Talk:Jats/Archive 5

Can someone explain, what the worth of this section is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Population geography: a journal of the Association of Population Geographers of India, Volume 10--page 7

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=AMSaTc-wAcvxrQeN8YyCBw&ct=result&id=SQIzAAAAIAAJ&dq=jats+and+ahirs+of+pakistan&q=Ahirs+24%25

The corresponding figure for Pakistan is 21% (22916047 out of 110000000). Amongst themselves the Rajputs (30913520) account for the biggest chunk of 44%, followed by Jats 24%(18, 153,51 3), Ahirs 24%(17083813) and Gujars 8% (5329278).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed a copyright violation inserted by User:Abstruce. Please do not copy and paste into articles content from copyrighted works without first consulting the relevant Wikipedia policies. I could have possibly amended the statement but could only see it in snippet view and therefore have no context to work off.

The violation was made (apparently) worse by the appending of a sub-clause stating that the statement somehow proved a connection with the Yadu. Unless the cited source actually supports the appended clause then such wording constitutes original research, which is also not permitted. Again, it is impossible to be sure based on a snippet view but it certainly had the appearance of OR.

Finally, please do not accuse me of adopting a POV stance with regard to this article, as was done in the edit summary by that user. Honestly, I have absolutely no vested interest one way or the other in any article relating to Indian subjects. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

AFTERMATH:

My APOLOGY to SITUSH, and the ADMINISTRATOR of the page: I apologise to Sitush, and the Administrator of the page about this incident. I admit that due to my lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy or guideline, I caused this issue here. Honestly speaking, I was interested in this topic about the connection with Yadu, and Lord Krishna, for quite a while, and was seriously looking to contribute in a good manner here; and I was very excited actually, when I located this reference < History of the Jats, Jaitly Painting (sic) Press, foreword, 1968 (Original from the University of Michigan) !!! But, I did breached a important guideline and caused this issue here. When I edited the respective section on the main article, I thought you guyz would be happy to see this, really this is what I was thinking! But, I never realised what I have done untill it was noticed and explained on my user talk page by Sitush, and when I did a scrutiny of it all, I realised that Sitush was perfectly right! What I should have done to avoid breaching the guidelines was then suggested by Qwyrxian for which I am really grateful to him, and I really am; as Qwyrxian has commented on my user talk page, "We can, sometimes, provide short selected quotations of copyrighted texts, but only if we provide a proper reference and make sure we aren't using any more than absolutely necessary." Now, I will take care of the facts stated by Sitush and Qwyrxian in future! I am the one who made an edit that I shouldn't have for which I am really sorry, and accusing Sitush was wrong. I was thinking about this for the past few days, and I have learnt the lesson now, and I assure you guyz that I will be more careful in future while editing a page. Sitush has been a gentleman throughout, and have also appreciated me after I edited pages following his suggestions, and I am looking forward to follow them; and I do believe that I will evolve as a better user hereafter! Thanks for being so polite towards me. Abstruce (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. However, the book you mention is unlikely to be a great source. It is, for starters, published by an outfit I have no real confidence in & it is written by someone whose last name suggests that they may have a serious problem presenting things neutrally. I cannot see the entire book, but my suspicions are raised Similarly, if you are yourself a Jat then you need to take great care here. You may wish to read the Wikipedia views regarding conflicts of interest. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sitush: I will definitely have a deep look at the suggested article. Thanks! Abstruce (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI is something I have to be careful with. Being Jat and Sikh (formerly Hindu Jat), I can get caught up in this. Thanks--SH 08:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We should enlarge the display pic and make changes to it. There by given representation to more jats who have brought name and fame to the community. We can take a clue from the British people, pashtun people, Irish people page. There have included alot of people in the display pic. Since Wikipedia has become a spot for young children to learn about their past. Adding of the great personalities will help them build confidence and identity.--Sheokhand (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so; however, I 1) don't know how, and 2) am in the camp that considers all such images to be either actual WP:NPOV violations or to be potential NPOV violations, because they imply that those people are somehow more "important" than other people of a particular history. However I know I'm in the minority on this in Wikipedia, so I won't oppose someone else doing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, bit new to editing Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm not following the correct guidelines. I've been seeing the description of Jats change virtually every month. I was unaware of the whole Indo-Scythian background for some time, but did a lot of outside research (meaning not Wikipedia), and it's pretty clear that Jats are descended from Indo-Scythians and Indo-Aryans. Recent DNA studies have also helped to prove this, and an Indian researcher had attempted to visit Ukraine to study the origin of Jats, but was prevented from doing so (I believe from funding denial and ridicule). I've very much found Indians very loathe to call themselves anything but Indo-Aryan - some kind of weird pride in the word Aryan. I was slave to this for some time too. Doing a very quick run-down search on Google Scholar left me with a slew of articles supporting the Indo-Scythian viewpoint, some of which had not been listed on Wikipedia:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lw5v58gm16723786/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3r48177278105w0/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3SWT27W-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1192748881&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=71d7cfb87d376e6c202037335ed6e417

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2005-6-8-p10.pdf

One article I did not link mentions the Rajputs as descendants of Indo-Scythians - Rajputs and Jats are of the same ethnic stock (I'm a descendant of Pritviraj Chauhan on my mother's side - he was a Rajput); the split between the two was in political/social disagreements (one primarily being the use of sati pratha). There are more links that I did not post. Also, Jatland (a website by and for Jats) has this (although, I do understand that Jatland isn't considered an academic source, it does have some solid stuff there - I found that graph on the site it was referencing, although I can't remember how - it took some searching):

http://www.jatland.com/home/Indo-Scythian_origin

And doing some searching through JSTOR found me an article titled "Notes on the Origin of the 'Lunar' and 'Solar' Aryan Tribes, and on the 'Rājput' Clans." It also supports the Indo-Scythian descent claims. My cousin has also done much research into this, and Romila Thapar's "A History of India" also supports this claim. There are also un-linked references listed at the bottom of the Jat page under "Further reading." Why is this being pushed under the rug?

So hopefully I might have convinced you somewhat of the ridiculousness of the absolute disregard of most evidence pointing to the Indo-Scythian descent. It's mentioned MUCH throughout the article itself, but people keep removing it from the introduction. I haven't removed the Indo-Aryan references from the introduction on Jats, because that would be false. Jats are a mixture of both groups - virtually no race/ethnic group is "pure" or unmixed (except the descendants of the very, very first homo sapiens, whom I'm sure mixed with someone along the thousands of years). This is what I had been editing it to say. Only once did I see this correctly shown - it seems to be an edit war going on between Indo-Scythian origin supporters and Indo-Aryan origin supporters. Clearly, both are wrong, and both are right. It isn't one or the other, it's both. I've seen it devoid of Indo-Aryan references, and I've seen it devoid of Indo-Scythian references (like now). I'm trying to present an unbiased, most-supported viewpoint for the article. Others don't seem to be in-tune with this idea.

Any cooperation on this matter would be much appreciated.

