Talk:Jats/Archive 9

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2020
Edit requested to this sentence in introduction: "Primarily of Hindu, Muslim and Sikh faiths, they now live mostly in the Indian states of Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Sindh."

Edit request: Please add Balochistan (Pakistan) also. Kindly change the sentence to "Primarily of Hindu, Muslim and Sikh faiths... the Pakistani provinces of Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan.( and ) 188.170.173.190 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The non-scholarly source provided by you is a plagiarized copy of the 112-year-old Raj-era's The Imperial Gazetteer of India. And that is considered unreliable here, just like the other similar Raj-era sources. Details regarding this and other unacceptable sources are present at User:Sitush/CasteSources. BTW, here is the quote from the original source, which is also available online (see page no. 27):
 * Non-scholarly sources like South Asian news media and government organizations carelessly and regularly plagiarise these Raj-era sources, and that is just one of the many reasons that we restrict ourselves to scholarly sources in the case of topics related to South Asian religion, ethnicity, caste, etc.
 * Non-scholarly sources like South Asian news media and government organizations carelessly and regularly plagiarise these Raj-era sources, and that is just one of the many reasons that we restrict ourselves to scholarly sources in the case of topics related to South Asian religion, ethnicity, caste, etc.


 * Your second source is again a non-scholarly source authored by a politician. Although its context is not clear due to the limited preview, it seems to be listing the population of Bhatti clan at some place. Bhattis are described as Rajputs, Gurjars, Jats, etc., and we would require a modern scholarly source, along with proper quotation, if you want to mention it in the article. Just searching the term "Jats" and pasting the URLs here is not a good idea.


 * Finally, I guess you are the same anonymous user who has posted multiple recent requests here. If that's the case, then it will be very helpful if you can create an account – see WP:ACCOUNT. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering. I understood your points. Actually, thanks for the detailed explanation and specially for this link: User:Sitush/CasteSources. However, I would like to point out that I have put really really good sources and excellent arguments for justification to make the suggested changes in the section just above. Is it ok to invite you to comment on the section just above this one? Thanks, 188.170.173.82 (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Edit requests are for changes that are: Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, [and] Sensible.  As 's response indicates, your request does not meet all those requirements and despite apparently acknowledging the objections, you continue ask for it to be made anyway.  In order for this to be made, you should create a separate talk section on this page asking for other opinions on whether the suggested text and its sources are considered acceptable by other editors.  I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , they have acknowledged and understood the points made by me and are not asking for any change regarding their this edit request. But they are asking me to give inputs regarding their previous edit request, i.e. "the section just above this one."


 * @anonymous user: thanks for your patience. I am a bit busy, but will give my inputs regarding your previous request(s) within a couple of days. BTW, it will be a good idea to not open any new edit request till your previous ones get resolved. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @anonymous user: Before giving inputs for your previous edit request, I will first discuss your population-related edit request (see the next section). - NitinMlk (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Estimated population of Jats
Sunil K. Khanna (according to the publisher : associate professor of anthropology at the Oregon State University, Ph.D. in physical anthropology from University of Delhi, and Ph.D. in cultural anthropology from Syracuse University) on page 18 of Fetal/Fatal Knowledge: New Reproductive Technologies and Family-Building Strategies in India (CSCSI) (publisher: Cengage Learning. published: 2009), writes :

According to recent population estimates, the total population of Jats in South Asia is roughly 30 million. This population projection is based on information collected during the 1931 census which was the last to report caste affiliation. At that time, an estimated 8 million Jats lived mostly in India and Pakistan.

178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Copying from Spintendo's user talk page to here (in relevant section of article's talk page).

Hi, happy new year! I would like to let you know that the error on estimate is much more serious. They have done a blunder.

I read your comments at Talk:Jat people, and I understand your fair points. I request you to read the follow up comments at Talk:Jat people, and see how big the error is, now, on the Wikipedia page.

Kindly replace that line with the work of an anthropologist (working at a reputed institution). 178.176.217.24 (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you, too, and thank you for your comment. With regards to the possible error in calculation of the population of Jat people living in that particular area, I would respectfully suggest that you contact the Hindustan Times in order for them to investigate their assertions and issue any retractions, if necessary, for the claims made in their publication. Once those errors are brought to light, the figures attributed to them may then be corrected here in the Wikipedia article. As Wikipedia editors, our ability to effect a correction of these errors in a foreign newspaper is limited from here. Since the Hindustan Times reported on this data, they are in the best position to investigate its collection and issue any retractions, if necessary. Warm regards, Spintendo  08:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am making a suggestion that the work of an anthropologist should be put in the demographics section on that page. That man is a professional expert in the field. The difference in both calculations is massive, and the work of an academician should be valued over the news reporter or at least should be considered at par with that. If you would not like to remove the reference of that article, is it unfair to ask you to mention what Sunil K. Khanna concluded? We have WP: BALANCE. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to achieve balance you must provide secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, i.e., a source which compares the two and then describes why the figures don't match. That would involve providing the URL for the secondary sources or a for the tertiary sources. If the anthropologist has released their findings, please provide the  for their report as well. Regards,  Spintendo  11:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Khanna (at the time of writing the book: associate professor of anthropology at the Oregon State University, Ph.D. in physical anthropology from University of Delhi, and Ph.D. in cultural anthropology from Syracuse University) on page 18 in his book Fetal/Fatal Knowledge: New Reproductive Technologies and Family-Building Strategies in India (CSCSI), wrote-


 * Thanks for answering. In 1931, a census (having caste affiliation) was done. The resulting conclusion was that total number of Jats were approximately 8 million in 1931. This academician has also cited that in his book, and based on his professional assessment (he has also written about other things regarding these people in his book), he concluded that their population should be around 30 million (in 2009). The news reporter says 82.5 million in 2012. This is a serious disagreement. Can there be a better moment to use WP:BALACE? Khanna's reliability as a source does not fall below the news reporter, specially on such a topic where Khanna holds experience and expertise. His assessment would have been done more professionally than the news reporter. I think that the news reporter's assessment should be removed and Khanna's should be put on the page, but if an experienced person on how this encyclopedia works may or may not agree to that, at least, Khanna's work deserve to find a place when there is such a massive disagreement over the numbers. Please put his assessment on the page. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Should Khanna's assessment not be mentioned simply because it deserves to be mentioned as he has experience and expertise in his field? This is his area of work. He could not know lesser than the news reporter! 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The work of an academician should be preferred, but, it is not even on the page. A book published after research of an anthropologist on his area of work is a better source (at least not less!) than an article by a news reporter. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 01-JAN-2020
Thank you for your reply. According to the quote you left, Khanna's assessment is of other assessments (e.g., According to recent population estimates, the total population of Jats in South Asia is roughly 30 million). The Hindustan Times in their claim has the journalistic background of the entire paper's apparatus to buttress its argument, something that Khanna does not have access to. Therefore, please provide the sources for those other estimates Khanna is referring to. Regards, Spintendo  19:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! Wow, man! Why are you simply missing the point?

The Hindustan Times article says :
 * The Jat population in India is believed to be around 8.25 crore.

Believed? That guy has failed to mention who believes so, to whom is he referring to (citation); and on what grounds is this belief founded. Had the reporter actually cited a source or study in his article, his "belief" would have carried weight.

A good researched news article always (and is supposed to) cite something or someone while handling such subjects, but here, the reporter has used the word "believed".

The reporter states no mention of any [scientific] research done by him or the newspaper staff in this regard. No mention of anything.

On the other hand, Khanna, while presenting his viewpoint states that his conclusion has foundations in the census which officially collected the caste data. And, he has studied these people as an anthropologist who has double Ph.D. and a job at a reputed university (at the time of publication of book). Definitely, he is also making an estimate, but that assessment is coming from a learned man, an anthropologist. This is his sphere of work.

