Talk:Origin of the Jat people

message: This article is full of historically questionable "facts" including statements such as: "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC" - which, according to discussions of this claim (which can be accessed in the Jat discussion page archives), is a date based on the astrological computations for the death of the god Krishna - not historical evidence. It also contains a reference to a Dr. Natthan Singh who, apparently, talks about "pure Aryans", whatever that is supposed to mean (see article on Aryan for discussion of racial theories involving "Aryans"). John Hill 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of article questioned

message: I have replaced the disputed tag and would ask people not to remove it until the disputes mentioned above are resolved. Just saying here is no dispute will not make it go away. John Hill 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced disputed tag

message: Shree Burdak has taken it upon himself to remove the disputed tag again. This is not justified as there are many claims made in this article which have been previously questioned as to accuracy on other pages - and never been satisfactorily answered. For example: the claim that "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC." Another example involves the use of the term "pure Aryan" - a term with no real meaning and with offensive overtones to many people. John Hill 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced Disputed tag again

message: Putting dispute tag every where shows that you are biased and all the time bring 3102 BC which has no correlation with this article. Your contribution regarding content is nil but showing as if an expert. Pure Aryan has been written by the author quoted there. How can you challenge an author without any content with you. I have started doubting your intentions. Every where you try to bring Shudra which shows your biased against Jats. If you want to moderate you have to bring some source but not by your thinking it should be changed. If not Aryan then you have to bring what you think otherwise. So I remove dispute tag burdak 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You are biased John Hill

message: You have still to answer the many criticisms I have raised up to now so I am reinserting the "dispute tag." There is no use trying to hide the fact that you have promoted the date 3102 BCE as a "fact" earlier - both on this page and others - and what about all the other issues I have brought up? You have not attempted to address most of them - you just ignore them. The only reason I have ever mentioned Shudras on this page is that they were mentioned by people who have been misquoted or had THEIR quote(s) distorted on this page and THEIR references to Shudras ignored. 
How can you possibly maintain that 3102 BC "has no correlation to this article" when in the article it clearly states: "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC."? Oh, and while you are at it, please explain to us all what exactly you mean by "pure Aryan." I have certainly started doubting your intentions. John Hill 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You are still promoting falsehoods and speculations Mr. Burdak

message: 3102 BC is being used by the Indian Historians. Wherever I have used it I have put references of it. So it is not my original research. If you want to go deep there is literature available and you can go through it. As regards -"On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC" has been sufficiently explained. These were the words of Jat historian Dr Natthan Singh. I had put reference of him and that makes any doubts clear. The author is responsible how he arrived at it. You are not ready to accept it. Then you must have other counter evidences with you,  then produce it. I am not denying it. I will accept. Pure Aryan are those who strictly obey the vedic traditions. Again this word has been used by the authors I quoted. I do not put any content on Wikipedia without references. You are not clear about the points of dispute. I doubt if any body can clear these doubts by only putting dispute tag. A section or a para may be under dispute but not the entire page. When you do not have the counter evidence or reference where is dispute? Dispute means there are contradictory facts. Now Jat page mentions that Jats are from Indo-Aryan as well as part of them are from Scythian as the authors are divided on this subject. It does not mean that entire Jat people are disputed. If there are more than  one theory we have to bring both. In social group there can not be only one absolute truth. You have to accept or prove otherwise. 
Your heading "promoting falsehoods and speculations" used for me,  I consider it in a bad test and loss of balance. I expect you to observe Wiki norms !!!
burdak 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you always avoid answering the questions Burdak? What Im confused about, is that despite knowing there is no such thing as a defined "Aryan physical type" (thanks to Max Mueller who fully researched them) then how have you come to define us arew pure Aryans? What if we are Pure Indians? Whats wrong with that? Why are you hell bent on proving us to be non Indian, Norwegian, Germanic and kings? Why cant we be straight forward peaceful agriculturists or straight forward Indians? On other pages you are alleging we are Scythians, Kushans, etc then you say we came into India 3102 BC? You are very confused young man--Mein hoon don 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Mr John Hill: observe Wiki norms

