Talk:Jats

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

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

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

Kind regards

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

This has been discussed umpteen times previously. It is not going to happen because reliable sources do refer to them as non-elite and we do not pander to the vanity of those about whom we write or the strictures of some archaic religious texts. That some became rulers etc does not alter the fact that the vast majority traditionally plodded up and down fields and got their hands dirty - a worthy way to live one's life. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please define 'reliable sources'? they are only referred to as non-elite in Susan Bayly's book.

"Close to the sixteenth century they had large areas under their zamindaris in and around the Punjab, in particular the Rachna and Bari Doabs and in the west of the Yamuna in the sarkars of Sirhind, Hisar, Firoza, and Delhi of suba Delhi"

The Crisis in Empire of Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab 1707-1748, Muzaffar Alam

(comparing Ain-i-Akbari records)

If the Ain-i-Akbari states that the Jats to be intermediary title-holding 'Zamindars'; than how can they be considered 'traditionally non-elite'. Peasantry, yes. Nomadic origins, yes... 'Non-Elite' to define a community is absolutely crazily absurd!

Also considering the fact that, as per the Jajmani System (Social/socio-economic structure), that would put the upper-strata of the Jats higher than most of the population at the time (apart from Kings, Subedars, Wazirs, Dewans and other's in the Imperial Mughal Administrative Framework).

And with regards to 'Jat is an elastic label applied to a wide-ranging, traditionally non-elite'; looking at Susan Bayly's quote from 'Caste, Society and Politics in India...', that is completely and totally unreferenced and her own opinion. Nowhere does she mention the time-period of the discussion, or which particular historical accounts she is analysising to actually come to the conclusion that she is coming to. I think Susan Baylyl's book being considered a 'reliable source' with regards to a modern community/identity being labeled as "traditionally non-elite" is more than questionable.

I would like you to take a read of the bottom quote taken from her book which is being used as a reference, Sitush, at point out: historical sources being analyzed to come to her conclusions of Jats being 'non-elite' community; and a term for a 'villager' and not a 'caste'.

"Of course these areas still contained large numbers of non-elite

tillers. In the Punjab and the western Gangetic plains, convention

denned the Rajput's non-elite counterpart as a Jat. Like the many

similar titles used elsewhere, this was not so much a caste name as a

broad designation for the man of substance in rural terrain. Even well

into the nineteenth century, a male Jat was understood to be a man of

worth but not a follower of exacting lordly codes."

Surely, her opinions should hold no value in this article, even if they are published in a book.

The context of this quote is the 17th century, and in Punjab and Gangetic plains. If you regard Muzaffar Alam's translation/comparison of the Ain-I-Akbari as a reliable source, then they are Intemediary Zamindars (a relatively important socio-economic class) by the 16TH century Punjab (which is Non-Khalisa, i.e. there are no vassal overlords or kings, the revenue of their lands and villages are paid directly to the mughal administration representing the empire i.e. the Subedar of the province). So we can deduce that her opinion is factually inaccurate with regards to Punjab atleast.

Also, what's your opinion Sitush, is 'non-elite' being used with regards to comparitive 'varna-status' amongst the orthodox caste-ridden hindu's of the time? or is it being used in a socio-economic sense? or is it being used as an occupational comparison? 'lordly-codes' is vague and doesn't mean anything. -- so the quote is, again, in-accurate and can be considered nothing but an opinion.

I am more than happy to debate you, Sitush, on the use of this quote from Susan Baylyl as reference. Not only is the quote Out Of Context (we aren't talking about the 17th century, Jat's as a people/community, still unquestionably exist!), but the quote is in itself inaccurate for the above mentioned reasons.

- CaptainGSingh (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have closed this edit request as there does not appear to be consensus here. I have no comment on the merit of your request, but please feel free to continue this discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the right place for discussion?

Well, there have been many questions about the accuracy of Susan's work in the past, no? And with regards to labeling a community as 'non-elite' due to her perceived status of them in the 17th century, that is simply absurd?

Is 'Sitush' the only user that gets the final say in this article? - looking at his previous edits, on other articles too, the book seems to be a bible for that user. CaptainGSingh (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Apologies. You understand that the evidence I have provided clearly factually overrides the use of 'non-elite' in Susan Bayly's work.

The time period which Susan Bayly is talking about in that particular context is the 17th century. I have already established that Jats where established titled zamindars in the 16th century. For that exact time period:

"The social layer of the landowning peasants was, no doubt, heterogeneous and the existence of a rich and powerful rural elite is rather well corroborated by various sources (Social and Attitudinal Changes in Medieval India: Thirteenth-Seventeenth Century, Satish Chandra, 2009)", "...The very content of these prohibitions testified to the fact that there had been little difference between the lifestyles of the Jat headmen (of the Khalisa lands - i.e. no 'Raja'/autonomous-overlords exist) and Rajput feudals (of Rajputana)."

Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man, By Eugenia Vanina, pg. 197 - 198

Surely, if they have an elite 'kingly' lifestyle in the 17th century, have formed autocratic kingdoms in the 18th century with 'vassals' (from the empire's own crown lands, i.e. they weren't serving a 'local king' but the emperor and his representatives directly, which makes them a 'local elite' in the 16th century Anyway), are considered the landed gentry in the 19th century... then surely, common-sense would dictate that it isn't wise to label a community as "traditionally non-elite" when the identity is based around their post-17th century status. And as I've said earlier, even in the 16th and 17th century, there is much evidence about Jats forming 'rural landed elite' class. Is there anything else I need to say/provide? CaptainGSingh (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor's Caste Should be Identified

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

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

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

Clarification re OBC Status

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

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

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

This is an interesting (although not unusual) development and I'd be grateful if you could provide links to the newspaper stories - the ToI has a website, so presumably they are on there somewhere. I think that your proposal is too detailed for the lead section, which is intended to summarise what the article says. However, some changes both to the lead and to the body itself would appear to be justified. It's the old story of people jostling for position: first they wanted to promote superiority through zamindari-related connections (despite mostly being peasants) and now they seem to be seeking an inferior position because it brings with it the benefits of reservation!

