or even elite are used, they're pretty archaic. Tillers, landowning peasants, or more appropriately often I've heard zimidar, which is basically Hindi/Urdu/Punjabi version meaning land owning. This is why I was suggesting terms like elite should not be used, but I don't know what the policy on that is, to avoid undue bias.
By the way I dropped the idea of filing a dispute against you, I think we just got off on the wrong foot. But after reviewing things around here and the headbutting you've gotten into with new members on caste based articles I can understand why you might have felt they way you did about me i.e. skeptical about my motives. Syanaee (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think stuff published 20 or so years ago can be considered "archaic". Perhaps it is a term more commonly found in the works of sociologists rather than historians etc. Regarding my attitude to you: I had no suspicions of your motives - we assume good faith although, yes, I frequently do find myself in hot situations, reported at WP:ANI etc, at which point I tend to find that the community supports me over the reporting individual. That's because I reflect the consensus even before it gets to that stage and the problem is that the other contributor does not accept that consensus. As I recall, you were wanting to include Raj sources somewhere even though you were told that the community has rejected them as unreliable. It is not something about which I'm going to bear a grudge ;) @NQ: will be able to confirm that I have no problem with you and, indeed, I'm very optimistic about your involvement. I shall take Susan Bayly to bed with me tonight (metaphorically, of course: the last I heard, she was a happily married lady).- Sitush (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Lol Good Luck with that - I'm going to take myself to bed. After I watch a Matt Damon movie. Syanaee (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush you are 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.
If you really want 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) 19:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Tiemann, Günter (1970). "Cattle Herds and Ancestral Land among the Jat of Haryana in Northern India". Anthropos. 65: 1. Retrieved 26 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  2. ^ Crooke, W (1910). "Rajputs and Mahrattas". The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 40: 39-48. Retrieved 26 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ Shukla, BRK (1973). "Rajputs and their ABO Blood Groups". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie. 65: 237–244. Retrieved 26 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 385. ISBN 978-0-521-79842-6. Retrieved 15 October 2011.
  5. ^ Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 201. ISBN 978-0-521-79842-6. Retrieved 15 October 2011.
  6. ^ Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-521-79842-6. Retrieved 15 October 2011.

