Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of Jats

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Jats

Origin of Jats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Confused, biased and often frankly bizarre POV fork. The article is basically an essay aiming to show the Jat people are Aryans, using evidence such as the conclusions nineteenth-century anthropologists came to after measuring people's noses. Tagged for cleanup, but utterly unsalvagable Lurker (said · done) 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lurker, I am sure you mean well.Still, in the science of Anthropology, measuring various parts of the body, skulls,cephalic bones, nasal index, etc is a standard methodology. In Archeological Anthropology, these type of techniques help determine what people looked like in past, when all that we have a few bones and skulls to go by.

I agree that the article needs improvement, cleanup etc.

If we simply delete, following your sugestion, we must also then logically delete the article on Anthropology, Aryan, and other related articles.

Ravi Chaudhary 14:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is already a surplus of information on the Jat page. This is supurflous. MarkBul 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with Enforced ReWrite - I concur about the article being POV. But we're not here to judge the content, only the topic itself. If the article was rewritten I think it might well be worthy of keeping, but only if it proves more than Jat can offer. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's enough information on the Jat people page to warrant another article. Most of the current article should be blanked, but some of it is good, and there's no reason why the people who wrote it shouldn't get credit for their work. Isaac Pankonin 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - This article is about one of the ancient clans about whom ancient books mention a lot but the midieval history seems biased due to certain reasons and has either not mentioned about these people or very less has been written. It has got very valuable references which will be lost. The discussions an Jat people article led to splitting the page and now there is move to delete, which seems to be fatal. We will loose the purpose of Wikipedia getting informattion about the origin of the people of the world. Deletion will serve no purpose. Article has been recently created from Jat people so needs further improvement by adding more info. It is necessary to keep. I recommend a Strong Keep. --burdak 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - A Pertinent Historical Investigation The origin of an ethnic identity is a valid historical search. Parts of such historical investigations are inevitably dependent upon the narrative of the ethnic group, especially in case of really old, even ancient, cultures. I suspect that some people are put off by the use of the word "aryan" and by ethnic distinctions based upon facial features, and tend to relate it to totalitarian European ideologies. That is an absurd projection on the Asian past of a Euro-centric viewpoint. --DrBrij 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to say why the article should be kept, or make unproven ad hominem assumptions? Lurker (said · done) 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is a valid historical topic and there are (or were, as I remember) many references to substantiate the narrative of the cultural identity. Your original assertion that "The article is basically an essay aiming to show the Jat people are Aryans." and your background suggest an inherent bias which I referred to above. An "essay" to show that the Jat people are the same people who were referred to as Arya in olden times is a perfectly valid article, if the references back up the various notes included in it, as they were here. More references might be valuable, but the validity of the article is too strong to sacrifice it at the altar of political-correctness. Is there anything in this article that is contradicted by objective analysis? I would like to see your evidence against it then. Biometric numbers are perfectly valid for anthropological studies - such as in determining whether a skull found was Native American or Viking in origin. --DrBrij 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're trying to say that the article is fine the way it is, and the majority of us here disagree with that. It must represent all points of view, which means that there has to be a section that says Jats are not Aryan and they come from somewhere else. Also, during these discussions please refrain from personal attacks about heritage and remember to assume good faith when dealing with others. The fact of the matter is the article needs to change. I'm against deleting it, but that doesn't mean I think it's a credit to Wikipedia right now. Isaac Pankonin 05:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that "Jats are not Aryan.." has to be based on evidence from well researched references. No such references are ever provided. On the other hand, the arguments for the opposite viewpoint were provided in the references. "Arya" was a cultural term, and not a racist term as understood by the Europeans and others in the west. I was merely suggesting that people not react reflexively to the term when it is used in its original context. Besides, calling this article a POV without providing undisputed references for the contrary position is itself a mere POV. --DrBrij 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This article is overflowing with POV, racist speculations and pseudoscience. There are several different theories and no unanimity among scholars on the origin of the Jats. The plain fact is that their origin is really unknown, though heavily contested. I suggest a section in the main Jat people article where the various theories can be outlined briefly would be sufficient. There is no need at all for separate article on this subject.John Hill 06:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep and re-structure The only problem that I see with this article is that the language and structure do not appear to be as polished as they do in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps some courageous and educated contrarian can write a subsection to this article and show that the name and clan studies, cultural patterns, length and continuity of habitation by Jats etc. - how all these studies are somehow unworthy of being used for the thesis of this article. There is no point in assuming that the Indo-Aryans vanished without a trace. --DrBrij 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - It is clear from discussions on Jat people and allied articles that John Hill is simply biased. History has some content of speculation. At least Indian history is not a science. I do not know of which history John Hill is talking which is a pure science. The article contains studies which are by reputed authors and well published. If the argument of John hill is to be considered we will have to delete a number of articles from Wikipedia. That will be a great loss. A similar parallel Indian article on Wikipedia is Origin_of_Rajputs. It has no in-text references and the origin is purely stated to be legendary i.e. the clan created from fire with the help of mantras, it contains a lot of POV also. Similarly Origin of the Albanians in which text itself states that it is disputed. There is also Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty, which has been much debated and contains POV, similarly Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis article which is locked for editing due to disputes. Origin of the Armenians which is based on legendary story of bible. Dispute of origin does not imply that we should delete it. We have articles on origin of social groups like Origin of Pallava, Origin of ezhava caste, Origin of the Basques, Origin of the Nilotic peoples, Theories on the origin of Croats, Theories on the origin of the Serbs. Then why to delete Origin of Jats? Facts are in offing, the article is growing. All the theories of origin of Jats should be kept in this article. Large number of clans have merged into Jats fold. Some of them were of Indo Aryan origin where as some are of Scythic origin. Both these theories were there in the Jat people article. The Jat people article was long and there are suggestions to split it. With this view the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats article was created to highlight this aspect only. Its heading was changed to Origin of Jats. Now it looks imbalanced. Either we should keep its original name i.e. Indo-Aryan origin of Jats or if Origin of Jats is to be kept as such it needs more informations which are there in the Jat people and can be imported to make it balance. So instead of deleting we should expand it. --burdak 09:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article [[Origins of the Jats}}, was previously titled-Indo Aryan Origin of Jats.

