Talk:Jats/Archive 2

message: Every history book I have read describes these three states as Sikh Kingdoms, so what are they doing here? They were not like the other wholly Jat Kingdoms. People like Arminder Singh are testimony to this. Any comments? Preceding comment unsigned by 82.36.147.99
:Back up your  with citations. I've removed them, but you're welcome to place them again SHOULD you find citations. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patiala, Nabha and Jind

message: Hi,
see refrences: History of the Sikh  Misals by Bhagat Singh (Punjabi University, Patiala). SN Banerjee - A History of Patiala. Tazkirah-i-Phulkian - Bute Shah. Lepel Griffin - Raja's of Punjab. Tawarikh Guru Khalsa Part 2 Gian Singh. Some points to note:
1) Patial (Nabha and Jind) -THe Phulkians - were identified as one of the Sikh Misals.
2) As a Misal they followed Gurmatta or the meeting of Sikh Misal's that conveyed at Amritsar.
3) Sikh Misal's like the Ahluwalia helped defend the Phulkian's often.
4) The citation used to back up the article are spurious.
5) The fighting forcs of the Phulkian was not Jat in content but contained, Kalal, Tarkhan, Rajput, Julahai, Mazbhai's (all Sikh's).
6) The present day ancestors of these states are intertwined in Sikh politics. Captain Arminder Singh an example.
7) Guru Hargobind (Sikh Guru) - helped form the states by giving patronage and protection to Mohan (one of the first ancestor's of the Patiala state) against hostile Bhatti Rajputs.. It would not have been formed other wise. Mohan fought at Meharaj with Guru Hargobind (as a loyal Sikh), against the Mughal's.
8) Loyalty to the 10th Sikh Guru expressed in a Hukamnama (Edict) - HUkamname - Ganda Singh.
I can cite many other reasons and sources, but I move that these are NOT Jat Kingdom's but solely Sikh one's due to formation, charachter and custom. These should be moved to Sikh section.--Sikh-history 07:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: I am disturbed that so many comments are being moved so quickly to the archives. Is there a good reason for this? Several notes I wrote included questions which were never answered before they were relegated to the archives. How can one have a full and open debate when this is going on? John Hill 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is true this article is pure POV and the refrences used are dubious. There is no discussion going on. --Sikh-history 07:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship?

message: John hill suggests that Jats have been mixing for a long time;however is it not totally correct.Recent evidence suggest there has been a separation in groups in recent times,for instance .So it more likely Jats where mixed in ancient times and less so now.In fact Jats at the ethnic level are quite mixed ,however each clan may have its own history .I'll include the uzbek link in the main page.Here's a quote from the paper.
'In conclusion, our results show that, although people from the same lineage and clan share generally a recent common ancestor, no such common ancestry is observed at the tribal level, which is likely to be socially constructed. Further studies of other traditional societies are needed to evaluate the extent to which the pattern observed in Central Asia can be extrapolated to other world regions. In any case, our study demonstrates that the resolution of modern genetic markers allows us to make historical investigations at the scale of kinship groups and to practice a kind of “ethnogenetics.” It explores the roots of the descent groups in patrilineal populations and reveals the mythical nature of the genealogical links between people of a tribe and their claimed ancestor. As anthropologist Lawrence Krader pointed out, “genealogy is at once ideology and history” (Krader 1963a, p. 157).' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaspajat (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jats Race 