PR-0927 (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo_Scythian, Indo-Aryan is virtually the same thing. Scythian being a sub-sect of the so called "Aryan" people. All Punjabi's are in one way or another Scythians. Regards --Sikh-History 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Scythians (and others) separated long ago from those so-called "Aryan" people and came to India much, much later (much time for isolation, evolution, and mixing with other groups - especially considering that the Scythians remained in Central Asia for some time). They then mixed with the Indo-Aryans who had been in India, who had mixed with the native folk that many theorize are the modern-day Dravidians. And Punjabis are a VERY diverse group. I believe something like 40-42% of them have "Arab" blood/West Asian descent. Arabs are Semites, not Indo-Europeans. Also, Jats aren't all Punjabi. Jatts are Punjabi (often Sikh) Jats. I'm a non-Punjabi Jat. Please, I hope you'll reconsider and see that removing mention of the Indo-Scythian descent from the intro is a very non-objective thing to do. There is no reason to not include this there. This "war" between those who write "purely Indo-Scythian" and those who have succeeded in editing the article to its current state is very silly. PR-0927 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats you opion but there are many studies including this that suggest diversity maybe be regional, rather than caste based. The study I linked done accross many caste groups suggests one homogenous Punjabi group, and does not diferentiate. --Sikh-History 14:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I was making such an argument. You're skirting the issue here. I've provided a decent amount of evidence, which I retrieved with little time spent, which supports the Indo-Scythian background. Also, I never said that genetics mattered by caste. Jat isn't a caste. Of course regional differentiation would result in different genetics - this is understood. But also keep in mind that Jat Sikhs (Jatts) often intermarried with other non-Jat Punjabis, because their culture is primarily Punjabi. Hence, the shared genetic markers in that region. Plenty of studies have shown that Punjabis are a highly diverse group - many Punjabis are Rajputs and Jats, who are genetically different from the "other" Punjabis. But again, you seem to be ignoring the point of my discussion post here. The origin of Punjabis is a different debate for a different place. This is about the Indo-Scythian AND Indo-Aryan background of Jats. Stop shoving it under the carpet. This censorship is ridiculous. The censorship from those who support the "purely" Indo-Scythian background (when they attempted to delete all mention of Indo-Aryan from the intro - the opposite of what has happened this time) is also ridiculous. PR-0927 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jatts are an ethnic group, but I as a Jatt Sikh see myself very different say from a Jat from UP. I cannot therefore reconcile how they could be all on one ethnic decent i.e. Scythian. I believe some of us are of Scythian decent, but all? I find it difficult to believe. I would go further to say, I probably have more racally in common with a Punjab Khambho, or Tarkhan, than Jat's from UP. Anyway, we could discuss this till the end of time, and if you get 10 Jatts in a room they will have 10 differing opinions. The article states Indo-Aryan and Indo_Scythian and that is fine. Our job is to make sure the article is balanced.--Sikh-History 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this is where you are wrong. The article does NOT say both Indo-Scythian and Indo-Aryan in the INTRO. This is key and where the censorship is taking place. If that is placed in the intro as it is in the rest of the article, the balance is finally there. Most people just read the intro and leave. This is a clever way to control what people actually perceive. Also, Indo-Aryans and Iranian peoples are part of the Indo-Iranian group, but they are two different branches. Indo-Scythian is a subset of Iranian peoples. For example, Pashtuns are also a subset of Iranian peoples, but they differ pretty heavily from other Iranian peoples, and certainly from Indo-Aryans. Furthermore, you are tossing your own opinion into this issue. Just because you find it hard to believe or see yourself differently doesn't make it true. Everyone is very diverse, and there is much diversity even within a group. No generalizations are perfect. Plenty of Jats will "appear" to look "more Indo-Aryan" and many probably have much less Indo-Scythian blood. Keep in mind that many Indo-Aryans married into the tribes of these Sakas. Not each Jat is of equal proportion of Indo-Scythian and Indo-Aryan background. And you might have more in common with those other groups - I never denied this - like I said, Punjabi Jats/Sikh Jats (Jatts) put their cultural emphasis on the Punjabi aspect. They would be more open to intermarriage between non-Jat Punjabis, obviously changing the comparison genetics somewhat from non-Punjabi Jats. This is to be as objective as possible. You're just representing one side of the "edit war" going on between backers of the Indo-Aryan origin-supporters and the Indo-Scythian-origin supporters. It's obviously both. PR-0927 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Please Assume Good Faith. I don't back anything. If I had my way I would strip the article of anything to do with genetics. If you feel very strongly about this then I suggest you start a WP:POV check, however, be warned, other Admins may strip this down further. Thanks--Sikh-History 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Indo-Iranian are linguistic terms. The Jats are not "descended" from Indo-Aryans, they are Indo-Aryans by virtue of speaking an Indo-Aryan language. They may also be "descended" from any number of other peoples, but this is irrelevant. There is no such thing as "Indo-Scythian blood", except for the actual blood of the actual Indo-Scythians, 20 centuries ago. The Indo-Scythian speculation is part of a search for the etymology of the ethnonym, and it may be briefly mentioned as a Victorian era hypothesis under the "etymology" section. I agree that the genetic material as it stands is completely pointless. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still a bit confused about how Wikipedia works, so I'm not sure if you'll be notified of my message below. So I write this. Sorry if I just put more text than necessary. Oh, and why you stated that who they descend from is "irrelevant" is beyond me. Why would descent matters not be discussed? It's an encyclopedia, and such stuff isn't inaccurate, it's just further information to the topic. It should be mentioned, of course, and in the intro as well. PR-0927 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I for one used to pay a lot of heed to these dna/genetic analysis, and in the past have fought for them to be kept in, however, going through many of them, I have come to the conclusion they are Junk. They prove nothing. The only time they demonstrate anything, is in the case of mutations, as in the case of the so called "Jat Mutation" which is peculiar to some Jats groups and Gypsy's. Otherwise it is worthless. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these terms are linguistic. The overarching group is Indo-European. However, there are obvious genetic difference between these groups. When people isolate themselves by migration or land barrier from other groups, they evolve differently. They speak the same language. Linguistic groups are OFTEN (but not always) a good indicator of different ethnic groups/races. And yes, the Jats "are" Indo-Aryans. But this doesn't mean that they don't have Indo-Scythian ancestry. Bengalis have a contribution of I believe Astro-Asiatic (correct me if I'm wrong, it could be Indo-Tibetan) "blood" (you know what I mean by the term - I mean descending from these folks - I was putting it casually earlier, didn't think anyone would take issue with my informality). However, Bengalis are also Indo-Aryan. That isn't what I'm contesting. Jats are Indo-Aryan. But that's only part of it. The edit war has been going on between supporters of one side or the other. Both sides are right. I understand that you guys deemed such genetic studies as "worthless." I'm sorry, but I disagree. I've read several books covering Jat and Rajput history/origins/movement into India, and have come across many mentions of the genetic studies and migration studies. They seem solid to me. As I stated way above, Rajputs are also understood to be descendants of Indo-Scythians, because in the end, they were the same as Jats until an ideological split - my way long ago ancestor on my Mom's side was Pritviraj Chauhan, a Rajput. I don't know if you guys just stuck with your conclusions of the Indo-Scythian descent claims being "worthless" or took a look at the sources I found - there are many more out there. This isn't some quick and unsupported hypothesis made a while back. It's had a slew of supporting articles, studies, and books written on it. We certainly don't have reason to disbelieve Indo-Aryan and Indo-Scythian descent theories (I say theory in the scientific term - I'm assuming you guys understand this terminology), as both are widely supported. As far as I know, the "family stories" about Jat descent has always favored the Indo-Aryan descent claims because of that chronic obsession with being labeled "Aryan" in some way or another (many of these families just want to be labeled white - British propaganda during India's colonization left some serious social scars in making Indians think that being non-white was inferior - very much evidenced today even by the obsession with whitening creams). PR-0927 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:PR-0927 in this discussion.Dont know why wikipedia is illegally owned by some individuals and they revert anything they want,irrespective of what type of references and sourced information one is providing.I also want to add and edit some info. in Jat people but after seeing the history of this article's editing...,,,I already know that some arrogant people will revert my edit irrespective of what info. provided.This article is in monopoly of some people,so I urge every admin and mod to take action on them.Thanks !Royal Jat Warrior (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

When I first started editing here, I too did not fully understand the concept of WP:POV. I think you guys need to familiarise yourself, because if you pursue the avenue of WP:Canvassing, it will lead to blocks, which will not help anyone. Most of all WP:Assume Good Faith. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya,Im new here and I dont understand rules fully,but this article is really manupulated by some people and this is my view and no one can change it....Im a Jat,I dont even fear dying,do u think I will fear from blockage threats from wiki??? moreover I haven't done anything that anyone can block me until now !Comming back to discussion I agree that Jats are Indo-Aryans because we speak Indo-Aryan language,but being Indo-Aryan we cant deny that we are decended partially from Scythians !!! So its our duty to put this in main 1st para. that jats are merged decendendents of Indo-Scythians and Indo-Aryans.Another thing I noticed here that it is only written that jats are native to punjab region...its ok,,,but we should add that jats are also mostly found in haryana and rajasthan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Jat Warrior (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This kind of "Sabre Rattling" is not conducive or helping the discussion. I am a Jatt-Sikh, does that mean I have a monopoly on courage? Does that mean my Rajput, Walia, Tarkhan, and Khamboj friends have any less courage? Does this add anything to the discussion here? As I have suggested to you familiarise yourself with with WP:POV and WP:Assume Good Faith. If you do not you will be blocked, and you will not be able to add any value to any articles. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

guys, this is not the place to discuss your family tree, your fear of death (or lack thereof), or your ideas on race in general. See WP:TALK. If you want to help improve the article, try to focus on that, otherwise please continue this discussion on a Jat internet forum or some similar venue. --dab (𒁳) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POV,WP:TALK and WP:Assume Good Faith..............Now let's discuss about article... We all know that how much important an intro of article is,I agree that Jats are Indo-Aryans because we speak Indo-Aryan language,but being Indo-Aryan we can't deny that we are decended partially from Scythians. So it's important to put this in main intro paragraph that - Jat's are Indo-Aryans and are merged decendents of Indo-Scythians and Indo-Aryans. Another thing I noticed here that it is only written that - Jat's are native to punjab region...its well and good,,,but we should Add that - Jat's are also mostly found in haryana and rajasthan or should add that - other areas inhabited by Jat's are Haryana and Rajasthan in intro,coz most of people just read intro so they will get wrong impression that Jat's are only found in Punjab and nowhere else....I'm looking forward for some cooperation.Royal Jat Warrior (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No sorry WP:POV,WP:TALK and WP:Assume Good Faith applies directly to this article and every other. This article cannot be made an exception. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jatts are descendants of shudra outcastes, they were treated very bad in the medieval time by Brahmins and khashtaryas. Due to their conversion to islam in pakistan and sikhism in india they emancipated from discrimination. Before 1500 AD ,there were no appreciable agriculture in punjab, the jatts before that period were mostly mirasi, snake charmers, camel and goat herdrers. During the invasion of india in the 11th century, Mahmud of Ghazni enslaved many of them and sent back to afghanistan and iran, the descendants of of those slave JAtts are called Zott in middle east, gypsies in europe who are all low class criminal thieves. In afghanistan these enslave jatts have retained their jatt identity and speak jatki language, they are typical mirasi like people who sell their boys to pashtun warlords for bacha bazi, they are pimp for their wives, snake charmers, toilet cleaners, and circul people. These jatts in middle east and afghanistan prove that jatts were shudra outcastes before their conversion to islam and sikhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.200.28 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldest mention of Jatts are in these books chachnama and Al-Birunis India. In Chachnama it states the Jats were degraded from royalty by the brahmans and were forbidden to wear silk, wrap turbans, ride horses and carry swords. All these were royal privileges which the brahman rajas took away from the Jats and downgraded them into sudras. In Al-Birunis India a brahman terms the Jats as sudras. This article states the Jats only rose to importance at decline of moghul empire which is incorrect as Jats had risen to power in Sind and were dethroned by the brahman rajas and reduced to sudra status until the Arabs came and whos armies the Jats were first to join to fight raja dahir. Chachnama states the religion of Jats was buddhism. We can not ignore recorded history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.176.155 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no difference in Buddism and hinduism, Budhism is just an offshoot of hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.200.28 (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

jats claim of being yadav comletly false and vague.jats comes under shudra while yadav is noble kahatriya chandravanshi lineage.jats is well known scythian tribe while yadav indo-aryan.yadu comes around 1500 BC while jats after 100 AD in India.jats want to improve their social status making this type of vague claims. kasahtriya while jats are shudra.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lw5v58gm16723786/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3r48177278105w0/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3SWT27W-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1192748881&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=71d7cfb87d376e6c202037335ed6e417