message: Apparently you have either not read my replies - or just choose to ignore them. I have discussed the reasons why 3102 BCE for the date of Krishna cannot be accepted as an "historical fact" in detail several times already. 
The date of 3102 BCE as the date for Krishna's death is, as you have said yourself, based on "scriptural sources," "Hindu cosmology," and "astrological evidence." These will hardly be accepted as sufficient evidence of an "historical fact" by most people. Most people, other than believing fundamentalist Hindus, would see this date as legendary only. 
Why should "the words of Jat historian Dr Natthan Singh", who you refer to, make "any doubts clear"? What new evidence does he bring to this discussion? Are we to be expected to just accept his words as the Truth? 
It is clear that you seem to have a very different idea than myself as as to what "evidence" means. 
When I pointed out that the statement in the article supposedly from Xuanzang (Hieun Tsang) was false - there were only two references given - to the translations by Beal and Watters, and neither them, nor the most recent translation by Li makes any reference to Jats. 
The statement in the article clearly says: "In the seventh century the Chinese traveler Hieun Tsang witnessed their [that is, Jats] settlement along the flat marshy lowlands which streches to some thousand li." There is no absolutely evidence I have seen either in Xuanzang or elsewhere that shows that the families he saw along the Sindh were, in fact, Jats. They could have been any tribe herding cattle in that region - they might have been Jats - they might not - some of them might have been Jats, while the others belonged to different groups - I don't believe there is any way of telling. Now, after I raised this problem, you inserted a note saying that Dr S.Jabir Raza says they were Jats and, because of this you seem to think we should just accept as unquestionable fact that they were Jats. What, Mr. Burdak, is his evidence?
Finally, you claim that "Pure Aryan are those who strictly obey the vedic traditions." Are you now claiming that "Aryan" does not refer necessarily to a racial or linguistic division, but purely a religious one? Does this mean that if someone else, let us say an ethnic Japanese person (for the sake of argument) becomes a Hindu and "strictly obeys the vedic traditions" that they are to be considered as "pure Aryan"? Please inform us - as, if this is so, I am sure there are many like myself who will need to reexamine what they conceive of as "Aryan," and the page on Aryan in the Wikipedia will need to be rewritten.
So far I have seen nothing to sway me from my view that you have been promoting unproved (and, often, I believe, unprovable) speculations on these pages. I will, however, withdraw the word "falsehoods" with apologies, as you obviously believe some of the (to me) fantastic claims you have been making - I keep forgetting that some people may actually believe things like "thirty million monstrous fiends" attacked Mathura, or that a combination of information from scriptural sources and astrology will provide one with reliable dates. Sincerely, John Hill 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Reply to Mr. Burdak