message: I notice a fanciful modern image of Ashoka has been added to the article, implying that Ashoka was a Jat. In fact, this hypothesis rests on very little (if any) real evidence. 
There are a number of speculations as to the background of Ashoka's famous grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya, but claimed connections with the Jats seems to be based solely on unverifiable statements made by Jat "historians" on the basis of a claimed quote from the Buddhist history, the Mahavamsa: "Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata", supposedly taken from p. 27 of Geiger's translation of that book. 
Some time ago I specifically queried this quote on this Talk page as I could not find it anywhere in Geiger's translation (see Archives), or in the original Pali. To date, I have never had this query answered so, until the evidence is given, one must assume that this quote is suspect, and cannot be taken seriously. If someone could please find the supposed quote in the Mahavamsa and provide me with the appropriate references I would be very grateful. 
Although there does not seem to be any firm historical evidence regarding the ethnicity of the Mauryas, legends state that Ashoka's mother was the daughter of a poor Brahmin (see the Wikipedia entry on Ashoka).
Until good evidence is supplied from recognised historical sources, the claim that Ashoka (or, indeed, any of the Mauryas) was a Jat should be withdrawn and removed from the Wikipedia. John Hill 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Ashoka really a Jat?

message: Dear "DrBrij": I see you are new to the Wikipedia and haven't yet set up your user page or made any previous entries. Therefore, you may not have been keeping up with all the discussions on this subject so far. What the Mahavamsa states is that Chandragupta was a Moriya - or, as the name is now is generally written in English, Maurya. I have been well aware of this text for several decades - there is nothing new in this. Please note my mention of this above and stop rudely insinuating that I "didn't do a good search" and might not be a good researcher.
But you also wrote earlier:
Some time ago I specifically queried this quote on this Talk page as I could not find it anywhere in Geiger's translation (see Archives), or in the original Pali. To date, I have never had this query answered so, until the evidence is given, one must assume that this quote is suspect, and cannot be taken seriously. If someone could please find the supposed quote in the Mahavamsa and provide me with the appropriate references I would be very grateful.
Which is it, John Hill? First you write that you couldn't find that quote anywhere, and now you claim that you have been aware of this quote for decades! 
Mahavamsa states that Changragupt was a warrior (Khattiya) from Jats (jatah). The use of jatah for Jats occurs over and over in Indian history - from the Rgved to the reference to King Harshavardhan as "younger lord of the Jats" (jatahnam anujesvar).
I would suggest you do a bit of research yourself. You could start by having a look at the Wikipedia article on Chandragupta Maurya which says: "The ancestry of Chandragupta is still shrouded in mystery and not known for certain.[7] There are divergent views regarding the origin, and each view has its own set of adherents." If you would like more details, check out some of the many conflicting theories on the Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya page.
I would also suggest you have a look at the various claims and counter-claims and accusations of fraud on the Talk page connected with the Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya page to see just how divergent these views are - and how shaky the evidence is for many of the the claims.
The simple fact is that no one really knows who the Mauryas were, although some people seem to have already made their minds up on this subject, for whatever reasons, in spite of the lack of evidence. Sincerely, John Hill 08:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No convincing proof of the Mauryas' ancestry exists

message: Mr. Chaudhary: When are you going to start answering questions rather than trying to avoid them, changing the subject and trying to distract people with nonsense, smokescreens and chaff? And, by the way, why are you answering for "DrBrij"? He may be upset with you as you seem to have made real distortions of what he actually said.
As you know, the Mahavamsa was written in Pāli and "Candagutta" is simply the Pāli form of the name usually given today as "Chandragupta." That the "Candagutta" in the Mahavamsa is the same person commonly referred to as Chandragupta is made crystal clear by the text of the Mahavamsa as it lists Bindusara as one of Candagutta's sons, and then states that Aśoka was a son of Candagutta (or Chandagutta, if you prefer). 
Besides, "DrBrij", in his only note so far, actually refers to a "Changragupt" (sic) as "Candagutta". So, what is your point?
This sort of underhanded and pointless attack on the quality of my scholarship (once again!) is really a waste of time and energy and only proves how angry and deceitful you must be. I believe that now, more than ever, you owe me an apology. Until I get one I have nothing more to say to you. John Hill 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Mr. Chaudhary - and another request for an apology