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2005-6-8-p10.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient indian historian (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the above contributors comment from the article temporarily while we discuss the issue. I'll need to get hold of the sources cited. The content removed was

Above claims is comletely vague from false material.jats is well recognised Scythian Tribe while yadava is Aryan tribe.jats comes in india after 100 AD while Yadav has presence before 1500 BC .moreover jats comes under shudra while yadavs noble kahatriya chandravanshi lineage.jats makes these vague and false claims to improve their social status.^[1]

Please do not take this the wrong way. I have no opinion on the matter but, in any event, the contribution would need rephrasing. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, let's start with something more simple. Ancientindianhistorian, do any of the sources that you mention specifically say that the Jats are not connected to the Yadava? Do any of them specifically say both that the Jats are of Scythian origin and that the Yadava are of Aryan origin? Forget all the stuff about shudra and kshatriya for now because I absolutely guarantee you that it is a short way to a long discussion. Let's do the science first, because it is that for which you have provided cites. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

sitush@ hey bro there is whole lot of confusion bout jat being kshatriya or shudra,but there is a definate proff of yadav-jat connection,coz both hv many thing in common....some are.... 1..gotra 2..area where these people...either they live in same village or near by villages and states...eg,,haryana,delhi,uttar pradesh,rajasthan.. 3..both are farming caste and are involved in animal husbandry and agriculture(INFACT THESE TWO CASTE ARE THE TWO BIGGEST FARMING CASTE and are landloards)... 4...both are brave and are known for bravery..look at the no of people in defence,police,mostly it would be a yadav or jat.. 5..both hv same culture,be it marriege reforms,widow remariage.. so jats are kshatriyas as yadav are... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Vijaykumarranal, I am afraid that your comment proves exactly nothing as far as Wikipedia is concerned. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, that's because we must have reliable sources that make this analysis. Any analysis we make on our own is considered to be original research, and, thus, expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Please accept my apologies, Vijaykumarrana. My way of expressing things was dreadful and resulted from some frustration with another contributor to whom several explanations about this sort of issue have been provided by several people recently. I mistook you for that person and do sincerely regret this. Qwryxian has stated the situation correctly, and much more appropriately! - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

sitush@ no problem bro,to err is human....i mean i was utterly surprised by the whole mess in the wiki of jats,yadavs and gujjars claming them shudra is not appropriate coz they are not at all shudra rather are kshatriya caste...there hv been numerous dynasty under yadavs,jats and gujjar rules in the past....these three caste hv there hukka(SORT OF CIGAR)pani(WATER) together..and these caste are clean caste and hv a huge reputation in society,nd currently they r over taking the tyranny of bhramins.... so i wud request you to remove this shudra stuff from these caste(YADAVS,JATS and GUJJARS)...coz shudra are use for sc/st (the caste which were denied of water,land,education and religion) by so called bhramins...thnkz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What is this has to do with Jat tribe? 38.101.155.250 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

situish@@ so what accordin to ur ken,jats ,yadavs and gujjars are???\ are they kshatriya or shudras??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkumar900 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles with this article. Using references that make direct references to the Rig Veda and could be interepreted either way is not Encyclopeadic. using WP:Weasel words in sentence is also not encyclopaedic. Evertime an honest effort is made to clean up this article again someone comes along and tries to turn it into a propaganda piece. Why is it all the India articles suffer from this? I have tried toedit many articles like this, including Kamboj, Ramgarhia, Khatri, Labana etc and every few month people turn up to try and turn it into a propaganda piece. I request experience editors here be wary of this and adhere to strict guidlines. Sitush and other editors have done a sterling job so far. Thanks--SH 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose that Life and culture of Jat people be merged into Jat people. I think that the content in the life and cultre article is mostly a fork (and possibly a non-consensual one) from Jat people. Some of the content is a direct, unattributed copy and paste & as such is contrary to policy. The remainder could easily fit into this article without adding undue weight or length to it. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How much of the info is duplicated? If much over there at "life and culture" is not here, then I would not support merging--instead, I would support actually taking the info out of here and including only a single summary paragraph. In essence, I'm actually proposing the sort of splits that Mahesh was doing without consensus. This article is very extensive, and has tons of references, and is really approaching the size where it's better to not get too much longer for accessibility reasons (in my opinion).

However, if most of the info at "Life and culture" is already here, and that's mostly a copy paste, then merging it back here is correct, as there's no need to just duplicate the info. I'll try to get a feel for the level, but I'm off for the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of what is in Life & Culture should probably not even be in an article at all (they use 4x4 vehicles, wowee). It is POV/peacock and either uncited, cited to sources that may not be reliable or adding undue weight to those sources. However, I guess that the same can be said for virtually every other Indian caste article: they are, unfortunately, extremely messy dumping grounds for poorly cited POV & extreme trivia (and sometimes trivial extremism also).

Perhaps I should cut it back first, after checking the sources. However, I do not think that "Jat People" is anywhere near the limits of length yet & in fact could itself easily take some pruning. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)#

I agree with Sitush. The number of Jat article is confusing to the reader with some very strange fringe theories. WE need to prune them all and be ruthless in merging.

Thanks --SH 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Respected Sir, I respectfully stress that please avoid merging any such article, they will only trigger furthur controversy, and this article have had enough of it in past, has barely stabled a bit. We have proper references (like that of Col. James Tod), which in some sense does contradicts with the suggested article. Why is there any such need felt to merge the suggested article with this one, I don't see any such unavoidable circumstance here! So, I say a Big NO. Abstruce (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NO, DON'T DO THAT! Abstruce (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

James Tod (1782–1835) is rather outdated scholarship for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Abstruce - past edit warring and contradictions are not a valid reason to negate a merger. They merely indicate that there have been and/or are issues with either or both the articles which needs some attention. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply of the above Comment to Sitush: Well Dear Sir, I don't want to push my point of view here, but I do want to say that to me it seems totally unnecessity to look forward to merge the proposed article. Even some sections on the page seems to be contradicting with the propsed page. I believe a huge mass of serious researchers, and Jat population is definately not satisfied with a number of sections from the proposed article (I understand that maybe it does not matter to You or other editors). Please don't look forward to the merger; there are references that contradicts with many sections of the proposed article. Now a days, archelogical surveys and researches are being conducted regularly to highlight the ancient Kingdoms of Jats, even a Professor of Banaras Hindu University has published a book highlighting the Jat Kingdoms in ancient and medieval India. We know that even great British historian like Col. James Tod has confirmed that Jat people holds a place amongst the 36 Royal Races of ancient India, then why should one be focussed on doing anysuch thing... Even some sections on the page seems to be contradicting with the propsed page. I believe this action is simply not required. Abstruce (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So, I personally say No to that! Abstruce (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