Citation style

@Jim Carter and Jim Carter - Public:, regarding this edit summary. Please read WP:CITEVAR before going any further. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I had to revert you. Perhaps you did not get the ping because you were doing this at the time ... but then you went on to make another edit. Regarding your edit summary in this diff, please note that there is no "GA standard" for citations. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sitush, don't assume that I don't know about CITEVAR. Time is needed. Just now I was in edit conflict with you. Wait for sometime and come back again. The current citation style looks messy and using {{Sfn}} is the best way. I'm changing it and for that time is needed. And regarding your concern about british raj and newspaper sources, I know what is reliable and what not. Regards, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It is absolutely obvious that you do not in fact understand CITEVAR. You are not changing the style here without consensus. And you will not get that consensus because for an article such as this, which is frequently changed by newbies, {{sfn}} is far harder to understand. We have umpteen tools available to assist in creating {{cite}} references and none at all that actually assist in creating {{sfn}} ones. (There is Uchucha's script but that is a post facto tool and doesn't assist at all in the creation, just the checking). - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment I am disturbed by the tone you use when in a disagreement, it's tantamount to flamebaiting tactics. Please keep the discussion civil. Syanaee (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush first of all don't tough the article when massive changes were going on. Can you so me any guideline or policy which mention that one must not use {{Sfn}} because newbies edit that page?? This is ridiculous. I'm having much trouble to edit due to too many long citations messing everything in the lead. It is too tough to edit due to cite clutter. A very common problem when too many sources were added in the lead. So, do not revert changes until you have good reasons for that. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a good reason to revert: WP:CITEVAR. Now stop it, Jim, before you get blocked for edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I know what is edit warring that is why I added the {{Under construction}} tag. Keep paitence and I will address the concern myself. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh.. you have a clean block log. Vulnerable.. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a clean block log because, unlike you at present, I generally know what I am doing. You cannot change the citation style and if you make that the first thing you do then inevitably it will mean that all subsequent changes will also have to be reverted, which makes your use of the under construction tag pointless. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well being wp:BOLD I just made that change. Anyway, Now Sitush asked for consensus if {{cite}} will be replaced by {{Sfn}}. Ping Syanaee since he/she has made significant contributions. Well {{Sfn}} is better than using {{cite}}. {{Sfn}} is short and avoid citation clutter and most of the GA articles use it. It also looks better than using {{cite}}. Please add your response below. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Just remember that consensus is not a vote. (Syanaee has actually done very little here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, by the way). - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush, Did I asked to add your vote?? I know that consensus is !vote and that is why I asked for a response or opinion but not to cast vote. And remember you can't judge a user by the number of edits he/she made. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the citation formatting needs to be changed it is way too long with comments particularly in the lead, anything that makes editing easier I welcome, even if that means changing the citation style. Why do keep making these comments which are not conducive to establishing consensus, it seems you have some kind of problem with new editors, and are very unhelpful, just because someone is a new editor it does not mean they have ulterior motive, I only want to fix the issue of neutrality and address POV. Syanaee (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was just reminding you, Jim, and letting Syanaee know because, with 74 contributions, the chances are very high that they do not in fact know how it works. In fact, you've just been explaining some basics to them on your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Non sense. I don't have that much of time to explain everything. One should have some basic idea how Wikipedia works and WP:What Wikipedia is not, which is enough, there are enough welcome templates which do that work. And why are we talking about something else?? We should talk how to improve the article not about something else. Now, tell us, Sitush, what do you think about using {{Sfn}}. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim Carter - Public, Syanaee - WP:CITEVAR clearly requires you to ask for consensus at the talk page before making such changes. Sitush is trying to help. There is no need to be confrontational. I'd recommend User:PleaseStand/References_segregator, for easier editing. Regards,  NQ  talk 13:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NQ, but I can't use that tool (JavaScript is not available in mobile version Wikipedia). I asked for consensus above. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there NQ, I was never confrontational to Sitush, see his comments directed at me. I was asking him to keep the spirit of civility. I was only trying to help him, but thank you for your comment. Syanaee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It's obviously important that newbies can edit the article, and often the first thing we have to do is ask them to source their additions. It would be a really bad idea to have that sourcing prohibitively thorny. Jim Carter - Public, when you're offered common sense, please don't ask for a "guideline or policy" to prop it up. Reasonableness trumps the letter of the law on Wikipedia, and if you need a policy cite for that, please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Adherence. Also, I agree with NQ about your confrontational style. This kind of thing doesn't become funny just because you add a smiley. Please be mindful of WP:BATTLE, and listen to good advice from more experienced editors. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC).
(edit conflict) Jim, I agree that using {{cite}} in this article creates clutter and you'll probably also be aware that I use {{sfn}} in some articles. However, de-cluttering is not the be-all and end-all rationale for template selection. If it was then the likelihood is that {{cite}} would have long ago been deprecated across the entire project. There are other usability criteria and, as I mentioned way back near the top of this thread, the one that is particularly significant to this article is that of ease of use for newcomers. In an article that regularly attracts fairly inexperienced editors, it makes sense to stick to a format for which there are a range of creation tools. - Sitush (talk)
In hindsight, I agree with Sitush on the template issue, I think working improving the legibility would be more sensible rather than changing the whole citation style. Syanaee (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen I just hope you have got a message from Sitush on your talk page as he did that on another admins talk page as well. Well, it is a type of canvassing and I will stick to the point that using {{Sfn}} will be better. Although I generally use my WP:Common sense but in this particular case you are not using it. Please think that any new user can also get confused due to the clutter. Jim Carter (from public cyber)
It was not canvassing - please go read WP:CANVASS. At the point when I left that note to an experienced admin, your contributions to this section amounted to WP:IDHT. Since then, yes, you have accepted that CITEVAR prevents you from making a unilateral change. If you read my note to Bish out of sequence with your edits here then the last sentence might seem to be canvassing but not otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well if everybody things that I'm wrong then it's okay. I will not change the citation style although it still seems to me incorrect. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Keep trying to edit and just miss the boat, so this is really too late. Many years ago when I was writing for academia I always used Harvard style. But I hate {{tl|Sfn} on Wikipedia. Whether or not it looks prettier, it is much more difficult to use in practice, both for newbies and more experienced editors. User talk:Jim Carter - Public, you don't have agreement for this and I expect you to stop. Yes, I was notified about this on my talk page, but I make my own mind up on issues, I don't just blindly follow others. It isn't required for GA or FA in any case. Your comment about a clean block record and vulnerability was a really bad idea, I suggest you strike it through. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Flying visit but I want to stress this before the thread is archived. At the point when I contact Bishonen and Dougweller, my rationale was that Jim was in WP:IDHT mode regarding the CITEVAR policy. I was not requesting an opinion about cite styles from those two admins but rather making them aware that we had a policy-related problem and there was an edit war brewing over it. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
But Sitush you haven't explained it on there talk pages when you typed that message. I have to assume that you were asking for opinion about cite style. And why are you talking about edit war?? Did I reverted all your edits?? I reverted only once since I haven't got that ping. I know about WP:EDITWAR that is why I have discussed it here instead of reverting your edits and have agreed not to change the style. I'm not going to strike it @Dougweller:, Sitush was the first person to tell me you are going to blocked for edit warring even when I didn't did anything. See the articles history. If Sitush going to strike his comment, I will going strike mine. Regards, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes suggested by Syanee

Syanee, thank you for your efforts to make this Wikipedia article balanced and accurate. The editor "Sitush" appears myopic in his view of the Jat people and is wedded to Bayly's book which presents the Jats in a negative light. This article as shaped by Sitush is an embarrassment to Wikipedia as it is so biased and inaccurate. Many users have tried to knock sense into Sitush as he has taken control of this article but to no avail. It is interesting and disturbing to note that Sitush is also the editor of other articles on Indian groups other than the Jats (see Rajputs, for example) and he does not apply the same rigour into flowery claims by those groups as he does to any entry that presents the Jats in a more positive manner.

Onecaste (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jats/Archive_7&oldid=1142765563"