message: I have added a "bias" tag to this article as I believe it contains a number of biased and unsupportable claims - many of an elitist, divisive and racist nature; some of them may be hurtful to other communal or ethnic groups. Some seem to be mere speculations, others are derived from religious or traditional points of view, and are unsupportable with historical evidence, but are presented as factual in the article. Many of the references are clearly biased and questionable and are often from difficult-to-obtain sources or Jat authors promoting a one-sided view of Jat history.  Here are some examples from the article of claims which I think are unwarranted in a Wikipedia article and should be checked by a neutral person or persons before they are left in the encyclopedia:
1."Dr Natthan Singh writes that Jats were the pure Aryans and their original homeland was Sapta Sindhu."
2. "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC." 
3. "They had to migrate from India on economic, social and political reasons for some period but they returned back to India. In the migration also they did not leave their language and cultural traditions. Due to this reason only Jats do not have linguistic or physical similarities with Huns and Scythians."
4. "They had to migrate from India on economic, social and political reasons for some period but they returned back to India. In the migration also they did not leave their language and cultural traditions. Due to this reason only Jats do not have linguistic or physical similarities with Huns and Scythians."
5. "The Jats has been declared by all eminent authorities, to pass successfully the combined test of the physical type and language of true Aryan."
6. "Dr. Trump and Beams very strongly claimed a pure Indo-Aryan descent for Jats both in consideration of their physical type and language, which has been authoritatively pronounced as a pure dialect of Hindi, without slightest trace of Scythian."
7. "Lastly we have to speak about the Jats. Their ethnological characteristics also we have already seen, are clearly Aryans. They are fair tall high nosed and long headed. Does their history contradict of their being Aryans ? ….. They are the purest Aryans in India and belong to the first race of Aryans invaders according to our view the solar race of Aryans. …There is not a scrap of historical evidence even to suggest much less to prove such immigration there is neither foreign mention of their coming into India nor have they any tradition of their own sometime coming into India nor is there any historical India record stone inscription or other of their so coming, and we can only ascribe such theories to that unaccountable bias of the winds of many European and native scholars to assign a foreign and Scythic origin to every fine and energetic caste in India." 
8. "E.B.Havell writes based on physical features and the language that Ethnographic investigations show that the Indo Aryan type described in Hindu epic a tall fair complexioned long headed race with narrow prominent noses broad shoulders long arms thin waists like a lion and legs like a deer is how (as it was in the earliest) most confined to Kashmir the Punjab and Rajputana and represented by the Khattris, Jats and Rajputs."
That should provide enough examples to show why I am so concerned about this article, There should be no need to explain why I find them questionable at best. John Hill 08:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias tag entered

message: A long period has been passed after putting the dispute and bias tags. There has been no attempt by any body to add or improve or comment which shows that there is a bias in putting these tags. It is now suggested to remove these tags. Thanks, --burdak 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove dispute and bias tags 

message: Please do not remove bias and dispute tags until at least the instances of bias and dispute I have raised in my last note have been answered. Until these are resolved the tags should remain. Mere passage of time does not remove bias. John Hill 05:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not remove bias and dispute tags

message: While I was pleased to see that Mr. Burdak has finally made some effort to qualify the claimed date of 3102 BCE for the presence of Jats in India, I still believe it needs further qualifications. It needs to be made quite clear that this claim, as he has stated earlier, is based on some calculations (made with the help of astrology applied to the account of the Mahabharata) on the date of the death of the god Krishna who, in turn, is supposed to be an ancestor of the Jats - which, I suggest, is a very suspect and uncertain way of trying to establish historical dates. 
Now, to discuss some of the many other reasons why I think this article needs to be totally rewritten:
I think it is clear that we need a workable definition of what an "Indo-Aryan" person is. Mr. Burdak replied to a question of mine some time ago about who he thought the so-called "pure Aryans" were. He replied: "Pure Aryan are those who strictly obey the vedic traditions."
As it is impossible for us to know who in the past strictly obeyed Vedic traditions, this definition is useless for historical research purposes. However, as we all know, many Jats converted to Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and the Sikh religion. So, by Mr. Burdak's definition, many if not most Jats could not be described as "pure Aryans." 
I would suggest that in future we use the definition given the Wikipedia article on Indo-Aryans: "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." What do other readers think of this suggestion?
However, this article contains far more serious and, indeed, sinister racist messages. It seems to be promoting a creed of Aryan superiority and tries to promote Jats as the "purest of Aryans."
It is claimed that: "The Jats has been declared by all eminent authorities, to pass successfully the combined test of the physical type and language of true Aryan.” [19] Thus science may be said to have succeded fairly well in establishin the Indo-aryan origin of Jats. [33]" 
They are claimed to be "the purest Aryans in India". The term "pure Aryan" is repeated in the article no less than four times; "pure Indo-Aryan" twice; "true Aryan" twice; "true representatives of the Vedic Aryans. [15]"; it is claimed twice that Jats speak a "pure dialect of Hindi" (whatever that is supposed to mean); that they belong to "the solar race of Aryans"; that they are (along with Rajputs) "true representatives of the Vedic Aryans"; "undoubtedly pure Aryans"; that "Jat is definitely a tribe of Aryan race." And so on and on, ad nauseum.
At the end of the article we are treated to some studies made more than 100 years ago of the Cephalic index on various Indian castes. The Cephalic index is no longer considered to be a very reliable way of measuring race - see, for example, the discussion and references in the Wikipedia article on Cephalic index. Furthermore, Risley didn't even compare these skulls (which he was so happy to endow racial characteristics upon) with ancient specimens. He only compared Jats with some other modern groups and found they had a lower "nasal Index". So what? 
The totally unscientific approach to this "evidence" in this article may be judged by the words used by Mr. Burdak (taken second-hand, apparently, from a book by one Atal Singh Khokhar) that: "Sir Herbert Risley as Head of Department of Anthropology in 1901 proved that if we prepare the nasal Index of communities from Bengal, Bihar ,Uttar Pradesh and Punjab then that with least nasal Index would be the most honoured. Jats have the least nasal Index of 63.1, which is the Indicator of the most honoured one."
Now, who in this day and age could take seriously a claim that the communities with the "least nasal Index would be the most honoured"? Honoured by whom, and for what reason?
Enough of this ancient pseudo-science!
Unless someone can come up with a good reason for retaining this quote within the next few days - I will delete it. John Hill 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The reasons for the bias and dispute tags - racism and pseudo-science