That is an interesting viewpoint. You are effectively saying that you are not concerned to see an encyclopedia where articles contradict each other. How does that make sense? Would you be happy if this occurred in, say, Encyclopaedia Britannica ? - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Tod is an outdated source and with respect Abstruce is dragging up stuff we discussed about 2 years ago. The time is to move on and lets get merging. Thanks--SH 09:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We have no consensus to merge yet. It might assist Abstruce (and others, including myself) if you could provide some sort of link to the discussions of two years ago. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharing views with Sitush, Itsmejudith and Sikh-history: Well, allow me share my views with regarding Your comments. I understand that clock never stops and who once used to be a star historian is now outdated; but what about the historians of the 20th century and the ongoing 21st century! I mean to say that Jats do had kingdoms in ancient times, medieval times ,and we have seen them merging with the Indian Union after independence. Loke the one mentioned from the 5th century on the main article as well; though there is a lot more that deserves to be on the page. Many of the ancient kings are facing a bit hatred from the Brahmanists, because Jats have always prefered reasons over faith; though let's not discuss it here, and focusing on the topic here I will like to highlight that writers like Prof. Maheshwari Prasad from one of the best institutions in India (Banaras Hindu University). In 1994, B. S. Dhillon published a book namely, History and study of the Jats with (Beta Publishers, Canada, ISBN 1895603021), in which he has done a tremendous job highlighting the kingdoms of Jats over various time periods. Historians like Bhim Singh Dahiya, who retired from Govt. service as Chief Commissioner of Income tax in 1998 have dedicated their life to preserve the history of Jats. Though some of their research work is still under scrutiny, but there is no smoke without a fire. It is very much clear from the page that Jats do had a number of kingdoms, and the proposed article will only triggers a disturbance inbetween the community, it has many controvertial sections as well. And, why is there any such need felt to merge the articles, are there any unavoidable circumstances, why to do any such things what's questionable! And, I believe that we donot focus so hardly on questionable things on Wikipedia. As a section of the proposed article is focused proving the Jat's love for animals, branding the whole community as animal lovers can not be justified!!! Jats have been kings, administrators, are engaged in various white collor jobs, controls a good fractions of the business in india and abroad as well, have a strong millitary presense and have regiment too, a section from the proposed article is branding the whole community as animal lovers; how can it be justified ??? I, a quite immatured user on Wikipedia, respectfully ask You well established users, "does that makes sense" ??? Abstruce (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Abstruce, I don't understand how your points have anything to do with whether or not to merge. If your concern is that the information on the two pages is contradictory, then whether or not we merge, we must correct one or both pages to clarify the issue. Furthermore, it is not unusual for articles to contain contradictory information--as long as we are careful to provide proper attribution for opinions, then we are doing things correctly. For instance, whether this is one article or two, if the two sets of sources are valid and reliable, we can and should say "Historian X believes that ....On the other hand, other researchers have said that...." As long as we have references, the references are good (Sitush is right to question any historical analysis of India that's so old), and we properly attribute the opinions, having more than one is appropriate. The article(s) won't "brand the whole community as animal lovers"; rather, it will state that this is one opinion. It seems like you are supporting having two separate articles explicitly so that they can have different perspectives, and this is a clear violation of our policy WP:FORK. The only real question we have to answer is whether or not it makes sense to have 2 separate articles. To me, it seems obvious that these should be merged, because "life and culture" of a people has no notability independent of the people themselves. The only reason why having two articles would be necessary is if Jat people were too large, and that is not the case at the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just added this proposed merge to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers; if we don't get more responses from there, we may need to run an RfC if we don't have a clear consensus either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a long time since we discussed this. However, I see three different people arguing in favor of a merge, and the only one arguing against it is doing so for a reason that specifically contradicts WP:NPOV (that is, Abstruce seems to want to keep the other article specifically because it contradicts this one, i.e., is a POVFORK). I think that it's time to move forward with a merge. Where there are contradictions, and both sets of sources are reliable, then we will include both. Where one is unreliable, we keep just the good one. Any last objections? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this had kind of dropped off my radar also. Amazing, given that there is a banner for the issue. Anyway, I still favour the merge and would add one specific point: Abstruce refers above to James Tod being reliable, to which Sikh History basically says "Tod is old". In the interval, I have quite substantially expanded the article on James Tod and I am afraid that with regard to the reliability factor it is a bit of an hatchet job ... so much so that someone claims to be reporting me to some foundation set up in Tod's memory. So watch out for COI edits there shortly, I guess ;) - 23:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is probably the easiest merge ever: that other article is opinion, opinion, and more opinion. There is no way that it is a fact that "A Jat in a village or on his farm cannot do without one or two buffaloes or cows" or that "Shawls are often worn by Jats to conceal their pump-action shotgun(a primary agriculturists weapon in India)." (quotes from the other article). The statements in that article are far too all-encompassing, over-generalizing and opinionated to belong in any WP article. The article even contradicts itself, like the completely different descriptions of clothing. I'm simply going to redirect that other article here; if anyone sees something valuable there that I missed, feel free to bring it over. The one source that may be useful is Jat Itihasa by Thakur Deshraj. I, though, don't read Hindi so I don't know which parts are reliable, nor the context that they are written in. For instance, one key thing that we would need to know about that or any other source is whether they are talking about Jats today, Jats from 30 years ago, from 500 years ago, or simply the mythical image that Jats have of themselves that may or may not be accurate in practice. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To all the Respected Admins, Moderators, Authorities and fellow Users:

I have some serious doubts here, and I respectfully would like to have some answers here:

The line mentioned as connecton between yadava and jats is based on completely misleading sources.No relaible sources support this line.only jat historians claim Yadava connection for jats for their social propaganda which has no relevance for wikipedia.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I've disagreed with Bill on some other removals of better-sourced Jat-Yadav issues, I'm going to agree that the current article content that's being ping-ponged is too broad given the sources. The 1835 source states that Jesselmer Jats claim to be Yadava, and the 1916 source states that the Rajput Jats were considered to be Yadavas and of the lunar division. The sentence should not be restored until it makes more specific statements backed up by the sources, or combines the two in a non-synth way that reflects some of the claims/classifications. Abstruce, can you find any more specific (and ideally newer) references mentioned Jat claims to Yadava ties and/or descent from Yadu? And Bill, we can't remove something for being "just a claim" so long as its caveated as a claim, so if there are any documented Jat beliefs about being Yadav, you can't remove them simply because you disagree, factually, as to whether they are or not. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the page could benefit by having more information between the connections of the Jatts and rajputs. Should mention how in the Punjab especial these two groups married in between one another and I know that some Jatt tribes in the Punjab have rajputt ancestry. 174.1.80.242 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll need reliable sources, and some evidence that the information is of due weight. Just because a few people cross married in the past doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk)@ please dont come up with such nebulous connection...rajputs never married with jats coz they considered them as shudras.....please come up with source before makin such vague comments...and dont divert the topic....thnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.38.45 (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian@ i m just mentioning five best of links mentioning them as shudras though in every of them its been clearly mentioned...since i cant edit the page coz its been protected so i think lines which can be brought in the wiki page can be....JATS ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER SHUDRA VARNA IN INDIAN CASTE SYSTEM.....WE CAN PUT FIVE OF THE LINKS IN THE CITATION ...I HOPE YOU GUYS BRING THE RIGHT PICTURE IN TO BEING........

1. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=mY8X_vlVThAC&lpg=PA96&dq=jats%20are%20shudra%20caste&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q=jats%20are%20shudra%20caste&f=false
2. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=3TxHTvuZKYrUrQfctPThttp://books.google.co.in/books?id=zZLZAAAAMAAJ&q=jats+are+shudra+caste&dq=jats+are+shudra+caste&hl=en&ei=X0JHTvT-LIWGrAf00uiCBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgU1Aw&ct=result&id=y9QRAQAAMAAJ&dq=jats+are+shudra+caste&q=jats+are+shudra+caste#search_anchor
3. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=NK1MhWq-9VkC&lpg=PA287&dq=jats%20are%20shudra%20caste&pg=PA287#v=onepage&q&f=false
4. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nLMDxv_L-U8C&lpg=PA23&dq=jats%20are%20shudra%20caste&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q=JATS&f=false
5. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CaRVePXX6vEC&lpg=PA12&dq=jats%20are%20shudra%20caste&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=jats%20shudras&f=false

I HOPE MY WORK IS APPRECIATED AND FINDS ITS PLACE IN THE WIKI..... SITUSH AND MV@ GUYS PLEASE WORK ON THIS ...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.38.45 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

now why would some one pay attention out here,have limited themselves with in few of articles...this is what you call unjustice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.2.29 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long. I'm looking at the sources right now; first, let me format your statement so the numbering is easier to see. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I see.:

1. Gyan publishing has been demonstrated before to be an unreliable source; much of what they print is actually copies of Wikipedia articles, meaning that these are basically circular references.
2. I think this is fine, though we have to attribute it to the census (that's not known for being a definitive source). I can't see the whole page (115) which makes me worry about including it, but knowing the writing style and what I can see, I think it's safe to include. Another editor is welcome to revert me on this one, especially if you can see more of the source.
3. That work doesn't say anywhere that they were classified as Shudra (searching, neither the word "Sudra" nor "Shudra" appear in the text). It does indicate that they are peasants, and that they wanted Kshatriya status even though they didn't traditionally have it, but not the specific claim that they were Shudra. Our article already has references saying the kshatriya status is disputed; I could add this, but it's not good to overload too many citations that all verify the same thing.
4. This looks good, and gives an actual transition process for jats (untouchable to Shudra to aspiring to zamindar. I'll include it.
5. This source worries me. It's clearly a popular press book, not an academic book (the summary notes that it include information about "[t]he caste system, Hinduism, the sari, women's roles, and a dazzling array of festivals ". I'm inclined to leave this out for now, but other opinions are welcome.

So, I'm going to add the Census and the Gendering Caste books to the varna status section. Note that, of course, I won't be removing the other information, since there are multiple reliable opinions on this subject. Thank you for your work in collecting those sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

jats are real kshatriya caste of india,it is the most dominating caste of northern india...jats are kulak with sagacious leadership qualities.They are known for there bravery and pride,its very unfortunate to see the work put in wikipedia as they have not been label as kshatriyas. i m jooting down links which clearly mention them as kshatriyas ^{[1] [2] [3]}

so one and for all sake remove the baloney mentioned in the wiki add them as upper kshatriyas.....thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The references in the article clearly show that there is disagreement about their varna status, or even if they had a varna status at all. WP:NPOV requires that we present all opinions covered in reliable sources (with appropriate weight given to how important those theories are in the real world). So, even if we add that source (the book you mentioned, though first we'd need page numbers for what part you want to reference), we still can't take out the other information unless there's actually something wrong with those sources (I mean, that they don't meet WP:RS). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

i dont think to be a kshatriya you need to be mentioned in books and tp have reference,jats are kshatriya and we dont need any f**in reference to prove we are....do whatever pleases u guys,we dont give shit to your writing...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs)

Actually, you need sources for everything in Wikipedia that might be challenged. And, as I said, there are clear sources in the article that dispute that Jats are or were kshatriya. If you want to write something somewhere on the internet saying that Jats are Kshatriya, you're welcome to, but we have policies on Wikipedia that govern what information goes into articles; if you would like to edit here, you'll need to familiarize yourself with them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

hi there is an item with the same description in Spanish and in English only need this: es:Jat

put this: es:Jat in the English article ESPK (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the info! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a sentence which says "Furthermore, ethnological scrutinies have restricted the Jats, Rajputs, and Khatris to be the true representatives of the Vedic Aryans."