The article is a is actually a sub article, part of the main article Jats or Jat People, which contains a section -Origin of the Jats- see table of contents.

As with any book, article, research paper, when witing about a subject as extensive as the Jats, the subject needs to be divided into manageable chunks.

One of the sections, chapters- divisions will be: ‘The origins of the Jats’ OR ' THEORIES OF ORIGINS OF THE JATS'

This subject itself then has to be divided in to the various theories that exist and are being developed.

Some of the questions that arise are:

1 Are the Jats autochons of the Indian subcontinent, as some historians suggest?

2. Are they of foreign origin? If so from where?

3. Are they ‘Aryans’ part of the supposed invasion of the Indian subcontinent’ by Aryans? Then who were the Aryans/ were they Europeans? Were they central Asians? Is the term ‘Aryan ‘appropriate to denote a ‘race’? That in itself is a subject on which much academic and real blood has been spilt, - e.g Nazi Germany and as yet no satisfactory answers have come forward,

4. A number of historians have suggested they are of ‘Scythian’ origin?

5. Then there is mythology- is the jats descended form the ‘locks of Lord Shiva.

6. Were the Jats the same people, who are the subject of the Vedic traditions- the Rig Veda etc?

7. Are they the subject of, Are they of the clans and people referred to in the Indian epic- the Mahabharat.

8. Do they have any relationship to the Goths, the Huns, the Gaut, Geats, Gutar, and the Jutes of Scandinavia?

Each of the topics and questions can and is the subject of much research and historical writing. Every year more and more papers on the subjects are coming out.>

Out of all these and more questions: come the question, (as anyone writing a paper is familiar with) do you jumble it all together or split it, and use an index with sub indices?

The jats article has done that in terms of basic structure see below:

Contents [hide] • 1 People

• 2 Demographics

• 3 Distribution

• 4 Background

o 4.1 Theories of origin

o 4.2 Indo-Aryan origin

o 4.3 Indo-Scythian origin

o 4.4 Origin of Jats from Shiva's Locks

The name of the sub Article Indo Aryan origin of Jats then should then stand as such, but in the body it should be made clear that it is a sub article.