Simply look at the language used by them on this subject, and compare the two men. The reporter is not at par with Khanna. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The "recent population estimates" that Khanna was referring to were those published in 1990 by Sukhbir Singh. That estimate — as Khanna points out — was roughly 30 million, extrapolated from the original census numbers and applied to the year 1988:


 * Regards, Spintendo  11:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the continued discussion Would you kindly reveal on which page number did Khanna gave a reference to Sukhbir Singh or even mention about him or his work? I cannot see what you are claiming anywhere in the book. But, if you are really sure about what you are claiming, kindly mention the page number of the book. I will check that within moments. Furthermore, if Sukhbir Singh is a source worthy of consideration at this encyclopedia (I cannot be sure since I know nothing about him and I am a little surprised to see that you have mentioned this person), then pardon me, but I would say that, to a significant extent, you have indirectly backed up my suggestion that the reporter gave a massively incorrect estimate of the population and his belief is incorrect, and actually, the figure mentioned by him in his article is super-extremely high and super-seriously wrong. What is known with certainty is that the population of Jats in South Asia was nearly a little above 8 million in 1931. This figure is the result of a proper study and research work. The anthropologist Khanna says that, in 2009, it was approximately 30 million, while the news reporter says that, in 2012, it was around 82.5 million. Would it really take a genius to see that the reporter has done a blunder?

178.176.217.24 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

''I take back the suggestion of mentioning the estimated figure by Sunil K. Khanna on the population of Jats in South Asia. I admit that I was more wrong and User:Spintendo was more right on this.''

With the assistance of a friend in India, I just had a conversation with a high–ranking official from the Anthropological Survey of India, who was kind enough to give me his invaluable time even during these days of the year, when everyone is focused on celebrations and not work. And after talking to the official, I am convinced, beyond a shred of doubt, that Sunil K. Khanna is extremely wrong on his estimate of the population of Jats in South Asia. However, according to the gentleman, Sunil K. Khanna being a professional, was not expected to have made such a serious mistake. This is very unacademic of Khanna. For 2009, Sunil K. Khanna had given a seriously less figure on the population of Jats in South Asia. The population of Jats in South Asia was much more high than that, in 2009. —— 178.176.217.24 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @anonymous user: Please don't add unsubstantiated insults regarding scholars – see WP:TALK. If you have access to other scholarly sources then feel free to add them here.


 * , the table pasted by you is from jatland.com, which is a UGC. That site is full of original research and fringe theories. In fact, it is black-listed at this project: WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/jatland.com.


 * As far as Indian news media is concerned, it has very poor standards, e.g. the newspaper in question has mirrored huge amount of WP's unsourced content: Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks. And we rely on scholarly sources for highly contentious South Asian religion/ethnicity/caste-related topics. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It is for sure that Hindustan Times have given wrong figures the population of Jats. It is not even half of that in India, actually, they appears to have made an error of around 50 million. You have explained that much better than me, there Talk:Jat people. About the comments on Khanna, I'm sorry. When I was told by a gentleman that Khanna may be stated the population of Jats 4-5 million less than the overall population in southern Asia (for 2009), I was angry with myself, and stopped the discussion with a not-so-good note. Sorry! More discussion on this subject would be better suited there- Talk:Jat people. Thanks, 188.170.192.101 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Jat population in India
The last caste census was conducted around 9 decades ago in 1931. After that, the Indian government has conducted censuses for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but there has been no census details for any other community, ethnicity, caste, etc. Actually, lots of demographic changes have happened since 1931 due to the factors like partition of India, reorganisation/splitting of states, etc. So this would require scholarly estimations. I will first provide the overall population estimations as well as the state-wise estimates of Indian Jats based on high quality, modern, scholarly sources. Then I will also comment on the good-faith discussion of one of the previous sections, i.e. Talk:Jat people.

Overall estimation of South Asian Jat population
Dr. Sunil K. Khanna is an anthropologist from Oregon State University. He has researched and published multiple scholarly works about Jats. One can find those and other details regarding him at here. Anyway, these are his 2010 estimations of Jat population in South Asia:

State-wise estimation in India
Haryana: 20–25%









Punjab: 20–35%



Note that the above different estimates of the Jats in Punjab, India is due to the multiple estimations of the Jat Sikh population:

Rajasthan: 9%





Uttar Pradesh: 1.2%





Delhi: 5%



Estimation of Jat population in India
This subsection is just meant for crosschecking purpose. The above estimates sum-up the state-wise population of India. Now just to get an idea, here is the total estimation based on both of the latest censuses of India, i.e. 2001 census and 2011 census.

a) Based on 2001 census: Haryana (23% = 4863350) + Punjab (20–36% = 4871800–8769240) + Rajasthan (9.2% = 5198644) + UP (1.2% = 1994376) + Delhi (5% = 692550) = 17620720–21518160

So, the above estimates show Indian Jat population between 17.6 and 21.5 million, which is very much in line with Khanna's 2010 estimation, which was also based on pre–2011 census.

b) Based on 2011 census (see p 368–369): Haryana (23% = 5830836) + Punjab (20–36% =5548668–9987601) + Rajasthan (9.2% = 6306456) + UP (1.2% = 2397748) + Delhi (5% = 839397) = 20,923105–25,362038

The non-scholarly guesswork by Hindustan Times was published in January 2012, and it believes Jat population to be 82.5 million in India alone! So even if it was supposedly based on the 2011 census, it is around four times higher than the scholarly estimations of Indian state-wise population. I would also note here that Indian media regularly involves in tabloid journalism, and are not known for fact-checking, e.g. I have just reported a mirror from the newspaper in question: Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks

Note that the 2000 edition of Students' Britannica India estimates Jat population as 10 million in South Asia:

We have a similar quote in the present version of the article (see Jat people).

But scholarly sources are preferred over Encyclopædia Britannica as mentioned at WP:RS/P – see Encyclopædia Britannica's entry at WP:RS/P. So this should be replaced, as we now have scholarly secondary sources for total estimation as well as state-wise estimation. In any case, 10 million for whole South Asia is as implausible as 82.5 million for India alone.

TL;DR: The non-scholarly media guesswork and the Britannica source should be replaced with the scholarly sources provided by me. If others also have access to relevant, modern, scholarly sources, then feel free to list them here. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC) added one more estimation for Haryana state NitinMlk (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The figures mentioned by Hindustan Times are incorrect. If we put a sincere effort to estimate the overall population of Jats living in south Asia (not just India), we will clearly establish that even then the figures by Hindustan Times are more than double of the real numbers (for 2012). Such big is the error by Hindustan Times. Thanks for the above statistics, 188.170.192.101 (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be observed that the present figure (Hindustan Times - 2012) was added without any discussion or consensus. Also, Hindustan Times has repeated, what clearly appears to be a very significant mistake again in 2016. Thanks, 188.170.196.187 (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC) (Note: The news article, both in 2012 and 2016, was written by the same person. 188.170.193.149 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC))

I have found one more scholarly source, which is giving two different estimates for the total South Asian population, although, unlike Khanna, it is not clearly giving the background of its estimations:

I guess we should sum up both Khanna's and Lodrick's estimations with attribution.

BTW, I raised this issue at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and the input there is also against the inclusion of non-scholarly media claims. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC) expanded Lodrick's quotation NitinMlk (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ —— Yes, putting compendious information about the subject would be an encyclopedic act to do. If any other editor don't register any rational and reasoned objection(s) here, then kindly update the article. Thank you, 188.170.194.116 (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have this page under my watchlist. So instead of my talk page, please post any comment(s) relevant to this article at here. And I will notice them whenever I will edit next time.