This is not correct. The source says "Ethnographic investigations" - ethnography and ethnology are two different things. So, this should be edited accordingly. Also, it should be mentioned who says this - the sources are early 20th century British writer. A lot has changed in anthropology since 20th century. 183.82.69.95 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the whole sentence, because it wasn't nearly as neutral as it should have been, in addition to the problem you identified. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

there is conflict between the caste system according to the official 1891 census of India jat people come under military and aristocratic group the below link can tell you the story :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1891_Census_of_India so please also mention about this in the 'varna states' section of jat people page . Asncheeka (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is varna, vice class overall, yes? We can't cite WP on WP (that'd be circular). Can you find us a source (GoogleBooks is probably your best option) which clearly states that the Jats were listed as Kshatriya in 1891? In certain areas, or throughout India? Is there any info on why the 1901 census would list them as Shudra if they were Kshatriya 10 years earlier? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that the WP article mentioned above - 1891_Census_of_India - is very poorly cited and a quick perusal of the 1891 census document as shown at the linked Digital Colonial Documents website does not seem to support the statement made therein. I suspect some WP:OR has gone on, adding up various numbers etc. One to delve into in the future! By the way, 1891 would fit in with the early phases of sanskritisation, when certain groups made claims to higher status and massively disrupted the census results as a consequence. Basically, these census reports are not particularly reliable for varna issues & even their district compilers often noted this to be the case. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can We agree with the last line of the above post by Sitush??? Can we remove the ref of 1901 census from the varna status section??? Today, I guess We all live in a much better world than Our ancestors used to be in. We must look forward to the future, and consider the whole world as our home rather than limiting Our vision to our nation only, and concentrate on mutual cooperation. But, since it related to the topic under discussion, I have something to discuss here! Please note that this report was neither preared by an Independently functional Indian government as it was a colonalised state at that time, also not prepared by any panel of significantly notable independently working researchers/historians/experts on this field; instead this report was prepared by the imperial British government that is known to forcefully colonalise the Indian state. So, at that time, the colonised citizens of India cannot even breathe without their permission, due to the imperialism around. So, it is very much clear that at the time no one could argue about this report or discuss it in public! At that time around the early ninties things were done due to suit the various purposes of the British government, from time to time. The motto of such acts seems to be the outcome of divide and rule policy, as claimed by the people at that time. Please note that Britain raised the Royal 6th Jat Regiment to suit there purposes, I guess that they never prefixed the word Royal before any of the Regiments they raised of any ethnic group, did they? They even designated the Jat people as a Martial Race, We all are aware of the war services of the 9th Jat Regiment. They used the colonalised, in any aspect they wanted to. Also, there are resons why the British report preparers would have targeted the Jats at that time. Why not? The Jats people have been active participants of the Ghadar Party, Hindu-German conspiracy, etc. Also, not much people knows that the Great Jat Sikhs once almost had a strategically active alliance with Napoleon Bonaparte, and it's quite obvious that why this alliance was there, to omit the British Colonisation, common interests! Enough a reason, why the people might not have been bothered about the NPOV policy. But, the Britishers were smart enough to check the moment and not much was achieved out of it. All, I am trying to say is that this ref is not good enough to be there on the article, and please it was a n Indian census, but on colonised Indians, not by the indians. Can We agree with the last line of the above post by Sitush??? Can we remove the ref of 1901 census from the varna status section???

Note: To any British official/diplomat that may come through this section: Please note that I do value the ties between Republic of India and the UK. I, as an Indian, look forward to a better and bright bright future, with mutual coopertaion. These are bitter memories from the past, and I do understand that We must look forward to the future for the sake of God & Humanity. I apologise if You didn't like what I posted above, I can understand, but dear Sir/Madam, We are still living in a semi-clonised state yet, aren't We? And, sometimes, We still have to deal with such topics! So, please accept My apology, and help US bulid a better society. Abstruce ^(Talk) 18:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Abstruce, to clarify my point to which you refer, one of the issues is that Wikipedia is not censored. As an official record, the opinion given by the census is an ok item to include in the article. My issue is to what extent that opinion has been sustained by more modern sources which have the benefit of hindsight. I have not really delved into the Jat people but, in principle, if the census did indeed say what the contributor stated then that information is valid here. Sure, it may need to be contrasted and/or explained in a wider context but we cannot simply obliterate something of this nature. My suspicion is that it is complex and that sanskritisation probably played a part, but I admit to flying a little on the blind side here. Too many castes/communities, and too little time. Just my 2 c. (or pence, since I am indeed one of those Brits!). - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, I think people need to grow up. Who really cares what Varna they exist in. They are tribal in nature and therefore exist in many Varna's including Sudra. I see no problem in mentioning it. ThanksSH 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments to Sikh-History: You asked a question that what is wrong with reference. Sir, the problem is that it's not true that someday the Jats woke up and came to India as a result of a morning-walk; instead they defeated the locals in the battlefield using their swords not ploughs; and not some people are calling them untouchable and shudras. Be them Aryan or Scythians, both the races (if Scythians be not Aryans) won the battle for the conquest over India; You know very well that Jats maybe called Republic Kshatriyas for once, but never Shudras. Also, do You know who the Census Commissioner was who signed this report... the same guy who conducted the ethnographic studies and declared the Jats to be the clear winners with the nasal index of 63.1 I did not knew this, but I just read the stuff here and realised this. See: History and Culture of Indian People, The Vedic Age, pp 286–87, 313–14. It says Scythians were absorbed as Kshtriyas in the Indian Society. So be them Aryan or Scythians, how come they are untouchables??? --Abstruce ^(Talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, hang on a minute, Abstruce. Here you say one thing with regard to the validity of varna statements, and above you appear to be suggesting something else. You cannot have it both ways. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I want to make it clear that it's the best thing if the Varna Status section is removed. I want it this way. I made the above post specifically as an answer to his specific question; he asked that what is wrong with the reference in the revision summary of the page when he reverted My edit, so I though that maybe I should provide more clarification to him. This is the message I was trying to convey to Sikh-History specifically, I wanted to talk him over this topic one-on-one, just should have done it on his talk page. But, I do understand that what must take responsibility for what we say; I should have realized that I am talking on the article's talk page, and not his talk page. Please accept My apologies. I should have discussed this on his talk page, sorry for the misunderstanding. I understand that it did confused My stand on the discussion. Anyways, I accept that I should have been more careful, should have posted the reply on his talk page, as I was specifically answering his query. I am Really Sorry about this, please accept My apology! I do look forward to see the Varna status section removed. Now, I will discuss it in the section below. --Abstruce ^(Talk) 13:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The other three varnas are Brahmans - priests, Kshatriya - those with governing functions, Vaishya - agriculturalists, cattle rearers and traders. According to this ancient text, the Shudra perform functions of serving the other three varna. Varna system developed during Vedic period and it was based on work and not the caste on somebody’s opinion or recording.

The three castes, Brahmanas and the next (Kshatriyas and Vaishyas), were produced from the face, the arms and the thighs of the Lord; and for their support was born the fourth caste from His feet. Jats have not born from any of these but mythologically born from Shiva’s Locks. Mythologically and by their functions we can not call them Shudras.

Here members forget that we have discussed this issue many times. In Archive 4 we discussed about their status as mentioned by Deva Samhita. This clearly proves that the Jats are the earliest kshatriyas.

Deva Samhitā is a collection of Sanskrit hymns by Gorakh Sinha during the early medieval period. Deva Samhitā propounded the theory of Origin of Jats from Shiva's Locks. Devasamhita records an account of the Origin of the Jats in the form of discussion between Shiva and Parvati expressed in shloka (verses). Pārvatī asks Shiva, O Lord Bhutesha, knower of all religions, kindly narrate about the birth and exploits of the Jat race. Who is their father? Who is their mother? Which race are they? When were they born? Having read the mind of Parvati, Shiva said, "O mother of the world, I may tell you honestly the origin and exploits of the Jats about whom none else has so far revealed anything to you. Some relevant verses are given below.

There is mention of Jats in Deva Samhitā in the form of powerful rulers over vast plains of Central Asia. When Pārvatī asks Shiva about the origin of Jats, their antiquity and characters of Jats, Shiva tells her like this in Sanskrit shloka-15 as under:

महाबला महावीर्या, महासत्य पराक्रमाः Mahābalā mahāvīryā, Mahāsatya parākramāḥ

सर्वाग्रे क्षत्रिया जट्टा देवकल्पा दृढ़-व्रता: Sarvāgre kshatriyā jattā Devakalpā dridh-vratāḥ || 15 ||

Meaning - "They are symbol of sacrifice, bravery and industry. They are, like gods, firm of determination and of all the kshatriyā, the Jats are the prime rulers of the earth." Shiva explains Parvati about the origin of Jats in Shloka –16 of Deva samhita as under:

श्रृष्टेरादौ महामाये वीर भद्रस्य शक्तित: Shrishterādau mahāmāye Virabhadrasya shaktitaḥ

कन्यानां दक्षस्य गर्भे जाता जट्टा महेश्वरी Kanyānām Dakshasya garbhe jātā jattā maheshwarī. || 16 ||

Meaning – "In the beginning of the universe with the personification of the illusionary powers of Virabhadra and Daksha's daughter gani's womb originated the caste of Jats." Pārvatī asks, in the shloka-17 of 'Deva Samhitā' about the origin and exploits of the Jats, whom none else has so far revealed, Shiva tells Parvati that:

गर्व खर्चोत्र विग्राणां देवानां च महेश्वरी Garva kharchotra vigrānam devānām cha maheshwarī

विचित्रं विस्मयं सत्वं पौराण कै साङ्गीपितं Vichitram vismayam satvam Pauran kai sāngīpitam || 17 ||

Meaning - "The history of origin of Jats is extremely wonderful and their antiquity glorious. The Pundits of history did not record their annals, lest it should injure and impair their false pride of the vipras and gods. We describe that realistic history before you."