Should the article itself be deleted?

Well if it is a sub article, on a valid line of inquiry which much literature exists, as it does, then the answer is an obvious NO.

The term Indo Aryan and Aryan exist,

A brief search in the wikipedia shows the results as below: . Indo-Aryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Indo aryan)

Jump to: navigation, search

Indo-Aryan refers to:

• Indo-Aryan languages

• Indo-Aryan migration

• Indo-Aryans, the various peoples speaking these languages

See also:

• Indo-Iranian

• Aryan

• Arya

The Indo Aryan article from WikiPedia:

The Indo Aryan page, list a number of people as being Indo Aryans.( and I treat this a nomenclature only- I do not agree with the concept of Aryan as a race)

Indo-Aryans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Indo-Aryans v • d • e

Total population ~1 Billion

Regions with significant populations

Indian subcontinent, with minority populations on all continents. Languages

Indo-Aryan languages

Religions

Dharmic religions, Abrahamic religions, Zoroastrianism

The Indo-Aryans are a wide collection of peoples united by their common status as speakers of the Indo-Aryan (Indic) branch of the family of Indo-European and Indo-Iranian languages. Today, there are close to a billion native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, mostly indigenous to the region of South Asia, though in ancient times, they could have been found on the eastern part of the Iranian plateau (Afghanistan) and in areas as far west as modern Syria and Iraq (the Mittani). Their cultural influence, from early on in the first millennium AD, reached as far east as modern Cambodia and Vietnam (Khmer and Champa kingdoms) as well as Indonesia, where it survives in Bali, and in the Philippines. The Roma people migrated westward in medieval times, and modern migration gave rise to Indo-Aryan minorities on most continents.[citation needed]

Contents [hide]

• 1 Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans

• 2 Vedic Aryans

• 3 Antiquity

• 4 Middle Kingdoms

• 5 Contemporary Indo-Aryans

o 5.1 Hindustani communities

o 5.2 Roma and Sinti

• 6 Indo-Aryan peoples

o 6.1 Ancient

o 6.2 Modern

• 7 Notes

• 8 References

• 9 See also

[edit] Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans

Main article: Indo-Aryan migration

Separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Proto-Indo-Iranians is commonly dated, on linguistic grounds, to roughly 2000 BC.[citation needed] The Nuristani languages probably split in such early times, and are classified as either remote Indo-Aryan dialects or as an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. It is believed that by 1500 BC Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the west (the Mitanni) and northern Afghanistan in the east (the Rigvedic tribes).

The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC. Some scholars trace the Indo-Iranians (both Indo-Aryans and Iranians) back to the Andronovo culture (2nd millennium BC). Other scholars like Brentjes (1981), Klejn (1974), Francfort (1989), Lyonnet (1993), Hiebert (1998) and Sarianidi (1993) have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India or with the Mitanni because the Andronovo culture took shape too late and because no actual traces of their culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials of the Andronovo culture) have been found in India or Mesopotamia (Edwin Bryant. 2001). The archaeologist J.P. Mallory (1998) finds it "extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern India" and remarks that the proposed migration routes "only [get] the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans" (Mallory 1998; Bryant 2001: 216). Therefore he has suggested (1998) the 'Kulturkugel' model of Indo-Aryan speakers with a BMAC culture, that spread into eastern Iran and beyond.

Other scholars like Asko Parpola (1988) connect the BMAC with the Indo-Aryans. But although horses were known to the Indo-Aryans, evidence for their presence in the form of horse bones is missing in the BMAC (e.g. Bernard Sergent. Genèse de l'Inde. 1997:161 ff.). However, recently a foal burial has been found, indicating import from the northern steppes. Asko Parpola (1988) has argued that the Dasas were the "carriers of the Bronze Age culture of Greater Iran" living in the BMAC and that the forts with circular walls destroyed by the Indo-Aryans were actually located in the BMAC. Parpola's hypothesis has been criticized by K.D. Sethna (1992) and other writers.