message: Would any fair-minded, reasonable Jats out there please help stop excessive claims on this page? The constant self-inflating claims being made here can only serve to bring ridicule upon Jats in general, which is not fair to other Jats. I am getting tired of having to counter the many overblown accounts of Jats and Jat history on this page. This sort of self-criticism should, I believe, be done by Jats themselves - Jats who would like to see a fair and honest portrayal of their people and their history, not a propagandistic rant on racial or communal superiority. 
The most recent example is a section on "Character" inserted by someone who hasn't given their name or contact details. I will delete it from the article as I don't believe much of it can be substantiated - but I will include it below with the generalizations and inflated, boastful-sounding language put into italics so that other readers can decide for themselves whether such a paragraph deserves to be in what is a supposedly neutral and fair account of the Jats. If you think I have been unfair, please let me know. Here is the paragraph I have removed (italics mine):
:Overall, the Jats have a very good self image. Jats are thoroughly independent in character, and assert personal and individual freedom, as against communal or tribal control, more strongly than any other people. They are very brave and hardworking and are filled with determination and pride. Jats usually have light brown skin, dark eyes(although light eyes are not uncommon) and dark hair. 
Please don't get me wrong - there is no doubt that many Jats are strong individualists and are very hardworking and proud. But certainly ALL Jats don't share these qualities - and how can one fairly compare such characteristics with those of other groups of people? This smacks of racial prejudice to me and raises questions about the character of the author. John Hill 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Character

message: *Ashoka's famous grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya,  has been claimed Jat on the talk page of Chandragupta Maurya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chandragupta_Maurya, you may see it. I tried to find more evidences and I find that other sources also mention this fact. These facts are: 
 
*According to Ram Swarup Joon Mauryans being Jats, were denigerated by Brahmans to show their cotempt. according to him, Infact Maurya was not a caste but it was a gotra of Jats which is still found in Jats. The existence of Khoye Maurya gotra in Jats proves that Mauryans were Jats. Gupta was a title of Chandragupta Maurya and not the caste, as has been proved  in the history of Chandragupta Maurya. He was a warrior of Jat caste. 
* Gupta is degenerated form of Gapt, which is generally considered to be a corruption of Gaut. (See-Gaut)
*Mor, Maurya, Maurana are Jat gotras of very old standing. Hence the rule of this dynasty has been given a high place in history of Jats.
* The Jat historian Bhim Singh Dahiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity (Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133) in 1979 Dehiya on the Jat Iranic identity of Mauryas:History of Iranand a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers (Jats the Ancient rulers, Dahinam Publishers, Sonipat, Haryana, by B. S. Dahiya I.R.S.) in 1982, wherein he concludes that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were Jat of Scythian or Indo-Scythian origin. It is claimed that the Jats still have Maur or Maud as one of their clan name.
*This view may become creditable only if it is accepted that the Jatts evolved from the Madras, Kekayas, Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas of the north-west borderlands of ancient Indian sub-continent. This is because king Ashoka's own Inscriptions refer only to the Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas as the most important people of his north-west frontiers during third century BCE.  See: Rock Edict No 5  and Rock Edict No 13  ( Shahbazgarhi version). These are also gotras found in Jats.
*The view of Bhim Singh Dahiya that the Mauryas were Jat is supported from the fact that Khoye Maurya is clan of Jats found in Uttar Pradesh, India. The meaning of 'Khoye Maurya' is the 'lost Maurya' in Hindi language. The Khoye Maurya clan is not found in Rajputs. Moreover Madraks, Joon(Yona) and Gandharas are clans found in Jats.
* The Buddhist traditions preserved in Mahavamsa describes Chandragupta as coming of Kshatriya clan of Maurya: Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata (Geiger Trans p 27). It means "Mauryas are Kshatriyas of Jat clan".
* A K Mittal in 'Political and Cultural history of India', page 126, 'Rahul Sankrityan' in 'Bauddha darshan', page 19 and Dr Atul Singh Khokhar in 'Jāton kī utpati evaṃ vistār (Jart tarangiṇī)(Origin and expansion of Jats), page 113, have mentioned with reference to Mahavansha and 'tatva prakashini' that Mauryas are kshatriyas belonging to Jat vansha.
* Dr Atal Singh Khokhar further writes, in 'Jāton kī utpati evaṃ vistār (Jart tarangiṇī)(Origin and expansion of Jats), at page 139 of the above book that Chandragupta Maurya has been mentioned in 'divyadān' as under in sanskrit:-
: Moriyānaṃ khattīyānaṃ vaṃse jātaṃ sirīḍaraṃ chandraguttoti pañcata cāṇakyo brāhmaṇo tato navamaṃ dhanantaṃ ghātetvā caṇdakodhasā saṃkale jambūdvīāriha rajja sammisincisī 
:Meaning - Chandragupta, born un Maurya kshatriya vansha, killed nine Nandas with the help of Chanakya and established his rule in entire Jambudvipa.
*In the above sanskrit text it has been mentioned as chandragutt. Bhim Singh Dahiya has brought out to the layman reader, that Chandragupta Maurya, the Kushans, the second Guptas, and Harshavardhana were Jats. He showed how the G letter was a substitution for the J sound, as the J letter did not exist in the ancient Greek alphabet. The significance was in determining who the Guti were.  According to Bhim Singh Dahiya by applying Grimm's law Guti becomes Juti or Jati or Jat.
 