The last verse clearly indicates the forces behind not calling Jats as Kshatriyas. Jats at present are 70 percent agriculturists and then in Government Jobs like Army and Education. Very definition of Shudras is - Shudra perform functions of serving the other three varna. Which category of Jats is serving other varnas ? Can any body clear it ? Sudras have generally not adopted cultivation but worked mostly as landless labours or in other services. As farmers Jats are included in vaishyas and not Sudras. As army people they are Kshatriyas. As Government servants they they perform the old vedic function of Brahmanas. They do no work which is just to serve other Varnas. By no criteria they can be included in Sudras. The members mentioning them Shudra are biased and their motive needs to be watched by the Admins.

By the way Varna System is a Vedic Concept and should not find place on Wikipedia. The famous Historian about Jat history considers them out of preview of the Varna system.

As such Varna System section should be deleted from Jat people article. burdak (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you say the whole section should be removed, but the only thing you removed was the Shudra claim, which makes me doubt your sincerity. In any event, the "ancient texts" aren't reliable sources, and thus don't help us know what to put in the article. Please review WP:RS for an explanation of what counts as reliable for info on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian what is your measure of sincerity and how much do you know about Jats ? I removed Shudra because the reference does not match with this conclusion. Please go through the reference quoted. The author is not himself clear about their Varna Status. I ask what is the significance of Varna System in todays world and on Wikipedia which believes in equal status of all human beings, neutrality and unbias. On this basis I put this note to remove this section. No clan or person is superior or inferior. But how can you judge without getting any further comments? I doubt you sincerity also. Regards. burdak (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the relevant page of the cited source but an encyclopedia of medical anthropology is unlikely to be the greatest choice per reliable sources policy. Equally, ancient texts and Ram Swarup Joon are definitely not policy-compliant. I'll see if I can do some digging later today. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Jats hold place amongst the 36 royal races of ancient India. Reliable Sources are: 1. See - Tod.II.256, 2.See S. No. 19 in http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_marque_royalraces.htm, 3. See http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html All these sources mention Jats as one of 36 royal races of ancient India. Are these not reliable sources ? Are All Royal clans classified as Shudras ? burdak (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Tod is not a reliable source, and is generally rejected as a biased writer. Neither of those other two websites meets WP:RS either. However, it may be that we need to remove the whole section, if the sources now aren't reliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the encyclopedia is likely to be the tertiary issue. We really need someone who can see the content in order to check whether it contains citations/what sort of detail it goes into etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to see it before but now am, for whatever reason. The main discussion of caste is on page 777 and is quoted below:

It is important to note that each Jat community presents certain unique cultural characteristics, which makes it difficult to generalize about the Jats as a culturally homogenous group. Any attempt to generalize about Jat culture and/or its characteristics is therefore problematic. This account does not attempt to represent the vast cultural diversity and regional variation among the Jats. Instead, it presents some of the cultural characteristics shared by the Jat communities inhabiting the northwestern provinces of India and southern Pakistan.

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

The Hindu Jats in India generally follow Arya Samaj-a reform sect of Hinduism, which originated in the mid 1800s. Generally, the Jats follow the teachings of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj. According to Datta (1999), the Jats living in the northwestern plains of India belong to the Shudra group. Primarily because of the influence of the Arya Samaj, the Jats claimed a Rajput descent and a Kshatriya status.

Fuchs (1974) defines the Jats as a Central Asian nomadic group that immigrated into northwestern India. Serological and anthropometric studies of the Jats in Haryana-a north Indian state, suggest a close association between the Rajputs and the Jats (Khanna, 1995). The Jats in India primarily practice Hindu religion, however, some Jat groups in Punjab embraced Sikh religion around the 17th century. These Jat groups are now called Jat Sikhs or Sikh Jats. In western Punjab, now in Pakistan, the Jat community adopted Islam between 8th and 10th centuries AD.

I hope this helps. JanetteDoe (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That is excellent, thanks. I think that the next stage is to pin down the page numbers etc of the secondary sources which it cites. Prima facie, it appears to be a balanced summary (I haven't yet compared it to our article, though!). My list of things to do is growing at the moment but I'll get round to it asap. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, more than half of the Jat population is not Hindu! Also, Jat is not a caste of Hindus or an ethnic group of Sikhs; they are a race; and therefore does not comes under the Varna system meant for Hindu Catss. {See: [here http://books.google.com/books?id=rcvBPAAACAAJ Antiquity of Jat Race]}. I agree with Respected Burdak Sir, support removing the Varna Status section!

Also, the concept of 36 Royal Races of Ancient India clearly states that Rajputs are merged descendents of these races who were settled in India long before the Muslims came in! See the details by a MODERN SOURCE [here http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_marque_royalraces.htm]. Also, please... no Jat claims a Rajput descent! Please donot put it anywhere on the article. Please study in details about the significance of the list of those 36 RACES!!! The Rajputs are infact descendents of these 36 races. Study the research about the list in detail. Rajputs are a hybrid that got converted to Brahmanical supported Hinduism; and Hinduism spread at the expense of Buddhism. You need to study about India from 4th Century BC to 6th Century AD; and the changes in the Society that begin to happen from the 7th Century AD. --Abstruce ^(Talk) 12:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Abstruce, you're perhaps just unaware, but there is no such thing as a "race"; the concept itself is just another word for "group" or "tribe" or "caste". So you can't say that they're a "race" as if that's somehow a special type of categorization. Also, the source you sited isn't a modern source--it says directly in it that it just takes the info from Tod, whom we've already shown does not meet WP:RS. However, with respect the source reproduced above, it looks like it says nearly the same general thing as our article does: that the varna status is unclear. We can't just take out the whole section when we have so many sources that state some info about the caste even though the result is that "everybody says different things". At least some of those look like good sources, so I don't understand why the info should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Census report of Ajmer Merwara region can not be applied to all Jats of India and Pakistan. Jat is a very big ethnic group consisting of thousands of clans. Some times British people were confused with Jatawas and Jats. Jatawas are in Shudra category but not Jats. At India's discussion topic we have already discussed and it was almost consensus that British records and history are not unbiased and neutral. Jats played important role in freedom movement. They were the first to stop levy on agri produce to British and local jagirdars. It was a symbiosis of local Jagirdars and British who united against Jats. Jats were fighting for freedom against British people so It is obvious that Britisher's view can not be accepted as a neutral point of view. if you still insist on Ajmer Merwara Census report to apply to all Jats, there may be serious social repercussions in India. They will demand SC status and that will disturb entire harmony of Indian society. Regards, burdak (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, if the government of India is relying on Wikipedia to make policy decisions, you've got a lot bigger problems than a group claiming SC status. That being said, and I ask this in the politest possible way, did you read the section? It doesn't rely on the British census--it merely lists it as one of many different sources. That being said, I would have no problem removing the entire sentence. It is technically acceptable per the way we use primary sources, since technically all it does is state the viewpoint of the document itself. That being said, readers may well interpret that claim as having extra force (since people often erroneously presume a government census to be somehow more "factual" and less "biased", which is very much not true, especially not in this case). What would be much better was if we had a secondary source that said something like "The 1901 British census classified them as Jats, though the problems with that census were X, Y, and Z." Absent that, I would be willing to accept removing the sentence. Is anyone else going to be angry if I remove only that one sentence? Note that this means that Shudra will still be there, just not attributed to the British census. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem to me, per my posts of 16:55, 14 September 2011 and 23:45, 26 September 2011 regarding reliability. The census is de facto valid as an official document but since they are known to be troublesome they probably should not be included without supporting info from a more modern source. That may yet appear (there is a great book on the subject) but for now it can go. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My views about the removal of that one sentence: Yes Qwyrxian, please go ahead and remove that sentence.

But, I still think that the section should be removed, and I do agree with Respected Burdak Sir's arguments. Dear Mate, there are several reasons that may be considered of the removal of the section about the community on the whole. Some reasons I consider, are that: more than half of the community is not Hindu, therefore the whole community automatically does not comes under the Varna system, I guess we all will agree upon this. And, even those who are Hindus (or have adopted the Hindu faith), how many of them are the very original inhabitants of India? The most common judgement after has always been that Jats are merged descendents of Indo-Aryans and Scythians; we also had it on the page but removed some time back by a REVIEWER. If Not All, but still a Number of Jats are actually from Europe and Central Asia, aren't they? Even, it's in question as per several historians that, whether they were originally the followers of Buddhism before adjusting with the main-stream Hinduism! --Abstruce ^(Talk) 15:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Demographics section i want you to edit and add the state of Uttar Pradesh where jats are present and very dominant in areas from farming to politics, government services. I am not happy by seeing the missing name of Uttar Pradesh from the list of Jats demographics. Please put it there so that we can become more united. If you want any verification on this just visit the districts like Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bijnor, Muzzafarnagar, Shamli, bulandsaher, Baghpat, Moradabad. One and only one Indian Jat Primeminister Late shri Chaudhary charan singh hails from western UP.