[edit] Vedic Aryans

See also: Vedic period and Rigvedic tribes

The first undisputed horse remains in India are found in the Bronze Age Gandhara Grave culture context from ca. 1600 BC (although there are claims[citation needed] of horse bones found in Harappan and even pre-Harappan layers). This likely corresponds to an influx of early Indo-Aryan speakers over the Hindukush (comparable to the Kushan expansion of the first centuries AD). Together with indigenous cultures, this gave rise to the Vedic civilization of the early Iron Age. This civilization is marked by a continual shift to the east, first to the Gangetic plain with the Kurus and Panchalas, and further east with the Kosala and Videha. This Iron Age expansion corresponds to the black and red ware and painted grey ware cultures.

[edit] Antiquity

See also: Mahajanapadas and Maurya Empire

The Vedic Kuru and Panchala kingdoms in the first millennium became the core of the Mahajanapadas, archaeologically corresponding to the Northern Black Polished Ware, and the rise of the Mauryan Empire, and later the medieval Middle kingdoms of India.

For Hellenistic times, Oleg N. Trubachev (1999; elaborating on a hypothesis by Kretschmer 1944) suggests that there were Indo-Aryan speakers in the Pontic steppe. The Maeotes and the Sindes, the latter also known as "Indoi" and described by Hesychius as an "an Indian people".[1]

[edit] Middle Kingdoms

Statue of Shivaji Bhonslé, founder of the Maratha empire. Main articles: Middle kingdoms of India and Middle Indo-Aryan languages The various Prakrit vernaculars developed into independent languages in the course of the Middle Ages (see Apabhramsha), forming the Abahatta group in the east and the Hindustani group in the west, see also History of the Hindi language. The Roma people (also known as Gypsies) are believed to have left India around AD 1000.21

[edit] Contemporary Indo-Aryans

Contemporary native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages are spread over most of the northern Indian Subcontinent. Native and non-native speakers of Indo-Aryans languages also reach the south of the peninsula and into Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The largest group are the speakers of the Hindi and Urdu dialects of the India and Pakistan, together with other dialects also grouped as Hindustani, numbering at roughly half a billion native speakers, constituting the largest community of speakers of any of the Indo-European languages. Other Indo-Aryan communities are in Bangladesh, Nepal and parts of Afghanistan. Of the 23 national languages of India, 16 are Indo-Aryan languages(see also languages of India). The only Indo-Aryan branch surviving outside the Indian Subcontinent and the Himalayas is the Romani language, the language of the Roma people (Gypsies).

[edit] Hindustani communities

Main article: Hindustani language

Hindustani is an umbrella term for various dialects descended from the Prakrits of medieval India. The largest of these are the Hindi and Urdu languages. Hindustani speaking people inhabit modern-day Pakistan and northern India. During the British Raj, this region was identified as "Hindustan", the Persian for "Land of the Hindus". Related languages are spoken all over Indian subcontinent, from Bengal to Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

[edit] Roma and Sinti

Main articles: Roma people and Sinti

Roma family in Smyrne, Turkey, photographed in 1904. The closely related Roma and Sinti people (the latter having the old name of the river Indus, the Sind), also known as "Gypsies", are traditionally nomadic. They are believed to have left India in about 1000 AD and to have passed through what is now Afghanistan, Persia, Armenia, and Turkey. People recognizable by other Roma as Roma still live as far east as Iran, including some who made the migration to Europe and returned. By the 14th century, the Roma had reached the Balkans; by the 15th century they appeared in Western Europe; and by the 16th century, they had reached Scotland and Sweden. Peoples with some similarity to the Roma still exist in India, particularly in the desert state of Rajasthan. Roma immigration to the United States began in colonial times, and larger scale immigration began in the 1860s with groups from Britain. The largest number of immigrants came over in the early 1900s. A large number also moved to Latin America.