message: If you treat a well published study by an English authority of British India as Pseudo Science, who on earth can convince you. If you have better study with you provide here. Or simply you are here to find fault or personal attacks.
Your comment about a Hindi author of repute "taken second-hand from a book by one Atal Singh Khokhar" shows your approach towards Hindi authors. This is a racial discrimination. When something has to be quoted it has to be quoted as author writes and not as you or I wish. I would have appreciated you if before commenting you would have collected some material or read that book. You can comment it second hand without going through it!!
You said on Jat people page "What total rubbish! What a total waste of all our time!" Is it in the right tone ? Who tells you to waste time. You have come to Wikipedia and this page on your own. Either add fruitful content to the article if you have with you or you can leave it. Every body  can write here. How can you abuse them.
Wikipedia is not supposed to provide original research. I provide the reference of author and that is enough. I am not accountable to you. You are behaving as an administrator which you are not. Before arguing gain some knowledge. Otherwise all your arguments are hollow.
Jats are ancient people and science has to be ancient to prove it. If not Aryan prove another theory. Who stops you.
The tone of your note is that of threatening. You have nothing to add. You are all the time bent upon deleting. It amounts to vandalism.
burdak 05:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re To Mr John Hill

message: And what is Banaras Hindu University? Is it on par with Oxford School for Oriental Studies? Please do not make us Jatts look like the laughing stock of wikipedia. Please do use credible sources. Mr Burdak and co., it is all very fine being proud of our Jatt history, but please tell it as it is. We have nothing to hide. Jai Balwan, Jai Kisan should be our motto.--Sikh-history 09:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maheswari Prasad of Banaras Hindu University is clearly a historian from Banaras Hindu University. He has written good articles on Jats. It is your POV if you do not relish Indian historians. But if some author publishes good and positive matter it should be given here. It is not against any policy of Wikipedia. Is there any binding to provide content from Oxford School for Oriental Studies only? I do not run any company as you have put Burdak and Co. Please behave properly. --burdak 09:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Maheswari Prasad of Banaras Hindu University?