 * I have prepared a hasty draft of the relevant changes to be made to the article:
 * I will check it again to for its accuracy/clarity, and will also add the relevant citations to it. You can also suggest changes in it. Keep in mind that we have to paraphrase the content of sources to avoid WP:COPYVIO. BTW, I might not edit tomorrow. So please be patient. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ —— You have masterly summarized and briefed the information. First–class! Thanks, 188.170.192.155 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will check it again to for its accuracy/clarity, and will also add the relevant citations to it. You can also suggest changes in it. Keep in mind that we have to paraphrase the content of sources to avoid WP:COPYVIO. BTW, I might not edit tomorrow. So please be patient. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ —— You have masterly summarized and briefed the information. First–class! Thanks, 188.170.192.155 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at your previous comments, I can say that you have much better command over this language than me. So it would be better to suggest improvements/changes rather than using hyperbole. Having said that, I apologise for delaying things so much. Anyway, I have added the relevant citations, along with making a few other changes:

You can suggest improvement(s) in the above text. And others are obviously also requested for suggestions/comments. If there won't be any suggestions within a day or two, then I will move this content to the main space after having another look at it. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would like to suggest adding an ancillary information to the sentence: "Deryck O. Lodrick estimates ... statistics in this regard." Wouldn't it make the content even more encyclopedic if we mention "around 12 and over 21 million in India and Pakistan, respectively" in brackets? Afterall, Mr. Lodrick has used the word "must" while mentioning the estimates (kindly refer to the quote from his book that's mentioned above by you). In the light of his words, can the sentence be rephrased to —

If my suggestion is worthy of being followed, then kindly add the suggested ancillary information to the sentence. As far as the rest of the content is concerned, I am satisfied with your summarization and briefing. Thanks, 188.170.192.2 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC) (edited: strictly as per the author's quote) Thanks, 188.170.173.163 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: It may be of no significance to mention it here, but still, I would like to share with you that I raised this question (estimated population of Jats in the Indian subcontinent) with a reputed professor of history here in Russia, and he is of the opinion that Mr. Lodrick has nailed it by writing the following sentence in his book —

Also, I apologize to you for a late reply (yesterday's), but, I wanted to reply after having a direct conversation with an academician about this subject. I look forward to see the updated information on the article for the benefit of the readers of Wikipedia. Thanks, 188.170.198.202 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made the relevant changes. BTW, you just need modern scholarly sources to request changes. The extra efforts you are making to contact scholars can be avoided. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate and value your advice and I will keep it in my mind. Thanks, 188.170.196.199 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Third paragraph of lead
The first two paragraphs of the lead succinctly sum up the last 1200-plus years of the known Jat history. And then there is a third paragraph of the things pertaining to the last 20 years – its content was directly added to the lead, mostly by me. This is not only against MOS:LEADREL/WP:UNDUE but also a misleading/half-baked picture of the recent developments. The bulk of Jats live in Pakistan, Indian Punjab, and Haryana. And all of them are either out of the purview of reservation or are listed as so-called forward caste or general category. In fact, only the Jats of selected districts of a single Indian state (Rajasthan) are listed as OBC by the central government – the rest of Indian Jats are listed as forward caste by it. Even in that state, a large number of them probably live in Bharatpur and Dholpur districts, where they are listed as forward caste by both central as well as state governments. Actually, in the states where Jats are politically dominant and minuscule percentage-wise (e.g. Jats of UP), they were able to arm-twist state governments to push for the central government reservation for Jats of India. But they failed badly when the Supreme Court judgement went against them. So I will move it where it should have been added in the first place, i.e. Jat people. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2020
There is a sentence in Varna Status section: "Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, and with some Jats striving for zamindar status after the Jat rebellion of the 17th century.[68][page needed]"

Main Edit request: Please remove the word "starting" and rephrase the sentence.

Suggestion: I also want to suggest that "untouchable" and "zamindari" terms are not Hindu varna status. The 4 Hindu varna status includes Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra varnas. If my suggestion is worthy of being followed, then kindly remove these 2 terms.

The main edit request remains the rephrasing of sentence without the word "starting".

Thanks you, 188.170.173.160 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC) 188.170.173.160 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, what rephrasing would you like if "starting" is removed? See the instructions for an edit request, which say:. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. It may be rephrased to:

"Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats changed with time, with the Jats being under the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, and with some Jats striving for zamindar status after the Jat rebellion of the 17th century.[68][page needed]" Thanks, 188.170.173.176 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And, about the suggestion. Yes, I can cite reliable sources to highlight that there are only "4 varnas in Hinduism", and "untouchable/chandala" and "zamindar" are not Hindu varnas, but, there is already a detailed article on Wikipedia about this: Varna (Hinduism). You can read the article, and think about my suggestion. The mention of "untouchable/chandala" and "zamindar" as in the varna status section is like providing incorrect and misleading information to the readers. Let's remember that the term varna may appear to be synonymous with social status, but it is not. The concept of varnas is different, as it has strictly 4 classes and it has religious affiliation, (futher details are there on the Wikipedia page), while social status may be a more broad and dynamic term, and may not mandatorily involve religion. Thanks, 188.170.173.176 (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can cite reliable sources, then you have to include those before any change will be made. Otherwise, you are asking us to guess what you think the sources are.  I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Of course, yes! I understood your point.(1) Starting with the book used as the reference, I would like to point out that on page 106, the author has written: "Castes have has degree of mobility within the hierarchy of castes and one such example is that of the jats who appear to be untouchables/chandalas in the Sindh region in the eighth century and were kept in that condition by Muhammad Ibn Qasim after the conquest of Sindh." Kindly note that the author has herself not used the word "varna". So, on what grounds is the sentence in the article is describing "untouchables/chandala" as a Hindu varna? Please give it a thought to understand the point being put forward before Wikipedia here. Also, in the same book cited as a reference, the author on page 50, has written: "The law requires that every varna follows the 'immemorial rule of conduct' prescribed for 'all the four orders.'" She is being misquoted in the Wikipedia article on Jat people. She never termed the "untouchables/chandala" as a varna. On page 45 of the same book, she writes: "They talk in terms of varna and they use the fourfold classification of the brahmanical texts of brahmana, kshatriya, Vaisya and sudra." (2) Now, by visiting the Wikipedia article Varna (Hinduism), I noticed that the editors have cited two references to highlight that the number of varnas (and names: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras). The sources are: (a) Doniger, Wendy (1999). Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions. Springfield, MA, USA: Merriam-Webster. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-87779-044-0. (b) Ingold, Tim (1994). Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. London New York: Routledge. p. 1026. ISBN 978-0-415-28604-6. (3) Let's see works of some other authors who says that there are four varnas in Hinduism. (a) B. R. Ambedkar here Who Were the Shudras?, Volume 1 writes: "While it is true that the Law in British India does not recognize the four Varnas of the Hindus, one must be careful not to misunderstand what this means." In the same book, here he names the four varnas: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. (b) Robert Lingat on page 30 of Les sources du droit dans le système traditionnel de l'Inde "There are four varnas, of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras respectively." (c) John Morreall and Tamara Sonn on page 34 of The Religion Toolkit: A Complete Guide to Religious Studies wrote: "The elite priestly Brahmins were created from his mouth; the royal warrior Kshatriyas were created from Purusha's mighty arms; the hard-working merchants and traders – the Vaishyas – came from his thighs; and the peasant Shudras came from the soles of his feet. These four varnas form the foundation for social structure in Indian tradition." I can add more sources here, but, I think we may agree that the content above may be enough. Please rephrase the sentence, according to what the author has written, and remove the terms "untouchables/chandala" and "zamindar" from the section for varna, as they are not varnas. Also, please rephrase the sentence without using the word "starting" as the author does not said so. She is only trying to describe the situation at a particular time. The use of the word "starting" is like misquoting her. Thanks, — 188.170.173.160 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: In the section, it is already mentioned that the Jat people were/are under the "shudra" status as well. So, can I suggest removing the whole sentence rather than trying to rephrase it. If this suggestion is worthy, please do so. Thanks, 188.170.173.160 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if your conclusion is that this sentence should not be removed but kept after rephrasing, then while rephrasing it, kindly remember that the author has used the words "...appears to be...", "...kept in that condition...". She has already been seriously misquoted in this Wikipedia article. Thanks, 188.170.198.241 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC) (added a few words from the books that's cited) 188.170.196.199 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I have been trying to look for one or more references that may agree with the sentence (misquotation from Chakravarti's book) in the varna status section for over two weeks now, but couldn't find even one. Also, did Khanna [ref. 73] really said this in his book: "Some sources state that Jats are regarded as Kshatriyas[72] or "degraded Kshatriyas" who, as they did not observe Brahmanic rites and rituals, had fallen to the status of Shudra[73]." ? Of course, NO. Only snippet–view is available from Miller's book, which does not confirm anything. Why have these things been concluded in the name of these three authors? There is a need to work on the varna status section, and completely re-write that section. Editors are requested to comment/continue the discussion. Thanks, 188.170.196.199 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The claims of the first two lines of Jat people are covered in the sources, although we might need to tweak the wording a bit. Here are a couple of relevant quotes:



Note: I have read just your latest post of this section and the whole point of my this post is to stop you from posting another lengthy comment here. I will look into your remaining comments in the coming days. BTW, I have read multiple scholarly sources in which Jats have been assigned third varna (Vaishya) as well. So I will look around for the relevant sources. If I won't post any comment in the next 4–5 days then please post a reminder here. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's continue to discuss the prospective improvements to the section "varna status". Thanks, 188.170.198.150 (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a bit busy in real life, so I was unable to spend any time for the WP stuff. But I will look at it this weekend. BTW, thanks for the reminder. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I would like to suggest adding some content to the [present] sentence in the "varna status" (or, a new sentence) in the light of the above mentioned reliable sources/references. However, I am feeling that it would be better to make any further comment(s), after you have had a good look at the sources that you wish to. I have only posted this comment to let you know that I can still wait for a day or two, if need be. Thanks, 188.170.173.162 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did spend some time in searching for the relevant sources yesterday. But I have yet to read your previous comments of this section. As I am unable to devote much time to this project presently, I need some more time to locate sources & to respond to your previous comments of this section. There is no deadline here, so I hope you can wait till this weekend. Till then you can read the quotes from the sources located by me yesterday. BTW, after responding to your previous comments, I will surely ask you and others for inputs. So there is no hurry. Thanks.


 * PS: This time you pinged me, so I got a notification via Gmail, which is a good thing. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The point you are trying to convey is known here as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As you have already explained, there are four varnas, and then there are so-called untouchables/dalits. This is succinctly explained below:



Now, the Jats from the area of Lakha and Samma – who opposed Chach during his conquest of Brahmanabad – were put under several restrictions by Chach in the 7th century AD. But even during the period of restriction, they were assigned the duties to supply wood, and to work as guides, spies, and soldiers. These works are very different from those of untouchables, who, as I quoted above, work as manual scavengers, sweepers, and skinners. So, two entirely different pictures emerge when we mention the relevant details regarding Jats with and without context. Now, we cannot give context to her contextless, passing mention by adding some details to it from some other source, as that would be WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR. So the line attributed to Uma Chakravarti should be replaced by some source which explains the same point with context, or at least without ambiguity. As Chakravarti is citing Irfan Habib for the relevant details, we can cite a source which sums up his findings clearly. Here is a source which sums up Habib's findings regarding varna status of Jats:

This source directly describes varna status without creating any ambiguity, thereby serving our purpose regarding the concerned section of this article. So, I guess now we have the relevant POVs regarding the varna status of Jats. If there won't be any new suggestions from you/others, then we will move to the next step, i.e. summarizing the sources we have in this section. We will mainly summarize the views of Santokh, Indera, Terence, & Irfan/Eugenia with attribution, along with mentioning a few relevant details from the Khanna's source. Having said that, I will search again for the relevant sources, as I haven't done so since the time I provided sources here on the 10th February. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I posted two comments on 20th February: & . But from this message, it seems you didn't notice my above comment. So please have a look at it. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I missed that! I had a wrong understanding that a person is required to make a comment after/below a comment only. Forgive me! Thank you for the above sources/citations, and specially for the explanation. And, I agree with your suggestions. Thanks, 188.170.195.80 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Things have got delayed here, so I will sum up these sources today – just wait for an hour or two. - NitinMlk (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft:

PS: There are multiple sources here which are stating similar things, so I have chosen just one of such sources. As of now, I am a bit confused due to my attempts to paraphrase multiple sources simultaneously. So I will check this draft's wording/sourcing tomorrow with a fresh mind. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It was certainly not an easy task to summarize so much information by these scholars within just a few sentences, however, I can see that you have done a praiseworthy work on that. I would like to suggest making a change to the wording of the last sentence. Kindly change the last sentence from "Some scholars point out widow remarriage as the main cause for Jats taking lower position than Rajputs within the Kshatriya varna" to "Some scholars point out widow remarriage as the main cause for Jats being placed at a lower position than Rajputs within the Kshatriya varna". Thanks, 188.170.173.80 (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing the messy stuff. I will make this change. You should also crosscheck the remaining content. In fact, you can also suggest rephrasing of the other sentences. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I read it again, and I would like to suggest that the word "Thakurs" be dropped from the line "According to Santokh S. Anant, Jats, Rajputs, and Thakurs ... Brahmins" as the term "Thakurs" is a title, not an ethic group or caste. This word/term does not represent (and never represented) any specific or particular (any single) social/ethnic group in the Indian sub-continent. When a person says "Thakurs", he/she is talking about the feudal lords of India (including pre-1947 India) or their descendants/castes. The author is right in mentioning this term along with Jats and Rajputs in the sentence of his book, as the feudal lords, at no point of time, were just from Jat or Rajput castes. He is providing valuable information to his readers, but it could confuse the readers here on Wikipedia. I am not asking you to put the word "feudal lords" in brackets after the word "Thakurs" because it would only complicate things. However, I leave this to your and other editors' judgement, as you have experience in working on this project of Wikipedia. Also, kindly overlink the word "Brahmins" as it is not overlinked anywhere in this article. The rest of the content looks good to me. I will be here after your next message. Thanks, 178.176.218.75 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, I think that I am not entirely correct about my above argument, as the readers may click on the link "Thakurs" and read for themselves that this term represents the feudal lords (and their descendants/castes). It's got my head spinning. I will be here to discuss this, if need be, after your further comments. Thanks, 188.170.198.143 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC) I have been thinking about this the whole day. Actually, it's been dancing in my head all day, making my head spin. I stay with my above argument, as in near future, someone would definitely (and rightly) come asking for clarification about the mention of the term "Thakurs" in that sentence. We have to talk about this. Can some information be put in brackets after the term "Thakurs" for the readers of Wikipedia? Maybe, "feudal lords" or "feudal barons" in brackets, but, with a reference/citation? Thanks, 188.170.198.143 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Thakur is a caste & is covered in hundreds of scholarly sources, e.g. see here. Here's a relevant quote from a recently published scholarly source:

Having said that, the poorly sourced article linked by me in my previous comment doesn't seem suitable for the purpose, as it pertains to the title, rather than the caste. So I will remove that link.

Secondly, we cannot cherry-pick from sources, as that would lead to their misrepresentation: see WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

Thirdly, we can normally introduce a link only twice in an article: at the first appearance of the term in the lead/body. You are right that Brahmin isn't linked even once in this article. So I will link it.