[edit] Indo-Aryan peoples

[edit] Ancient

• Rigvedic tribes

• Angas

• Kalingas

• Kambojas

• Kasis

• Kurus

• Licchavis

• Gandharis

• Gangaridai

• Gupta

• Magadhis

• Maurya

• Nanda

• Pala

• Satavahanas

• Shakya

• Vanga

[edit] Modern

• Bengali people

• Bihari people

• Caló

• Chamar

• Chhettris

• CKPs

• Chittagonians

• Dhangars

• Dom people

• Gitanos

• Gujaratis

• Gurkhas

• Jats'Bold text'

• Kalderash

• Kambojs, Kambohs

• Kammas

• Konkani people

• Deshastha

• Brahmins

• Lohanas

• Malikun

• Marathas

• Marathi people

• Marwaris

• Muhajirs

• Nambiars

• Namboothiris

• Oriya people

• Punjabi people

• Rajputs

• Romnichals

• Saraswats

• Seraikis

• Sinhalese

• Sindhi people

• Sinti

• Tarkhans

• Kayastha

• Ahluwalia

[edit] Notes 1. ^ Sindoi (or Sindi etc.) were also described by e.g. Herodotus, Strabo, Dionysius, Stephen Byzantine, Polienus. [1] [edit] References • Bryant, Edwin (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513777-9. • Mallory, JP. 1998. "A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia". In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man. • Trubachov, Oleg N., 1999: Indoarica, Nauka, Moscow. [edit] See also

Indo-European topics

Indo-European languages

Albanian • Anatolian • Armenian Baltic • Celtic • Dacian • Germanic Greek • Indo-Iranian • Italic • Phrygian Slavic • Thracian • Tocharian

Indo-European peoples

Albanians • Anatolians • Armenians Balts • Celts • Germanic peoples Greeks • Indo-Aryans • Indo-Iranians Iranians • Italic peoples • Slavs Thracians • Tocharians

Proto-Indo-Europeans

Language • Society • Religion

Urheimat hypotheses

Kurgan hypothesis • Anatolia Armenia • India • PCT

Indo-European studies

• Aryan

• Arya

• Aryavarta

• Aryan race

• Iranian Peoples

• Indo-Aryan migration

• Dasa

• Kshatriya

• Proto-Indo-Europeans

• Indo-Aryan languages

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryans" Categories: All articles with unsourced stat

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The article is only a sub article of the main article [[{Jat Peoples]], one of the three related to the Origins of the Jats. We should expect more sub articles not less.

The term Aryan, Indo Aryan has a vast body of literature and whether we like or not, it is a subject not likely to go away.

One does not to have agreed with everything in the article. Editors may wish to provide opposing theories.

An article must contain data and evidence that support of oppose the various perspectives and theories. This will encourage education, not pushing one view down anyone’s throat.

To delete the sub article would mean that we should also then delete all articles where the term Aryan or Indo Aryan is used.

That would disrupt a substantial section of Wikipedia.

Recommend: STRONG KEEP. but revise and expand

Ravi Chaudhary 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and revise - It addresses a question that is discussed frequently. It needs some further work, perhaps an examination of other theories also. The term Indo-Aryan is a valid one, in terms of a linguistic and historical identity.--Malaiya 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Indo-Aryan is a valid one (someone is creating a straw man here, as no-one has said in this AfD that Indo-Aryan is not a valid term). However, a POV fork dedicated to pushing one theory of Jat origin is not a valid article. Lurker (said · done) 08:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it your contention then, Lurker, that Jats could not possibly have descended from Indo-Aryan tribes? A whole lot of evidence in the references would be against your POV in that case. --DrBrij 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All this bogus "racial science" is obsolete and does not belong on WikiPedia NBeale 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes biometrics and genetics "obsolete" sciences for historical research? --DrBrij 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment : The article heavily relies on books written by Thakur Deshraj, Natthan Singh and Ram Swarup Joon. They all are Jats and as such would tend to glorify the history of their own clan so can not be considered as reliable sources per wikipedia policy on reliable sources. All assertions made based on these historians are suspect and must be removed and be substituted with other reliable sources, if any. Shyamsunder 16:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that your comment has some merit to it, Shyamsunder, is Winston Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" suspect as a reference on such English cultures? One can argue over methods and analyses, but it seems that the critics here are arguing over perceptions and intents. --DrBrij 07:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.