message: This article seems to be based on unproven racial assertions stating and/or implying racial superiority (see caption on photo: "A typical Jat chaupal undoubtedly pure Aryans"). See also the pseudo-scientific 19th century study by Risley which finds that those : ". . . with least nasal Index would be the most honoured. Jats have the least nasal Index . . .". Finally, the article contains overblown, generalised and probably false statements such as: "Thus, the Jat has been declared by all eminent authorities, to pass successfully the combined test of physical type, ethnology and language of a true Aryan."  03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and renamed it.  I will leave it up to the people involved to include other views in the article.  Isaac Pankonin 09:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: ''Indo-Aryan origin of Jats''

message: Someone s putting Jat  History related articles up for deletion.
Is it possible to know who has done this, and what their reasons are?
Ravi Chaudhary  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've heard you can find out a lot about people by measuring their noses. Lurker (said · done) 09:47, 11 September 2007 
(UTC)
Dear Lurker, 
I am sure you mean well.
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.
Ravi Chaudhary 14:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DELETION OF JAT HISTORY RELATED ARTICLES. 

message: Mr. Chaudhary asks who is putting up some of the Jat related pages for deletion and why. Well, I am the one who has been doing it - and the reasons why I have done so are easy to find. 
Of course, it is not me who is deleting the articles. I just put them up for consideration and, seeing that two of the articles have been recently deleted, it is clear that the editors and administrators agree with my position that they were not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. 
This page, too, needs serious and extensive editing to make it a worthy article. Have a look at the ridiculous racist caption under the photo of Jats on this page ("A typical Jat chaupal undoubtedly pure Aryans") and the quoting of Risley's risible pseudoscience, not to mention the ridiculous claims that: "Sir Herbert Risley as Head of Department of Anthropology in 1901 proved that if we prepare the nasal Index of communities from Bengal, Bihar ,Uttar Pradesh and Punjab then that with least nasal Index would be the most honoured." (bold added by myself).
There is much, much more of similar bias and POV that has been exposed in the Discussion pages of this article, and the article on Jat people - much of it similarly racist and elitist. In addition, there have been a large number of false claims and references, personal attacks and threats made - many of which have been exposed in the Discussion pages. Need I say more? John Hill 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making that clear, Lurker. I nominated the earlier two articles for deletion and you did the same for this one. John Hill 10:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to "Deletion of Jat history related articles"

message: Now the objective of John Hill is becoming clear. It seems it is a prestige point for him to some how delete the Jat related articles. His intention seems not to improve these articles because he does not have any content with him. It is clear from above comment and discussions on Jat people and allied articles that John Hill is simply biased. He again and again writes against speculations and legends in history. History has some content of speculation and legend. What is legend today can become a scientific fact tomorrow. At least Indian history is not a science. I do not know of which history John Hill is talking which is a pure science. We would like to see some of his history contributions based on science. Kindly provide those links. The articles on Jats 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 a balanced and complete article. So instead of deleting we should expand it. --burdak 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to  expand not to delete 

message: Now that this article , has not been deleted, let us concentrate on improving it.
1) A structure must be agreed upon. The current structure to me looks reasonable.
2) The various theories of origin , should be given their place and space. References should be cited, wherever possible.
3) I will suggest that major changes should be discused on the discussion pages, first.
It may also be noted, that Jat History studies are a comparatively new  field.
To keep matters in perspective and some balance, readers and  researchers, should keep in mind, that  the History of the Jats, has either been suppressed, ignored or as is often the case,  allocated to other groups,and what little is written, has been presented in a denigratory manner in Indian History text books.
A cursory review of Indian history Texts books will show that, and will also show the prejudice and bias against the Jat people.
In the words of  RC Majumdar, a renowned Historian and one the major editors of the excellent and  monumental work’  The History and Culture of the Indian People’, circa 1950, Bal Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, New York, writes in  Volume III, The Classical Age :
"If there had been a history of India written without prejudices and predilections, the heroic deeds of these brave people, the Jats, who stemmed the tide of Islam for two centuries, would certainly have received the recognition they so richly deserve"
It is only comparatively recently, 1935 on that some books and article about the history of the Jats came out, and then in only in the last 30 odd years, that momentum has developed in the study of the History of these people.
As such much of the material now coming out, is contradictory to the ‘line’ that had been sold to the history students of yore.
Best regards
Ravi Chaudhary  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPROVING THE ARTICLE 