122.172.1.212 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so your desire to use it to "become more united" is out of place. If your request was to succeed at all then it would require support from reliable sources. If you click on the two blue links then you will get some information about this. If you are still unsure then feel free to leave a message here or at User_talk:Sitush and we'll try to clear up the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's time to clean up this article as well. It is abysmally written; the illustrations are shabby as well. I will start by adding some old "ethnographic" prints and remove the collage in place (that has a warning template) or at least remove it for now. I'll probably add some references as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your additions and clean up take this community back to 19th century and do not give a true picture as on today. You can not make any idea about today's Jat from this cleanup and your images you have added. Wikipedia was not at that time. Probably you have no knowledge and understanding of this community. So take it that way and improve accordingly. Regards. burdak (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the Runea girl image added by you is representative of Jat girls now? I do not under stand what does Fowler&fowler wants to prove. It seems like he is representative of British era and considers Jats as tribe of that period. Come to reality. There are Jat girls now like Mallika Sherawat. Regards, burdak (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? All Jat girls now have had boob jobs, filled their lips with collagen, and have managed to look like caricatures? At least you can't say that about the 1868 print. That girl had dignity. This article is not about Jat people now, as they busy themselves with delusional hagiographies, but over time. The British ethnographic prints may have methodological issues, but they were the first photographs of the different castes of India. Before that no one paid attention to them, especially to the non-elite non-servile castes such as the Jats, Kumris, Ahirs, etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fowler&fowler your comments about Jat girls reveal what you are here for. Please be in limits. We can understand to what extent you can improve this article. Regards, burdak (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2011

oye Fowler&fowler first of all mind your tongue we can also say the same crap about british girls ,what he means to say is that jatt girls are not like the oneshown in the picture they are fair and beautiful and elegant,see if u give respect then u get respect but if u talk crap then we can also talk crap!

jatts were the rulers of punjab before british rule the britishers took over punjab from ::::::Maharaja Ranjit Singh who was a jatt sikh! and in the artilce jat people in wikepedia only its mentioned that sidhu and brars were rulers of faridkot and bathinda who were also jatt sikhs decendents of bhatti rajputs who are kshatryas of chandravanshi origin! u can see the article bhatti ,or sidhu in wikepedia only in which itz mentioned that sidhu and brars were kshatryas who later came to be known as jatts! and in this article jat people itz also mentioned that britishers designated jatts as martial race most of the soldiers in the british army were jatts! and jatt calans like bhullar,grewal,dhillon,kambojas or kamboj,gill ,kang sandhuetc, were the landloards and lambadars in punjab so u cannot say that they were not elite ! jatts like Bhagat Singh who was a revounalist and udham singh who killed Reginald Dyer all the britishers were afarid from them. the childern of sikh jatts attended best elite school like The Doon School,St. George's College, Mussoorie,Woodstock School,Sherwood College.. u may have understood that jatts were elite and royal people! see these links of Wikipedia only which show how their position during britishers.

Udham Singh is actually from the Kamboj clan and not Jat. SH 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Singh(MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhatti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faridkot_State

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheema

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatt_Sikh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambojas(see modern decent)

(IF U CONSIDER WIKIPEDIA A RELIABLE SOURCE THEN ALL THESE RESOURCES ARE RELIABLE SOURCES) some other resources http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3DHDKnRG2XEC&pg=PR12&dq=jatts+during+british+raj+in+punjab&hl=en&ei=rACfTuC8OcH3rQeYi5W2CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFcQ6AE

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=LPsvytmN3mUC&pg=PA309&dq=jatts+during+british+raj+in+punjab&hl=en&ei=rACfTuC8OcH3rQeYi5W2CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=VSmFSMCirugC&pg=PA231&dq=jatts+during+british+raj+in+punjab&hl=en&ei=xP-eTtyKLovPrQfmj5SwCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved

u might have understood now.

I just used revision deletion on some stuff posted by an IP that was grossly insulting/degrading. Some of you have already read it and know what it said. Technically speaking, I am WP:INVOLVED on this article, so shouldn't take admin actions, but exceptions are generally made for actions of this type. If anyone thinks I acted improperly, let me know and I'll get an uninvolved admin to review it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that your revdel was wrong per se. But being involved on caste articles, I feel, it would be prudent for you to refrain from performing admin actions on caste articles and let other admins do it.MW ^ℳ 08:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

in the section varna status i want the line "some authors suggest jatts were shudras" to be removed n only the line saying that jatts were rajputs to stay there. cause of the following reasons.. yes!! they were kshatriyas before they adopted different religions like islam n sikhism,cause they belived these religions to be better than hinduissim..they vere never shudras as they had control over large acers of land in north india and they are very brare and martial race..so get your facts right before u call them shudras ! these days some shudras in haryana who want to uplift their position falsely call themselves as jats but they are not real jatts so know the facts before u comment.

and u might have heard this saying "guns,glory and guts are only made for jatts" so dont ever mess with jatts ! otherwise the will kick your ass!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki00756 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all info in articles. There are reliable sources that state that some Jats were not kshatriya, thus the info is included. If you wish to include other info, please provide reliable sources. A college level text book may be okay; please give the exact name of the book, author(s), and page(s) with that info. Finally, please do not threaten anyone like you did at the end of your post. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

see in Wikipedia only its written that some of jatt castes belong to bhatti rajputs n were rulers of jasalmer. in this wikepedia only it is mentioned that jatts had vast acres of land ..n were rulers of their region so how can u say that they are shudras? by listening to only some people who are jealous of jatts because they adopted different religions other than hinduism..by the way they jatts are not hindus so cast system means nothing to them! and jatts dint had to struggle for any status they were notable landlord n zamindars in north,check the british records.jatts are lineage of rajputs!they are dominant caste in their regions u can check the textbook of sociology ncert (cbse) class xii and there are thousands of links on internet,just search google! and in Wikipedia only its written that shudras were labourers ,and kshatriyas were rulers and landlords n its mentioned that jatts were rulers in north and they are big landlords in punjab and are economically influential so therefore they are kshatriyas!! jatts control all the land and polits in punjab so ther is no dout about their kshatrya status and btw u live in japan an comment about indian affairs by reading some unreliable biased articles! u dont know anything, and (threat redacted Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)) i can paste 100s of links like u have pasted but i am listing only some

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8E8XyZNBy-AC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=jatts+high+caste&source=bl&ots=CchlKBS8Mp&sig=msdlEP6uYRCjysWBBW6078SA9WQ&hl=en&ei=gdCZ

http://www.sikhcastes.faithweb.com/

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=mT0bAAAAIAAJ&q=jatts+higher&dq=jatts+higher&hl=en&ei=2dOZTtbzL4nMrQfdl4iSBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg

http://www.jatland.com/home/Kshatriya

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=EcW3eLUr4IoC&pg=PA30&dq=jatts+higher+caste+than+shudras&hl=en&ei=qtKZToamJcXorAfE6NGbBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum.

http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/kshatriya.htm (IN THIS ARTICLE READ THE PART UNDER THE HEADING Chandravanshi!in this siddhu caste is denoted as a jatt kshatrya caste of chandravanshi origin and siddhus are now jatts!and many other jatt casts are included here ! the most supream caste of jatts like siddhu/sidhu and brars are direct decedents of bhattis a true kshatryas of chadravanshi origin! therefore jatts are not shudras shudras are like chamars,churras,majvi etc... NOTE- dont ever get confused between the term jat and jatt ,jat itself means the word varna in hindi ,it means a community like any community but it does not denote a caste!and jatis means different communitie in hindi but JATT is a name of a caste and it is a supreme caste so u might have been got confused between the two terms ..for clarfication see below

http://adaniel.tripod.com/confusion.htm

jatts were always rulers of states some of the jatt sikh maharajas were ,Maharaja Harinder Singh Brar of Faridkot,Maharaja Ranjit Singh who extended the punjab state upto afghanistan by defeating the brave pathans! and Maharaja Bhupinder singh of Patiala ,and there are many more they were heads of the state wherever they stayed so how can they be shudras?? the links below will show u!

http://www.maharajasurajmalfoundation.com/jatkingdom.html

http://www.j4jat.com/famous_jat.php

http://indianhistory-ace.blogspot.com/2011/06/jat-sikh-rajas.html

http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/heritage/Maharajas%20of%20Punjab/faridkot/faridkot.htm

http://spsharmajammu.blogspot.com/2010/08/faridkot-aircrafts.html

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&pg=PA79&dq=jatt+sikh+maharajas&hl=en&ei=4JSaTqDAFcHwrQeLnKWDBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet

http://www.singhsabha.com/maharaja_ranjit_singh.htm

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA75&dq=jatt+sikh+maharajas&hl=en&ei=4JSaTqDAFcHwrQeLnKWDBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGQ

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&pg=PA79&dq=jatt+sikh+maharajas&hl=en&ei=4JSaTqDAFcHwrQeLnKWDBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0

http://punjabijanta.com/lok-virsa/history-of-faridkot/

From the above links wee can see that jatts were royal rulers! but they hated brahmins cause they were double faced hypocrites ! and jatts ebjoyed meat and drank alchol which was not allowed in hindusim so some of the rajputs also became jatts like the sidhus and brars and in punjab brahmin was never considered high caste they were considered shudras so some brahmins called jatts shudras u see its both ways jatts(kshatryas who denied brahmins superiority) call brahmin shudras cause they are cowards and have no land they were hypocrites just thugging people on the name of religion! and the society agreed with the jatts!!brahmins were just religious adviser of kshatryas and jatts they were never superior than them! and today also jatts are the most superior caste in India they study in best school of india and aborad ,they get highest ranks in military,police,and politics they all are from good royal families! and u cannot comment about internal affairs of India by just reading some article u yoursel have to be in the society to learn about the society someday come and visit Punjab an u will come to know! In India Seats in elections for mp(member of parliament) and mlas(member of legislative assemblies are reserved for scheduled cast(low caste or shudras) in punajb also but jatts do not contest from these seats ,only churas and majbhais are elected from reserved seats ! therefore it is clear that jatts are not schedule caste! get it!