Have any other news outlets reported on this? Although unlikely to be wrong about the general situation, ToI is not the greatest source out there, so perhaps something from, say, The Hindu would be preferable. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

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

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

GA??

I see this article has been assessed as start class. I think it meets C or B class in the current state. I also think I can improve this article by expanding a bit, adding more sources, tweaking the lead and the sections so that it can meet GA standard. I need an expert like Sitush who can mention some issues with the article (current state) that needs to be fixed. Sitush you can make a list of those issues below. I will start after I get a response from Sitush. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 21:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to continue improving this article. It has no chance of GA status at present because there is too much aggravation: one of the prerequisites for GA is stability and that obviously does not apply here, mainly because of caste warriors. Nonetheless, we should do our best to make it as good as it can be. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks Sitush, I will start improving within a week. And I'm sure I can bring the stability. I might also place a {{under construction}} or {{in use}} tag to avoid edit conflicts. If you feel any change is inappropriate, please discuss it here instead of changing it yourself. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, I can probably help too but I am revising at the moment, Jim's suggestion is a great one. I'm not an expert on these tribes but will try to help. Also there is work needed on the Muslim Jat article too, POV issues. Syanaee (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The other notable issue is the sole reliance on Susan Bayly which when reading the article in context creates POV, the word non elite-tilers crops up often. More sources would be appreciated, and also reliable sources which establish neutrality and balance. Syanaee (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The pair of you need to be careful. This is a very well-written, well-sourced article that has been substantively the effort of a few people who really do know the subject. For example, the inclusion and weight given to Bayly has been discussed time and again here. If you want to bring new, modern, reliable sources to the table (which means not using newspapers much and not using Raj sources at all) then that's fine but please don't go ripping into it and expect me to sit around and soak it up until you have finished. If you did then the outcome might well be a mass revert to the present version because picking through all of the changes could be a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We are trying to establish neutrality and consensus - your comments tone isn't very helpful and conductive in that regard. Susan Bayly is a single source, were non-elite tillers has been used, it has been discussed in this talk page before why that maybe unbalancing the article and not establishing neutrality or creating POV. I don't have a problem with the term non-elite tillers as long as it does not rest on a single source from an academic most likely discussing a 17th century tribe. Syanaee (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

<splutter> You say "most likely discussing", which suggests that you haven't read Bayly. Please do so. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have found a better source: [1] which contradicts Bayly, which talks about the Jat 'elites' the source makes clear that there was no difference between the Feudal Rajputs and the Jats, hence the uprising against the Mughals. And by the way this is a 2012 source unlike the Bayly source which is from over 10 years ago i.e. 2001. Syanaee (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen that one before, so thanks for that. It is, however, not a "better" source but rather an alternate one - see WP:NPOV for how we would treat this. I'll take a read of it so that we do not cherrypick. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I can give you the exact pages and and paragraphs in anything looks like cherry picking, it looks like the mass Bayly citations in the lead which is creating a clear issue of non-neutrality, modern reliable sources should supersede earlier citations. My personal reasoning on this is neither elite nor non-elite should be used, landowning herders is fine, if I can be sourced from reliable-multiple sources. I think the elite and non-elite terms create undue POV and neutrality issue. Syanaee (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation style

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

(edit conflict) Well, I had to revert you. Perhaps you did not get the ping because you were doing this at the time ... but then you went on to make another edit. Regarding your edit summary in this diff, please note that there is no "GA standard" for citations. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sitush, don't assume that I don't know about CITEVAR. Time is needed. Just now I was in edit conflict with you. Wait for sometime and come back again. The current citation style looks messy and using {{Sfn}} is the best way. I'm changing it and for that time is needed. And regarding your concern about british raj and newspaper sources, I know what is reliable and what not. Regards, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely obvious that you do not in fact understand CITEVAR. You are not changing the style here without consensus. And you will not get that consensus because for an article such as this, which is frequently changed by newbies, {{sfn}} is far harder to understand. We have umpteen tools available to assist in creating {{cite}} references and none at all that actually assist in creating {{sfn}} ones. (There is Uchucha's script but that is a post facto tool and doesn't assist at all in the creation, just the checking). - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I am disturbed by the tone you use when in a disagreement, it's tantamount to flamebaiting tactics. Please keep the discussion civil. Syanaee (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush first of all don't tough the article when massive changes were going on. Can you so me any guideline or policy which mention that one must not use {{Sfn}} because newbies edit that page?? This is ridiculous. I'm having much trouble to edit due to too many long citations messing everything in the lead. It is too tough to edit due to cite clutter. A very common problem when too many sources were added in the lead. So, do not revert changes until you have good reasons for that. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a good reason to revert: WP:CITEVAR. Now stop it, Jim, before you get blocked for edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know what is edit warring that is why I added the {{Under construction}} tag. Keep paitence and I will address the concern myself. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I have a clean block log because, unlike you at present, I generally know what I am doing. You cannot change the citation style and if you make that the first thing you do then inevitably it will mean that all subsequent changes will also have to be reverted, which makes your use of the under construction tag pointless. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well being wp:BOLD I just made that change. Anyway, Now Sitush asked for consensus if {{cite}} will be replaced by {{Sfn}}. Ping Syanaee since he/she has made significant contributions. Well {{Sfn}} is better than using {{cite}}. {{Sfn}} is short and avoid citation clutter and most of the GA articles use it. It also looks better than using {{cite}}. Please add your response below. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)