message: The wild over-statements of the recent additions (eg. "Most Western scholars . . . believe that the Jats are Indo-Scythians from Central Asia" (when many of their statements are carefully qualified) is reason enough for this whole mess to be revised carefully by someone with knowledge of how to use scholarly sources responsibly. Please see the Archives for further reasons for my adding tags to the article today.John Hill (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Well we can replace  "Most Western scholars" for "Some Scholars". However, it is a fact that most academics view Jats as Indo-Scythians NOT Indo-Aryans as some have been pushing.--Trv93 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, thanks John for your kind note on my talk page. Best regards.--Trv93 (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Dear Trv93: Thanks for changing the statement "Most Western scholars" to "Some Scholars" - it reads much better now. I still think this page would be improved if it just included a brief summary of the various theories and a clear statement that our knowledge is still very limited and that Jats, like other human groups, are undoubtedly of mixed ancestry, although DNA studies may well show a closer affinity with some groups than others. "Scythians," too, were made up of various ethnic groupings. I am especially uneasy about the term "Indo-Scythian" as it was never used by any group to describe themselves but was, rather, created by scholars and has led to much confusion. For example, the Kushans have often been called "Indo-Scythians" but there is no real proof as to what their ancestry was - they may not have been "Scythians" at all. This is still a subject of intense debate among modern writers. Many scholars now feel that the Yuezhi may have been, like their neighbours, the Xiongnu, a confederation of various tribes of both "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" heritage and possibly containing more than one language group. It is also not clear whether the Kushans were primarily descended from the Yuezhi or from peoples who were already in the region of northern Afghanistan when the Yuezhi invaded in the 2nd century BCE. So, to work out the origins of the Jats is likely to be a very difficult and complex job, and it will be particularly difficult to do it fairly and without upsetting too many people. I wish you the very best of luck with improving the article. I do look forward to a much better and more balanced presentation. Thank you for attempting this important work. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See the Archives

message: Hi, thanks for your kind words. I've improved the article, added cites and hopefully we can one day get this article to Wikipedia:Featured articles standard. Yes I agree with you Jat people are an ethnic group of mixed genetic components, the two biggest being Scythian and Aryan. However, hopefully with the invention of DNA analysis scientists can solve the question once and for all. The real question is "what mixture of genetics Jat people are?" 70% Scythian + 30% Aryan or 70% Aryan and 30% Scythian. Which component is the dominant (major/minor) ancestral genetic component? On the Scythian people I agree there were many Scythian sub-tribes just like in Germany there were many Germanic tribes in the German people. Hopefully, in the next 10 years with the DNA studies, which are planned over the next 10 years, this question will be solved once and for all and we can then move onto a new question. Stay well, Best regards.--Trv93 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for your kind words

message: This article was apparently written (or disturbed) by editors with no notion of the terminology involved.
The question of "Aryan" in 19th century scientific racism is conflated with the question of Indo-Scythian admixture. Of course, the Scythians are just as "Aryan" as the Rajputs, so the question is really moot. 
This article needs to separate the "Aryans" stuff in a section on Historical definitions of races in India, and rely on recent literature for the question of Indo-Scythian origin. dab (𒁳) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I will do a cleanup and will begin to separate the "Aryans" stuff and rely on recent literature for the question of Indo-Scythian origin.--Peter johnson4 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Indo-Scythian" vs. "Indo-Aryan"

message: I have just been through the article removing the proliferation of academic titles as per the "Wikipedia Manual of Style" - see: . Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed titles as per Wikipedia Manual of Style