![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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]
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)
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)
- Sitush (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)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]
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)
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)
"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)
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)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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"
JatUser (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
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".
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.
RealityExplained (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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"
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-Viplovecomm (talk) 12:15, 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)
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)
-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)
-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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Irfan Habib, who is usually ok as a source, also uses the terms synonymously, noting that Jatt is Punjabi.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.
"Jat" is by far the more common spelling in English works. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Why can't you provide a balamced view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is the opening claim singularly referenced I.e. susan bayly non elite . There is also this Second reference from her book p138
Jattnijj (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Jattnijj (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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) |
← Abstruce 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)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.
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!
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
-Viplovecomm (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
See sections above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
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 edit request to Jat people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Incomplete history. Bias apparent
DRQRKH (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
(comparing Ain-i-Akbari records)
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)
((edit semi-protected))
template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)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)
![]() | This edit request to Jat people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This edit request to Jat people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
((cite journal))
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (help)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)
@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)
Ahh.. you have a clean block log. Vulnerable.. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:13, 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)
(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)
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).