Finally, the sentence in question could have been easily fixed had there been an actual issue, e.g. we could have replaced "Jats, Rajputs, and Thakurs are at the top" with "Jats are one of the three castes which are at the top", "Jats are one of the castes which are at the top", "Jats are among those castes which are at the top", "Jats, among others, are at the top", etc. But in this case, that will only obfuscate the information. And we shouldn't do that just because we don't have an article about the Thakur caste. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To begin with, I apologize to you and the other editors. What I wrote above, was written only with the genuine intention that the readers get to read correct and accurate information, however, I had the wrong impression/idea about the term "Thakur". Thanks a lot for correcting me! Now, I am in complete agreement with your summarization of the sources/citations. Completely satisfied! I don't have any more requests for making any change to the above draft. Thanks, 178.176.216.190 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the first three sentences of the section (Jat people) with the content discussed above. Although the three replaced sentences and the relevant two sources are discussed/quoted in this section, the third source is not properly discussed here – it is a study of a village of Haryana state, and its page no. 64 was cited at one of the sentences. That page mentions the varna status of Jats and the views of villagers about each other. Here's the relevant quote from the source:
 * It doesn't seem to add anything new and I am listing it here just for the sake of clarity. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And, thank you for the time given by you to this discussion. 188.170.196.67 (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to add anything new and I am listing it here just for the sake of clarity. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And, thank you for the time given by you to this discussion. 188.170.196.67 (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Today I checked Habib's views regarding the varna status of Jats, and here is the relevant quote:

In the above quote, he mentions that some Jats were just starting to aspire for zamindari after their 17th-century rebellion. But on the page no. 251 of the same book, he notes that Jats were already zamindars by the 16th century and were registered as such in the Ain-i-Akbari, although Jat rebellion increased their number significantly. So it seems he overdid in the above-quoted sentence to sound a bit dramatic. But that shouldn't be a problem here as we are just concerned about the varna details here.

Anyway, the main problem here is that we can directly confirm his relevant views from his above book, and they are different from how Vanina summarises them. Actually, both Eugenia Vanina and Uma Chakravarti have cited the 1995 edition of this very book: see here & here. From the snippet view of that edition, it is clear that the page no. 175 contains the same text quoted by me above, although Vanina & Chakraborty are citing different pages. In any case, we should stick to the latest views of any scholar. And it is pointless to get the views of a scholar indirectly (via other scholars) when we can access them directly. So we should fix the content attributed to him accordingly. Here is the proposed changes in the text attributed to Habib: According to Irfan Habib, Jats were a "pastoral Chandala-like tribe" in Sindh during the 8th century. Their 11th-century status of Shudra varna changed to Vaishya varna by the 17th century, with some of them aspiring to improve it further after their 17th-century rebellion against the Mughals. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello,, I thought that this section was settled and I came to start a new conversation, but fortunately, I scrolled down this section first, only to know that this discussion is still on. If an author is self-conflicting his own statement within the same book on the very same subject, it is not an encyclopedic act to cite that particular work/book for that very point. However, this view-point is also equally important like any other, that the varna status of Jats improved over time from a much lower position to an upper position. If possible, it would be better to cite another source for mentioning this view-point in the article. I would like to ask that, in the sentence, "The epics and the Purāṇas ... a lower strata of vaishyas (Habib 1995a: 131), in the late medieval period claimed, and with success, kshatriya status," is Vanina citing Habib not for the full sentence but from (starting of Habib's citation) "The epics and the Purāṇas ... a lower strata of vaishyas (Habib 1995a: 131)" (end of Habib's citation), and then adding her own opinion to finish the sentence - "in the late medieval period claimed, and with success, kshatriya status." If yes, can the sentence in the article be changed from "According to Irfan Habib, Jats ... late middle ages." to "Some sources suggests that (or some other words to start with) Jats ... late middle ages." It would be nothing less than citing both Vanina and Habib as reference for the information in the article. Thanks, 188.170.198.88 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just understood that my suggestion (just above) is not worthy of being followed, and the words "some sources" cannot be added to the beginning of the sentence (as they could be rightfully added in the case of citation/sourcing of Khanna's book - there, everything is perfectly clear), as the part - from nearly untouchable to shudra to vaishya is coming from Habib, and the part - vaishya to kshatriya is coming from Vanina herself. She has summarized him very well, but then, added her own views. If this citation/sentence is to be kept, these parts would need to be attributed to the authors from who they are coming; or, there would be a need for attributing the information to Vanina herself by making some changes to the wording of the sentence (if that can be done). Thanks, 178.176.217.121 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Does this source helps? This is his area of expertise!


 * 178.176.217.121 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First, due to your dynamic IP, there is no way to ping you or to even notify you on your talk page. So such issues will keep on arising until you create an account. Anyway, you can look at the talk page's revision history to locate comments of a particular date.
 * First, due to your dynamic IP, there is no way to ping you or to even notify you on your talk page. So such issues will keep on arising until you create an account. Anyway, you can look at the talk page's revision history to locate comments of a particular date.


 * Second, the real issue with Vanina's source is that she attributed the whole statement to Irfan Habib, thereby inadvertently giving it a misleading outlook. Had she separated her views from that of Habib, we could've used her POV.


 * Third, I read the quote by Habib again, and "a section of the Jats" in the quoted text is an indirect reference to the Jats of Bharatpur. And as such his quote makes sense, although it can be misleading to a casual reader. I also want to point out that Habib is a prominent historian and his views/hypotheses about Jats have got a lot of traction among scholars, although some scholars also challenged his views, e.g. here a scholar challenges his views regarding the Persian wheel. Anyway, I don't see any issue about his quote after reading it for the second time. So we should use his views directly from the latest edition of his book pointed out by me. And I have already proposed the changes in my previous comment.


 * Fourth, Dipankar Gupta is a prominent scholar, but the text quoted by you mentions Gurjars, which needs further clarity. There is no problem regarding the details of Jats and Rajputs. In fact, Rajputs originated from Savarnas as well as Avarnas, which included Shudras, tribals, Brahmins, foreigners, etc. And they were a mixed caste of low status in the early middle ages. In fact, the term's present meaning originated in around 17th century itself. But the mention of Gurjars is problematic. They are described as tribals who are outside the Hindu caste system. Indeed, they are still classified as scheduled tribes in the hill states of India, although a bulk of them probably became Rajputs in the past. So I believe we should avoid adding the details from Gupta's source for now: they won't really add anything new to the existing varna status section and will create an issue by mentioning a tribe like Gurjar without proper explanation. Having said that, I am not much familiar with the Gurjar topic. BTW, I will probably look for the sources which are making a similar point with a bit more clarification.


 * TL;DR: We should make changes to the text attributed to Habib as per his actual views and should leave the remaining details of the section as such for now. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the above explaination. I understand it, on kind of a broader sense, and feeling that you are certainly not wrong here. However, in near future, please, kindly do look for the sources which are making a similar point with a bit more clarification. I am withdrawing my objection here regarding the proposed change, as there is definitely a need to change the sentence in the section for the benefit of the readers of Wikipedia. I would also make sincere efforts to look for sources/citations which are making the point, let's say, in a better way. Also, I give you my word that I would make my next comment after creating, and while using, a Wikipedia account. Thanks, 188.170.198.84 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made the relevant changes: . - NitinMlk (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Vaishya/Kshatriya varna
As I have mentioned earlier in this section, I have read multiple times regarding Vaishya/Kshatriya varna of Jats in scholarly sources. Here are some of them:
 * [Note: This journal article was published in June 1966, while the East Punjab was bifurcated on 1 November 1966. So it is basically discussing Jats of Punjab region of India.]
 * [Note: This journal article was published in June 1966, while the East Punjab was bifurcated on 1 November 1966. So it is basically discussing Jats of Punjab region of India.]
 * [Note: This journal article was published in June 1966, while the East Punjab was bifurcated on 1 November 1966. So it is basically discussing Jats of Punjab region of India.]