* As per Spunar the ancestral abode of Mauryas was at 'Parshupur', who were Jatri (Jatrana) Jats of Mand Empire. Mand is also a Jat gotra. (see Mand)
* Maurya is not found in any other kshatriya caste. The logic that Mauryans being Jats, were denigerated by Brahmans to show their cotempt, further makes the claim strong.
* The above evidences show connection of Mauryas with Jats. burdak 16:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maurya and Jats

message: I strongly object to, and totally reject, the racist taunts made above by some anonymous author - someone without the decency to even sign his or her comments. 
There is absolutely no valid reason to judge the accuracy of an historian on race or nationality. This is a clear case of racial prejudice. There have, indeed, been many biased accounts of Indian history made by both European and Indian writers. In fact, Sri Burdak below refers to bias by some Brahmin authors. Is this the sort of "Indians view" the author would like to have featured on this page? 
Furthermore, if the author had taken the time to check my comments above they would have seen that I have already objected to biased, racist comments made by a "European" author against Jats, and therefore removed them from the article. 
So, please refrain from this sort of ugly divisive nonsense in future. My only goal in contributing to this article is to present as accurate and unbiased account of Jats and their history as possible, so that Jats and everyone else may be able to have a reliable account of their culture and history. 
I should add that this comment was made from the IP address 213.48.46.141 - see: User talk:213.48.46.141, which is a public-access site registered to The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames in England. It has been the source of a number of cases of vandalism on the Wikipedia and has been blocked several times in the past. I will report this racist comment on the talk page of that site and ask that it be blocked (again). John Hill 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please refrain from racist taunts

message: :OK Anonymous - I will try to get through to you on these issues once again. First, I do not judge any historian's credibility on their race, colour, place of birth, sex, or cultural affiliations. I would not believe ANYTHING on the basis that the person who said it was an Englishman or an Indian. Do you? 
:In regards to history, whenever I can, I check the original evidence. When this is not possible, I try to check everything I can about the subject, including competing theories, and then assess the understanding, knowledge and competency of the historian and make an informed judgment about whether it is worth my while taking their theories or statements seriously. Then, I may "accept" their arguments as a "working theory", at least until further evidence or better arguments become available. (Please note that I have not used the word "believe" here - I do not "believe" historical matters unless there is really strong and convincing historical and/or archaeological evidence and, even then, I am always open to change my assessment if new information contradicts what I previously accepted). 
:You are the one who first implied a racial connotation as your comments suggest that "Western" historians cannot be trusted (at least in regard to Indian history), while Indian ones can. You are the one who put "Westerner" and "Indian" historians in opposition - not me.
:What ever do you mean by stating that I "assume all western historians are not descended from India"? I don't understand what you could possibly mean by such a comment. I have never said any such thing.  
:I agree, you certainly have the right to remain anonymous, but it does seems a bit rude and cowardly to make serious accusations about a person's character from behind a veil of secrecy.
:Several of your accusations and insinuations about me I find not only false but highly offensive (such as the one where you imply that I believe that "there is no valid reason to question european authors"). Unfortunately, it is clear you don't intend be reasonable and fair, or to make an apology. Unless and until you change your mind, I have nothing further to say to you, although I reserve the right to point out to other readers any false, misleading or racist comments that you may make in future. John Hill 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Anonymous