jatts are full of pride their pride is everything to them! they never bow in front of any one! so they were never ever shudras cause they simply cannot be suppressed ! they are very brave and courageous! wheras shudras are weak and have no land,they are black ,small in height ! but in contrary jatts are strong , courageous, white(fair) tall in height handsome posses a large amount of land have highest honors in military and control politics!so therefore jatts and shudras are very different freom each other jatts are superior than shudras! jatts lead a life full of pride and honor they live life king size ,,they own luxry cars,bungalows and vast lands in punjab andoutside ,they are born to lead! they have everything from big guns to small rolex watches! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.250.139 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC) (Wiki00756 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC))

Alright, I'm trying to read through some of your sources...let me comment on them as I go through. Please note that I am reading specifically the pages you linked to, and surrounding context as necessary; if you wanted to point me to a different section, you'll need to provide page numbers:

• Encyclopedia of Dalits: Gyan Publishing in never a reliable source, per many previous discussions here and at WP:RSN.
• sikhcastes.com: Self-published website (WP:SPS), not reliable per WP:RS
• Indian journal of applied linguistics: The part that I can see is very vague. It says "The Jats are not only a dominant caste group..." What does dominant mean? It certainly doesn't mean kshatriya, because then they would have used that term. Furthermore, what is the time frame for this claim? Is it in 1975? Does it apply to all Jatts? I would need to see more of the article to find out.
• jatland: An open wiki (like Wikipedia), which are never reliable sources.
• Punjab society: perspectives and challenges: Says that the Jats were landowners; no other details. That says nothing about their varna status (though it implies some statuses that they weren't).
• http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/kshatriya.htm: Explicitly says that it is copied from Wikipedia. Not reliable.

Then you've got 7 other websites; they're all blogs or other self-published sources. Please read WP:RS, which tells you what the guidelines are for source son Wikipedia.

• Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: Clearly not serious scholarship. It contains, for example, the sentence, "Chief among these is the rule prohibiting smoking; the Mohammedan and to a less extent the Hindu wastes his time, dulls his faculties, and to some extent predisposes himself to luxuriousness and indolence by excessive smoking." That's not only unfettered opinion without substance, it's practically offensive racism. That sounds like something that would have been written 150 years ago, not in 2007.
• Martial races of undivided India: Gyan publishing again

So, to sum up, you provided one source (the Indian journal of applied linguistics) that may be reliable and usable, but I need to see more of it to be clear. As I said, please read WP:RS, and come back with actual sources that can be used in a Wikipedia article if you want to further push this point. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the above comments by the unknown user fully represent the problems with this article. A lot of sources are simply poor quality and fail the WP:VERIFIABLE test. I am glad, finally we have some editors willing to clean up this article. Thanks SH 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

first of all they all are reliable resources otherwise your resources are also not reliable ,your resources are published by some racist hindus and no resource on the iternet is reliable anybody can write stupid crap here ..different writers have different opions n u dint read what i wrote about jatts why u need resources n i why caunt buy the book n read rather than asking for the page number ...why dount check the indian govt records? n r u trying to say that prime minister of india is a dalit! ? n my links clearly show that they were landowners so therefore they were not shudras! first u should clear your basics first u need to understand who are shudras .shudras have no caste they are also called outcastes and they also dont have any sub clans wheras jatt is a community comprising of different castes it has sub castes like gill,sidhu,bhullar dhillon. n i told u u r geting confused between jat and jatt! u have not bothered to see the real thing i belive either u are just a dumbass or just a confused personality! in this jat article by Wikipedia only first its written that they are kshatryas ,then its written that some suggested that they were shudras but could not prove! get it! and i am not writing this to prove anything to u everybody knows whats the real position of jatts ! i just wrote this cause by callaing jatts shudras u have greatly insulted them but cause u were ignorant i forgave u but if anybody else would have read this bugged ! u should just mind your own business! n u dint see that they were rulers and maharajas u can search for it any where !shudras were as i told u called churas majbhais and chamars, they were serveants of jatts! jatts are true kshatryas! or even superior than kshatryas now! u cant get right information from the internet for understanding something u just cannot depend on net and how many times iv told u that jatts are given highest ranks in the army and politics! they have won Victoria crosses in the britain army which were only given to a high caste not shudras!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_Regiment

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-4/bajwa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamar

http://www.ambedkartimes.com/page6.html ^^^(READ THIS WHOLE IF U WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH THIS SHOWS THAT JATTS EXPOLITED DALITS AND JATTS AREHIGH CASTE AND IN PUNJAB BRAHMIN IS ALSO CONSIDERED LOW CASTE! and btw this varna system was abolished centuries ago!it was only prevelant where hindusi was prevelant and in punajab hindusm was not so prevelant..jatts consider brahmins and all oother hindus as weak and hypocites at the end brahmins always came to jatts for help ! jatts never listend to brahmins so they called them lower than themeselves but jatts called brahmins lower and it shows today because today brahmins in india have nothin nobody cares about them !many social reformers also aggred with this .and many times the hypocracy of brahmins has been exposed ..and today jatts are the supreme caste! get your facts clear!whatever is ur name qwyxrian!cause its commonsense people with so much of pride, valor,bravery cannot be suppressed or called low caste but some hypocrite can only spread false rumors on their back but not on their face! this varna para should be erased only because they are not hindus n they never were hindus they had their own culture and identified with Persian cultureand names chande in due course of history so in ancient texts the names were something els! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki00756 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources. That Ambedkar Times article might be okay, what do others think? Of course, we will only add it to the article--Wikipedia always presents all perspectives shown in reliable sources, especially when they disagree. I'm sorry if you don't like that policy, but that's our rules here. I'll point out that the sources in the article are not "resources on the internet"; they tend to be from academic books, journals, etc. It's true that we have more work to do cleaning up this article and its sources, but, then again, so do almost all Wikipedia articles. So, if you want to calm down, nicely present some actual reliable sources, we can consider adding them. If you just want to yell and give your personal opinion, then your presence isn't so helpful. As I said that Ambedkar Times might work, because it was written by a Political Science professor. The problem is that it doesn't appear to have been edited by a journal or other reliable editorial source. Again, I invite other people's opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

all articles are written by some or the other writer only>>and iv given so many links of the books and journals above sctually this is so commonsence that jatts are kshatryas that thers is no need of mentioning it in books if u call jatts shudras its like calling a white man black even if u can see he is white. and u dint answer my questions above?and editorial sources are not always right and what reliable sources have u mentioned i would like to know ?? and u also need to show some reliable resources and btw so many people saying above tht jatts are not shudras are not mad knowledge does not need to mention resources n i dont need to mention resources for u u find them urself n please stay out of these matters !still i would mention somemore links here for the people;

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=DfZBc1Gy9g4C&pg=PA193&dq=jatt&hl=en&ei=5ZCdTqmkOYrmrAeOmfygCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=one(READ PAGE NO 194 AND ABOVE) http://books.google.co.in/books?id=zcxQYgEACAAJ&dq=jatt&hl=en&ei=35KdTujiDcL3rQeftYDRCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwADgK(BUY AND READ THIS BOOK IF U WANT TO)

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=rCJuAAAAMAAJ&q=jatt&dq=jatt&hl=en&ei=upOdTpjvHobZrQeHmeirCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAzgo(we cannot see all the page of the book so u would have to buy it)

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-VKgAAAAMAAJ&dq=jatt&q=jat#search_anchor(READ THESE EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK)

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=DIN0AAAAMAAJ&dq=jatt&q=jat#search_anchor

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aeKWQzesOc4C&dq=jatt&q=jatt#v=onepage&q=jat&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=4hdmdWR3XDoC&dq=jatt&q=jatt#v=onepage&q=jat&f=false( read these pages patiently)

and how many times iv told u that jatts were rulers i gave u the names of the maharajas also now nobody will make a fake maharaja!

and in the wikepedias artilce jat people only its written that they are arrogant,full of pride,valour,strength and courage and kshatryas! so its simple that people who are so brave and arrogant just cannot be inferior by calling them i dont even want to use the word u have insulted them!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki00756 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources. I haven't looked at the other sources yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what is it that you actually want to change in the article? You're giving all sorts of sources, some of which may be reliable, some of which are definitely not (for example, Gyan publishing books are never reliable), but what is it you want changed? The article already says that some people think Jats are kshatriya, so it seems like the point is already there. Do you just want some of these sources added? If so, what specifically do you think should be added? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

yes i know in the article its mentioned that jatts are kshatryas but i only wanted to tell that people who read or thought jatts as shudras were mislead or were biased or they were purpously calling them this even if they knew they are kshatryas ...so it would be good on the part of wikeoedia if it deleates the word shudras or i would recommend the deletion or the whole para of varna status as this caste system has been abloshied in hindusim and jatts are no hindus they are either sikhs or follow islam so this system does not apply to them and these all resources are from google books.. .how do u define a reliable source?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki00756 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I too have been saying at a number of places that there is no need for a discussion of varna issue. This is particularly true for this article. It does not apply to muslims and sikhs. But do you know some cure for folks who are stuck with what they learned when they were in school/college, (but which has changed by now), or who are stuck with whatever they read first, and are unable to see any meaning in what they see subsequently. See downstairs in the section #Traditionally non-elite but non-servile tillers for a clue to what I mean.MW ^ℳ 15:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Any figures for how many Hindu Jat people there were in, say, 1901? And how many Muslim + Sikh ones? - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)