 * [As the publisher of this book is desi, here is a note regarding the author (from the book): "Dr Rama Sharma did her M.Sc in Anthropology from Delhi University. After emigrating to Britain she was a postgraduate research student at the University of Keele. She was awarded Horniman Research Grant by the Royal Anthropological lnstitute, London to complete fieldwork about the Sweepers of Delhi.]
 * [As the publisher of this book is desi, here is a note regarding the author (from the book): "Dr Rama Sharma did her M.Sc in Anthropology from Delhi University. After emigrating to Britain she was a postgraduate research student at the University of Keele. She was awarded Horniman Research Grant by the Royal Anthropological lnstitute, London to complete fieldwork about the Sweepers of Delhi.]
 * [As the publisher of this book is desi, here is a note regarding the author (from the book): "Dr Rama Sharma did her M.Sc in Anthropology from Delhi University. After emigrating to Britain she was a postgraduate research student at the University of Keele. She was awarded Horniman Research Grant by the Royal Anthropological lnstitute, London to complete fieldwork about the Sweepers of Delhi.]







- NitinMlk (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely, yes! I will be here on next Monday (or after your further comments). I believe that for any subject, the quality of content/data depends not only on the accuracy of information that's laid out, but also on adequate coverage [of the topic], and the information imparted above does not fall short of that in any manner. Thank you for the above meritorious sources/citations. Thanks, 188.170.175.227 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will probably look at the relevant comments/sources on Sunday and will reply to you on Monday. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . For the benefit of the readers, there is a need to make improvements to this section of the article. In the light of the above mentioned numerous sources (and arguments), that can be done. I am looking forward to a constructive and fruitful discussion (after your comments). Thanks, 188.170.175.74 (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC), I apologize to you. I feel that I am not showing enough respect towards your schedule (and real life). I would be even more patient from now on in this discussion. You may take your time to respond. I would be here in this section for the next time only after your or other editors' further comments. If I would see the possibility to make a constructive contribution, I will try to give a few worthy inputs/suggestions as well. Thank you for the time being given by you! Thanks, 188.170.175.85 (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have always edited sporadically on this project. And I guess that won't change in the future as well. Having said that, I apologize for the delay. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Originally or Previosuly
Per the explanation given at Talk:Jat_people/Archive_8 and (read the edit summary) for the change that was made, kindly make an appropriate change to the wording of the sentence in question. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes being made to the Jat People page by The wikipedia are not correct and authentic please restore the previous information
The Jat people (Hindi pronunciation: [dʒaːʈ], spelling variants include Jatt, Jaat and Jutt) are a traditionally agricultural community native to the Indian subcontinent, what is today Northern India this is authentic information sir please restore it back and all the changes made before 2 days must be restored back Because that is authentic and accurate But whatever change made after two days are false and not correct sir I request you to please restore back the previous information Utkarsh Choudhary Jatt (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Jat people → Jat (people) – The title of the page should be "Jat (people)", and "Jat people" should only be a redirect to "Jat (people)". The title/name of the ethnic group is "Jat", and hence "Jat (people)" as a title would be more appropriate for this article. Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) recommends either the plural form – Jats, or a natural disambiguator – Jat people (no parentheses), whichever is more common in sources. – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * reply: Thanks for sharing this information. I did not know that we can go for the plural form also. Actually, the plural form here, would be even better than both – "Jat (people)" and "Jat people", as we are talking about a particular ethnic group/community, not a cluster/group/list of communities. For example, Indian people and Rajasthani people is more suited than Indians and Rajasthanis, but while point out to a specific community from a large culster/group/list of communities, the logical and better way to mention the community would be X or Xs (if X cannot be used because of any possible reason) (X = community). Also, Jats is more common than Jat people, everywhere (even by doing a google search, you can get a feel of that). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Uanfala and precedent. The title went from Jat (2005) to Jats (2006) to Jat people (2007).  So there's a 13-year precedent.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * reply: On an encyclopedia (or any dynamic knowledge database), things are always evolving and getting better. This/that "precedent" is/was set by users/participants, and as and when required, though by a proper consensus, should be subjected to change. Nothing can be set in stone when we are talking about building a great encyclopedia, and continuously improving it as well. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – I also oppose the move to the title suggested by the nom, per Uanfala's comment. But it seems the page was moved (without any discussion) to its "full title" rather than its WP:COMMON NAME. Uanfala has already explained the reason for Jats being more suitable than Jat both at here and at the previous RM. And based on the Google Ngram Viewer, Jats is much more common than Jat people. Actually, looking at a comparison between all variants – namely Jats, Jatts, Jaats, Jutts, & Jat people – it is clear that Jats beats all of them hands down:.
 * If we check Google Books/News, then also there is no comparison between the two: Google Books: Jats (~3,40,000) & Jat people (~1,300); Google News: Jats (~28,000) & Jat people (~250). But as the nom has withdrawn it already, I guess we will have to wait till the next RM to fix the title.
 * PS: On a side note, comparision between Rajputs and Rajput people shows Ngram results similar to this case, and it would be equally odd to move Rajput to Rajput people, although I guess it needs to be moved to Rajputs. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC) (updated) - NitinMlk (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing Request to Move — In the light of the above comments (including mine, after the information shared by Uanfala), I withdraw the request made by myself to move the title of the page to "Jat (people)". Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Allow me to commend you and thank you for your intellectual honesty.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Спасибо большое (thanks a lot), . — Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose because Jat is a redirect to this article, so there's no need for a DAB. Either stick with Jat people or move to Jat. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jatt
Origin of Jatts is not accurately depicted on this article. JATTS are Of Scythian Ancestry and are migrants from Central Asia ( Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). They came in Balochistan between 5th century BC to 5th century AD.They migrated to modern day Punjab, Haryana & Rajasthan in India between 1100 to 1650. Nab381 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

incorrect to state Jat as non-elite peasants
incorrect to state Jat as non-elite peasants, needs to be modifived — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnerbanters (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Heading text
ghvvgkhgvvvgjhvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv =====

103.217.121.129 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --  S. Hinakawa  (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2020
" Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh, Jats migrated north into the Punjab region in late medieval times, and subsequently into the Delhi Territory, northeastern Rajputana, and the western Gangetic Plain in the 17th and 18th centuries"

This claim is based on outdated anthropological work that's been disproved by recent DNA studies. The claim, as said in reference number 5, is based on words supposedly sounding alike, the words arabs traders used to describe people in the SIndh sounding similar to the modern day pronunciation of 'Jat'. This 2018 study(link below) in the American Journal of Human Genetics shows that Jats are distinct from other groups historically found in the Sindh region and are most similiar to the Ror group, a historical group from modern day Haryana. The study links the Jat and Ror community as being the modern day proxy group most genetically similiar to Ancestral North Indians who occupied the vedic civlization found in modern day Haryana. The study genetically links the Jat community as being the direct ancestors of this civilization. Hence a change should be made in the line of "Jats have been genetically linked as being the forebearers of the Vedic population that existed in Northern India starting from 600 BCE. "

Quotes showing the genetic linkage below:

"Outgroup f3 analysis in the form of (PNWI, X; Yoruba) showed that the Ror (and Jat) have distinct, high genetic similarity to modern Europeans (Figures 1C, 1D, and S5), far higher than the similarity observed in other NWI populations, such as the Gujjar (Figures 1D and S5). Among an extended set of South Asians, this pattern was repeated only in the Pathan population from Pakistan (Figure S5)"

"Refined IBD analysis highlights the general trend whereby the sharing of IBD segments declines as one moves along the cline from PNWI and NI_IE toward Dravidian and Indian Austroasiatic (IN_AA) groups (Figure 2A). Strikingly, among all PNWI groups studied, the Ror demonstrate the highest number of IBD segments shared with Europeans and Central Asians, whereas the Gujjar share a higher number of IBD segments with local Indian Indo-Europeans and Dravidians than do other PNWI groups (Figure 2A)"

"In CHROMOPAINTER analysis, as expected, the Ror (and Jat) exhibited a significantly higher number of chunks received from Europeans than do other NWI populations studied (t test, p value < 0.01)."

