Talk:Jat people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jat people article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1 (Jul 2005 – Dec 2006)
/Archive 2 (Jan 2007 – Jun 2007)
/Archive 3 (Jun 2007 – Oct 2007)
/Archive 4 (Nov 2007 – Mar 2008)


Contents

[edit] Not correct

The majority of Jats do not live in Punjab but in Haryana more than 8 million. The origin of the Jats all over is the same, they have the same family names in every reigion. Example Punia, Man, Garewal et. These names are common amongst the Jats in U.P., haryana, Rajasthan and Punjab. No one can divide these Kshatriyas.

There is considerable difference between the "JATTS" and "JAATS", though they sound similar. The latter are found in Present state of Haryana in India and are not same as Jatts who are Punjabi speaking people found in Punjab of India and Pakistan.Ajjay (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs major re-writing.The Jatts in indian state of punjab and pakistani province of punjab have common surnames,language, culture and traditional attires and games.There is nothing which is shared commonly with jat people of haryana.The jat people of Haryana are as different from Jatts as are the ethnic jat people in afghanistan.Ajjay (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay You are wrong and full of Total POV. I totally disagree with you, you wrong. Provide at least 5 reliable academic references for such wild claims e.g. PhDs or Professors instead of just wild pov.--G675 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay is 100% correct. Before modern day Haryana was formed from Punjab, and Hariana a district of Punjab, how ethnically different were Jaats from Jatts then? My own family are from Haryana and I am Sikh, and I see no difference apart from dialect from Punjab Jatt and and Haryanavi Jaat?--Sikh-history (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)



[edit] This page is in need of a clean up.

Someone need to edit this page to check facts and make it more concise. it follows no clear order and has several grammatical errors. its far too long and generally confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RPBHANDARI (talk • contribs) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I agree. Many statements are unverifiable opinions, e.g. what people eat, and the unnecessary use of a regional word for which a perfectly good English word is available, e.g. saag is spinach. Ash (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is 84 KB long. Many sections are full of information. To begin with, this article should be trimmed up by removing unnecessary sections that are already covered in other articles. Then it should be reorganized as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. utcursch | talk 07:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow this article is full of nonsensical OR and uncited claims, with many a non-RS. Considering it represents upwards of 35 million people, it should be cleaned up pronto as it is very misleading. Trips (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started with the cleanup. To start with, I've trimmed the Origin section. I think the next should be the sections about the history of Jat people. The sections "Jat people in Islamic History", "Ancient Jat people Kingdoms", "Jat republics in Malwa", "Jat people in the pre-Aurangzeb period", "Jat People Kingdoms in Medieval India" can be merged into a single history section. Most of the content in these sections is already present in other articles, and there is no need for unnecessary repetition. utcursch | talk 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Continuing with the cleanup, I've merged several sections into a single "History" section. The information that I've removed already appears in several other articles (which also need cleanup). utcursch | talk 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up and consolidation of all articles dealing with Jats is needed urgently. Jats are getting a bad name.

I have noticed that recently there has been a proliferation of articles dealing with Jats, their history, culture, and so on. Much of it is very repetitive and very poorly (if more than amply) referenced with many wild and unproven statements being made.

Also there are claims made on other pages that certain historical people were Jats when these claims are really just claims - they don't provide anything approaching proof. For example, the articles on Yasodharman and his son Shiladitya both say that there is "proof" that they were Jats of the Virk clan. There is no real proof - the "evidence" seems to be solely based on the opiniojns of a couple of scholars on a reference in the Bijayagadh Stone Pillar Inscription that Yasodharman was "the Varika" - but nowhere are we given proof or even any good evidence that "Varika" = "Virk".

Even if it can be shown that Yasodharma was a Virk - there is no proof that he was also a Jat - as is eveidenced by the very confusing statement at the beginning of the poorly-written article on the Virks: "Virk (Hindi: (विर्क), Punjabi: ਵਿਰਕ) is a Jat gotra or clan.(the use of words :jats,rajputs,brahman,khattris,baniyas etc is evolutionary in the sense no strict line were drawn initialy and came up to solve the ethnographic puzzle which india had become after vedic times and (is!! still!!)was more related to the families occupation,and resulted in good level of racial difference as well as mixture,with a kernel of the original people and a infusion of people from the new comers in every caste at various periods in history.)" What sense I can make out of this verbal mess is that the Virks were a group of people of mixed background - and it is impossible to say that they were Jats, Rajputs, Brahmans or whatever.