message: Thanks John Hill, for your comments. I had earlier also asked you about the  comment  refered about Jats in Mahavansha to verify. As I have reproduced some sanskrit verson from the authors refered above such as A K Mittal in 'Political and Cultural history of India', page 126, 'Rahul Sankrityan' in 'Bauddha darshan'etc, these are not Jats but reputed authors. They have also mentioned it. We have to find in Mahavamsa and 'tatva prakashini' books refered. I do not have these books. 
I have added in my earlier note by giving Grimm's law how historians have come to conclusion that Gupta were Jats. In sanskrit version I quoted above gutt is for jutt or jat. If some body has these books may bring first hand facts from them. 
In Indian history there is a lot of bias against Jats. The traditional writers and record keepers were brahmans. Jats were not in proper tuning with them because they did not believe in superstions and false ficticious preachings. So origin of Jat rulers were termed 'shrouded in mystery' or they were called even Shudras. This thing has been made clear by Deva Samhita, which is there in the text of the Jat article. In the shloka-17 of 'Deva Samhitā' when Pārvatī asks about the origin of Jats, Shiva tells Parvati that:
:गर्व खर्चोत्र विग्राणां देवानां च महेश्वरी Garva kharchotra vigrānam devānām cha maheshwarī 
:विचित्रं विस्‍मयं सत्‍वं पौराण कै साङ्गीपितं Vichitram vismayam satvam Pauran kai sāngīpitam || 17 || 
:Meaning - "The history of origin of Jats is extremely wonderful and their antiquity glorious. The Pundits of history did not record their annals lest it should injure and impair their false pride and of the vipras and gods. We describe that realistic history before you." 
For the reasons behind these historical facts you have to understand Jat people. I do not know to what extent you have interaction with Jats or if you have ever lived with them. There is one saying about Jats that they are good masters but bad subordinates. They are very egoist and if somebody hurts his ego he can go to any extent in revenge. R.C.Majumdar is a very reputed author of Indian history. Even he also recognized that there was bias in writing the history of Jats. R.C.Majumdar in his book "History of culture of the people of India, the clasical age" (page 42) writes about their role in stemming the tide of Islam for two centuries as under: 
:"From the very commencement through every one of these routes. The early naval raids against Thana, Baroch and Debal and subsequent raids in the same direction mark the vain efforts to reach India by sea, of the land routes, the Kheyber pass was guarded by Kabul and Zabul while the Bolan pass was protected by the brave Jats of Kikan, If there had been 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 deserved." burdak 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jat history recognition