"In summary, we demonstrate a higher proportion of genomic sharing between PNWI populations and ancient EHG and Steppe-related populations than we observe in other South Asians.We report that the Ror are the modern population that is closest to the first prehistorical and early historical South Asian ancient samples near the Indus Valley, and they also harbor the highest Steppe-related, EHG, and Neolithic Anatolian ancestry. However, compared to other adjoining groups, the Ror show less affinity with the Neolithic Iranians. The Ror population can plausibly be used as an alternative proxy for ANI in future demographic modeling of South Asian populations." Reference Pathak, A. K., Kadian, A., Kushniarevich, A., Montinaro, F., Mondal, M., Ongaro, L.,. . . Villems, R. (2018). The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley Populations from Northwest India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 103(6), 918-929. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.10.022 Chen5566 (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. One recent and so far not replicated genetic study is not enough to consider the prior claim "disproved" That's not how science works and it would take more research to confirm this suggested origin.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in lead needs attention
In the sentence "Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh, Jats migrated north into the Punjab region in late medieval times, and subsequently into the Delhi Territory, northeastern Rajputana, and the western Gangetic Plain in the 17th and 18th centuries.", there are 3 ref at the end. Asher and Talbot (p. 269) (1st ref of sentence) are supporting the part "Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh" and that they migrated into the Punjab but does not give any timeline (no mention of medieval times of any century) for migration into Punjab. Looking at the quote provided in the ref of Khazanov and Wink (2nd ref), they appears to be supporting no part of the sentence as far as my understanding of the quote provided goes. The quote from the ref of Wink (3rd ref) is supporting migration into Punjab and is also giving a timeline but says nothing about these people "originally" being Sindhis and also does not support the part "and subsequently into the Delhi Territory, northeastern Rajputana, and the western Gangetic Plain in the 17th and 18th centuries." I hope I am not making any misinterpretation here, because there seems to be serious issues with the referencing of the sentence which appear to be in the need of being addressed by the editors. Also, if who supports what can be made clear (here, it can be), then it shouldn't be? I mean that while fixing the issues with the sentence, I suggest that the refs should be placed immediately after the parts of the sentence that they support. It would only be beneficial for our readers. Let's discuss this. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also one more issue with the sentence, and it can be addressed together with the above discussed problems. Kindly see this approved edit request regarding the same sentence — Talk:Jat people/Archive 8 and read the answering editor's comments along with the edit summary provided for this edit. Editor's comments and the edit summary appeared to have justified the change which was reverted in this edit without providing any justification in the edit summary or at the talk page. Asher and Talbot (p. 269) are supporting the part "originally..." but the comments in the edit summary and the answering comments by the editor while approving the edit request explains why adding the word "originally" might not be an encyclopedic act to do. Pinging (editor who answered the edit request and gave an explanation for not keeping the word "originally") and  (editor who reverted the change). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment –, I have this page under my watchlist, but somehow I didn't notice this thread earlier. As far as I can remember, both secondary and tertiary scholarly sources mainly mention the same three origin-related theories about Jats. Anyway, I will look at this in the coming days. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2020
In the first line of this page, Jats have been described as Non-Elite and Peasant community which is utter nonsense. India is forever grateful for the contribution of Jat Maharaja Surajmal who fought against the British in pre-Independent India and their Bharatpur fort was never conquered. Jats are Landowners and farmers along with being a Martial Race with having one of the most decorated and oldest Regiments of the Indian Army. Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh(mostly western), NCR(National Capital Region) are commonly referred to as the Jatland. Akashbhullar333 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please note that you appeared to have missed the "traditionally" in the lead sentence. This is a well-sourced statement that uses Bayly's work on the subject, so you will need to garner a consensus and produce a reliable source(s) to alter that statement. Thank you for your concerns!  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 21:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources have been cherry picked, to make the claim , it should mention the landowning status of jats which is well known in current times as well and also their rise to power 17th century onwards. Also image of charan singh has been removed from the main page, stating that it is unduly glorifying. Meethamonkey (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * that sounds like all the more reason to garner consensus for the change(s). Charges of cherry-picking the sources are serious, so if true, then editors, including you, should be able to provide independent, reliable sources that show otherwise!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020
There should be a section added to the origin(history) category since new genetic evidence has come about in research from 2018. While the Sindhi section need not be removed, the new section(which I will outline) should be added so that a full and up to date comprehensive view of the community is given.

This 2018 study(link below) in the American Journal of Human Genetics shows that Jats are distinct from other groups historically found in the Sindh region and are most similar to the Ror group, a historical group from modern-day Haryana. The study links the Jat and Ror community as being the modern-day proxy group most genetically similar to Ancestral North Indians who occupied the vedic civilization found in modern-day Haryana. The study genetically links the Jat community as being the direct ancestors of this civilization. Hence, a change should be made in the line of "Jats have been genetically linked as being the Vedic population's fore bearers that existed in North Western India starting from 600 BCE. Recent genetic evidence has disputed the Sindh origin claim. They have been linked to originating from the area corresponding to the Ror population in North Western India in modern Haryana and Punjab."

Quotes showing the genetic connection below:

"Outgroup f3 analysis in the form of (PNWI, X; Yoruba) showed that the Ror (and Jat) have distinct, high genetic similarity to modern Europeans (Figures 1C, 1D, and S5), far higher than the similarity observed in other NWI populations, such as the Gujjar (Figures 1D and S5). Among an extended set of South Asians, this pattern was repeated only in the Pathan population from Pakistan (Figure S5)"

"Refined IBD analysis highlights the general trend whereby the sharing of IBD segments declines as one moves along the cline from PNWI and NI_IE toward Dravidian and Indian Austroasiatic (IN_AA) groups (Figure 2A). Strikingly, among all PNWI groups studied, the Ror demonstrate the highest number of IBD segments shared with Europeans and Central Asians, whereas the Gujjar share a higher number of IBD segments with local Indian Indo-Europeans and Dravidians than do other PNWI groups (Figure 2A)" "In CHROMOPAINTER analysis, as expected, the Ror (and Jat) exhibited a significantly higher number of chunks received from Europeans than do other NWI populations studied (t test, p value < 0.01)."

"In summary, we demonstrate a higher proportion of genomic sharing between PNWI populations and ancient EHG and Steppe-related populations than we observe in other South Asians.We report that the Ror are the modern population that is closest to the first prehistorical and early historical South Asian ancient samples near the Indus Valley, and they also harbor the highest Steppe-related, EHG, and Neolithic Anatolian ancestry. However, compared to other adjoining groups, the Ror show less affinity with the Neolithic Iranians. The Ror population can plausibly be used as an alternative proxy for ANI in future demographic modeling of South Asian populations."

Reference Pathak, A. K., Kadian, A., Kushniarevich, A., Montinaro, F., Mondal, M., Ongaro, L.,. . . Villems, R. (2018). The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley Populations from Northwest India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 103(6), 918-929. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.10.022
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020
Change the article so that Andhak does not redirect to this page. There is no source in this article that states Andhak is a alternate name for Jats. Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020
There should be changed added to the very the first paragraph and the history(1.0)section

Changes to First Paragraph Instead of: Originally pastoralists in the lower Indus river-valley of Sindh, Jats migrated north into the Punjab region in late medieval times, and subsequently into the Delhi Territory, northeastern Rajputana, and the western Gangetic Plain in the 17th and 18th centuries

It should be changed to: " The origin of the Jats has been disputed. There have been claims made to them both being from the Sindh and being from Haryana as the proxy group for Ancestral North Indians.

Changes to History(1.0) Section The following should become 1.1 and the Sikh States section should be changed to 1.2

1.1: ANI Proxy Group According to a 2018 study Jats have been linked as being the proxy group for Ancestral North Indians and the Vedic civilization peoples. Jat's have a distinctly high genetic similarity to modern Europeans.