Anyway - I don't want to get drawn again into interminable silly and ugly arguments with various fanatics who seem to have little regard for the truth and have regularly misrepresented and even directly misquoted a large variety of sources here in the Wikipedia (see the Archives of the Jat people and Indo-Aryan origin of Jats, for just a few of these pointless and frequently dishonest arguments.

Many of these articles should, I believe, be joined together and properly cross-referenced - at the moment there are too many articles and they are very difficult to find and they contain mountains of misleading and false information. And, seriously, with all due respect, does the Wikipedia really need so many separate articles on Jats, with so much duplication?

Among the articles which need to be consider shortening, combining or deleting are the following:

And these are just the easy articles to find - there are many, many more dealing with bits of the same material.

Finally, there are separate articles on all these various subgroups (and probably others) which are all claimed to be Jats:

With all due respect, do we really need so many separate articles on Jats in the Wikipedia? I hope someone can bring some sense and order into this morass of poorly-written material - much of it duplicated time and again, and much of it of very doubtful authenticity. This sort of misuse of the Wikipedia - mainly the result of a few disreputable abusers of this forum - people who time and again have been caught out misrepresenting the truth, will surely just lead to scorn and bring Jat people in general (undeservedly) a very bad name as braggarts and liars and make them a laughing-stock.

Please, editors - put a stop to this nonsense - it has really gone too far and for far too long. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello John, your dedication to this article is amazing. I am impressed, if you could come to Punjab and be my guest, i would serve you strong homemade country liqueur prepared by my own hands, better than scotch anytime. But dear you have got many facts wrong in this beautifully written article. It is ok, and i am not offended (i am a Jat). Soorma
I agree with Soorma that this Jat people article is a beautifully written article. With the help of many good editors, over the last 12 months, this article has become excellent addition to Wikipedia. Most of the Jat Sub-group information is correct when I have verified with western and Indian academic sources.--James smith2 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jats

All the data on Jats is wrong. the majority of Jats live in Haryanma over 8 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This troll (65.88.88.153) you can see from his talk page (65.88.88.153 talk) he has been warned many times but he still continues to troll. You have been warned many times on your talk page DO NOT troll. Moreoever, stop lieing your IP address is from the U.S. from New York Library and this has been confirmed on your talk page (65.88.88.153 talk). My advise to everyone please do NOT feed this troll or any other trolls that come here.--James smith2 (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racist Trolls -Admins please do some hard policing against trolls

I agree with Soorma that this Jat people article is a beautifully written article. With the help of many good editors, over the last 12 months, this article has become excellent addition to Wikipedia. Most of the Jat Sub-group information is correct when I have verified with western and Indian academic sources. However, the REAL problem with this article is it attracts a lot of TROLLS who come on here and make accusations that "this wrong and that is wrong" without any references, just their opinion (POV). POV is not allowed on Wikipedia. If someone went on the Jewish people article and said "the holocaust never happened and the scholars who say the holocaust happened are lying" they would be banned on the stop by the administrators. In short, troll racism by trolls on the Jewish people article would not be tolerated. Why is the troll racism against Jat people being tolerated on this article? Why are racist troll attacks on this talk page against Jat people tolerated? In short I want administrators to clamp down hard on troll racism against Jat people. And to all respectable long time wikipedians to follow the GOLDEN RULE when dealing with TROLLS = DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

How to spot a troll

Please do not feed the trolls.
Please do not feed the trolls.
  • Rule 1. A troll will normally come the talk page and say "I think this wrong and that is wrong" WITHOUT references to back up their Opinion. They are mostly Anon ips or newly created troll/vandal accounts.

How should admins deal with trolls:

  • They should say to the troll "where is your references?". Trolls usually just have POV (POV which is not allowed on Wikipedia) and no evidence/references just "I think".
  • "I think" (without references) = POV, this not allowed on Wikipedia. Admins should show this type of behaviour no mercy and block on the spot or give a good hard warning and if the troll/vandal persists then block.
  • To all long time wikipedians - simple Wikipedia rule to deal with trolls = DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

--James smith2 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)