As per the authors of the study,

"the Ror (and Jat) have distinct, high genetic similarity to modern Europeans (Figures 1C, 1D, and S5), far higher than the similarity observed in other NWI populations, such as the Gujjar"

Additionally, 'as expected, the Ror (and Jat) exhibited a significantly higher number of chunks received from Europeans than do other NWI populations studied (t test, p value < 0.01)"

Reasoning for changes

This is because new genetic evidence has come about in research from 2018. While the Sindhi section need not be removed, the new section(which I will outline) should be added so that a full and up to date comprehensive view of the community is given.

This 2018 study(link below) in the American Journal of Human Genetics shows that Jats are distinct from other groups historically found in the Sindh region and are most similar to the Ror group, a historical group from modern-day Haryana. The study links the Jat and Ror community as being the modern-day proxy group most genetically similar to Ancestral North Indians who occupied the vedic civilization found in modern-day Haryana. The study genetically links the Jat community as being the direct ancestors of this civilization. Hence, a change should be made in the line of "Jats have been genetically linked as being the Vedic population's fore bearers that existed in North Western India starting from 600 BCE. Recent genetic evidence has disputed the Sindh origin claim. They have been linked to originating from the area corresponding to the Ror population in North Western India in modern Haryana and Punjab."

Quotes from the study showing the genetic linkage below:

"Outgroup f3 analysis in the form of (PNWI, X; Yoruba) showed that the Ror (and Jat) have distinct, high genetic similarity to modern Europeans (Figures 1C, 1D, and S5), far higher than the similarity observed in other NWI populations, such as the Gujjar (Figures 1D and S5). Among an extended set of South Asians, this pattern was repeated only in the Pathan population from Pakistan (Figure S5)"

"Refined IBD analysis highlights the general trend whereby the sharing of IBD segments declines as one moves along the cline from PNWI and NI_IE toward Dravidian and Indian Austroasiatic (IN_AA) groups (Figure 2A). Strikingly, among all PNWI groups studied, the Ror demonstrate the highest number of IBD segments shared with Europeans and Central Asians, whereas the Gujjar share a higher number of IBD segments with local Indian Indo-Europeans and Dravidians than do other PNWI groups (Figure 2A)" "In CHROMOPAINTER analysis, as expected, the Ror (and Jat) exhibited a significantly higher number of chunks received from Europeans than do other NWI populations studied (t test, p value < 0.01)."

"In summary, we demonstrate a higher proportion of genomic sharing between PNWI populations and ancient EHG and Steppe-related populations than we observe in other South Asians.We report that the Ror are the modern population that is closest to the first prehistorical and early historical South Asian ancient samples near the Indus Valley, and they also harbor the highest Steppe-related, EHG, and Neolithic Anatolian ancestry. However, compared to other adjoining groups, the Ror show less affinity with the Neolithic Iranians. The Ror population can plausibly be used as an alternative proxy for ANI in future demographic modeling of South Asian populations."

Reference Pathak, A. K., Kadian, A., Kushniarevich, A., Montinaro, F., Mondal, M., Ongaro, L.,. . . Villems, R. (2018). The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley Populations from Northwest India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 103(6), 918-929. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.10.022 Chen5566 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We do not add genetics in caste/community articles of India/South Asia as per consensus at WP:INB.Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The original change to the first paragraph should still be valid though? It would be a change talking of their disputed origin. It would be unscientific to leave out the latest(and most relevant) data about the groups origin.


 * We do not add genetics in caste/community articles of India. So any conclusion derived from any research paper will not be valid. Not to mention, whatever you say is not explained in the paper either. That would be original research. Also, the group considered to be a proxy for ANI in the paper is Ror. Find reliable WP:HISTRS compliant source to challenge the current version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per policies explained above. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 05:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence
"The Jat people (Hindi pronunciation: [dʒaːʈ]) are a traditionally agriculture based community largely in rural parts of Northern India and Pakistan." should be changed to "The Jat people (Hindi pronunciation: [dʒaːʈ]) are a community of traditionally non-elite peasants in Northern India and Pakistan." It is well sourced, and User:Nawabmalhi changed it, even though it was reliably sourced.Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it because you use the same academic twice for your source, and secondly it was established long before not to use that as it does not do justice to the varying socioeconomic status among various Jat groups. Thirdly, I changed the wording I did not alter it to make it go against the source. Rather as I explained in my edit, it is better to discuss things like status etc. in detail later in the article. Nor does one need to see the Hindu parameters of socail standing in the beginning of the article. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Caste
No caste in the lead? 216.8.188.31 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2021
Please this as reliable source jatt as shudra Vide Punjab High Court judgement #551/1936 had declared Jats as Shoodars. 117.225.57.11 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Could you please rewrite that into a coherent English sentence? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2021
The most important edit should be done on the pronounciation of "Jat" word. The pronounciation of Jat is not Jāt, it is Jat. You can write Jat in hindi as जट, Jāt is spoken in hindi areas of india. Jat is sanskirit word. The hindi translation of Jat is Jāt. The Jat community is knowns as Jāt in hariyana, west up, RAJSTHAN, while Jat /Jatt as in punjabi regions. Please edit this change. Jat(English), जाट(Jāt) in hindi, ਜੱਟ(Jatt) in punjabi language. The pronounciation of Jat is जट.

The second edits should be done on the hindu Jats. The hindu Jats have ruling states were, Bharatpur, Dholpur, Ballabhgarh, Mursan, Gohad,Narsinghpur,Shanpur,Pisawa, 49.36.134.136 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for any edits you'd like made. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2021
Per Punjab High Court ruling # 551/1936 Hindu Jats and Sikh Jatts belong to Shudra varna. In 1955 Kaka Kalelkar Commission appointed by Government of India reached the same conclusion after a detailed sociological and ethnological study. All of these are legal facts and can be cross verified. 2402:8100:3943:A77F:FEBA:5242:8BCA:A19D (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Add See also List of Jat states and clans
See also List of Jat states and clans add this page Hind ji (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * having had a quick look at the list, I do not think it appropriate to add it at this time. The list itself is of questionable notability and I removed a large part of it - a section listing rulers - as it was not the subject of the list. The title is also problematic - why is the "and clans" there? noq (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021
List of Jat States and clans Sanatani arya (talk|Sanatani arya|talk 16:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) See Also
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article you are proposing to link to does not exist. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  &#124; 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use&#32; on reply) 16:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021
I edit this article 2402:8100:2185:884B:0:0:EFB:5F04 (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2021
I edit this page RJ2468 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can do so once you satisfy the conditions at WP:XCON.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2021 (2)
Could you please change "Today, Muslim Jats are found in Pakistan and India" to "Today Muslim Jats are mainly found in Pakistan". User104235 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This will make more sense because it is not denying that there aren't any Muslim Jats in India because it says "mainly". Muslim jats number millions in Pakistan compared to India where they number well below a million.

Thank you
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
I want the page to restore back the same information uploaded to the jat page I don't know who made this change but is false and not authentic As we all know wikipedia is being considered as a authentic page but due to this kind of work down by Wikipedia it will effect the people believe on it and it is basically effecting and hurting our sentiments also I wanna warn Anyone who did this work have to pay for that because I don't know why such false changes are to be brought by that one .. It shows the authenticity of wikipedia Jat People also spelt Jaat Jatt Jutt Are primarily of Hindu Sikh and Muslim faith .. it is starting line and it is correct and resourceful And Wikipedia also removed the image of Mharaja Bhupinde r Singh of Patiala

ans=yes Ashisheoran (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname in the Muslim Jats section. It was introduced in [this edit], but never defined. The missing reference can be found in the main Jat Muslim article. The following:   should be replaced with:   Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)