message: Dear Sri Burdak: Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful reply to my comments. I agree with you that many accounts of Jats and their history have been very biased and even racist. It is for this very reason that I think it is so important to try to present as reliable, and as accurate an account as is possible now. Repeating others' claims without checking their sources is always dangerous.
Making overblown claims about the background of any nation or group of people is just as misleading and divisive as understating their achievements and, in the long run, will only serve to hurt the people about whom the overblown claims are made - as well as fostering resentment and even hate from other groups. So, I believe, it is most important to be as accurate as possible and, when we are not certain of our facts, to clearly state this.  
Ideally, a comprehensive review of Jat history should be undertaken where claims made are carefully checked against original sources by well-qualified and neutral scholars. I am certainly not qualified to do this myself and so I am appealing to other readers who are qualified to please do this much-needed research.
I first became involved in this dispute because I objected to claims that Kanishka was a Jat. After studying Kushan history for almost 30 years I have come to the conclusion that, until more evidence surfaces, there is no way to be certain of Kanishka's ethnic background, or even his first language.
I would be thrilled if someone could find the reported quote from the Mahavamsa apparently linking the Mauryas to the Jats. The Mahavamsa is regarded as a generally reliable document on Sri Lankan history and such a quote in it would be an important discovery. However, even if it does exist (and I have made quite a thorough search without finding it), we must remember that the Mahavamsa was not written down until about the 6th century CE - some 800 years after the fall of the Mauryas, and so such a quote would still have to be referred to with some qualification.
Now, to a couple of other points: Yes, I agree, R. C. Majumdar is "a very reputed author of Indian history", and I am sure he is quite right that the role Jats have played in the history of India has often been understated and unrecognised.
And, yes, I have known many Jats throughout my life; some of whom have been amongst my closest friends - which is why I have a particular interest in this page. I grew up in Trinidad in the West Indies among the descendants of Indian migrants and many of my playmates and schoolmates were of Indian descent.  Most of them were Hindus and Muslims, but only a few were Jats. However, one of my best friends as a young man was Jitander Singh, a Sikh of Jat descent, who I worked with in a Virus research laboratory. Later, in Vancouver, Canada I came to know many Sikh Jats (one of whom I dated for several months). I have made several trips and spent several years in India and Pakistan, much of that time in the Punjab. I have shared houses with Jats, worked with Jats, and socialised with Jats but, I must admit, I am no expert on Jat history and culture, though I do have a personal interest in them. I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, John Hill 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to the above note

message: Why does this article assume the Jats of today are the same as the Jats of the past.Ethnic groups are fluid and it is very likely that many of the Jats of today have no relation to the Jats of the past.For instance Indo-greeks of the past are probably now Jats or Brahmins or even Dalits.Also the item on the life style is rather biased,for instance to state that Jats of today don't it meat is nonsense .Muslim Jats eat meat, many sikh Jats eat meat (and drink).One can only say that 'most Hindu ' Jats don't eat meat,and that is  more to do with fact they are Hindu rather than being a Jat.Plus many muslim Jats marry cousins,in fact the item should be headed 'Life style of Indian Hindu Jats'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.46.141 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whose a jat

message: On 28th January, 2007 someone working from a computer with the ID of 213.122.25.190 changed the statement: "According to some Jat writers ancient Jat kingdoms include those of:
    * Chandragupta Maurya
    * Ashok Maurya
    * Samudragupta
    * Chandragupta II
    * Kaniska
    * Yasodharman
    * Harshavardhana"
He or she changed the first part of this statement (without noting that this is what they had done) to read: "According to historians and scholars[38]. some ancient Jat kingdoms included those of:"
Now, this sentence very misleading because, in fact, many, if not most, modern historians and scholars would NOT agree with this statement.
But, even worse, the reference given is to Swami Dayananda Saraswati's book Satyarth Prakash and I have just checked the translation of this book and cannot find a single reference to any of these kings or to Jats in it. So, whoever has inserted this lie has obviously been intending to mislead readers. 
Please - the Wikipedia is not the place to be pushing some kind of nationalistic or racist propaganda and all right-minded persons, including, I feel certain, most Jats, would be horrified at this misuse of the Wikipedia. 
This is not the first time this kind of trick has been played on this page. This sort of malicious nonsense will only serve to bring Jats in general into disrepute.
Moreover, I don't have the time to keep policing it and checking for false references and the like, and nor should I have to. Would other readers and editors please keep a close eye on this page (and ones associated with it) to make sure this doesn't keep happening? Come on all you fair-minded Jats - help put a stop to this deliberate misrepresentation of your history! It is quite glorious enough without being artificially pumped up with lies and misrepresentations. 
I will, for the moment, change the wording back to what it was previously.
Sincerely, John Hill 10:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A plea to put a stop to untruthful, misleading entries

message: Do NOT remove warning tags. Explain, or it will be reverted. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort of the neutrality issue 

message: I find that some contents of the article and talk page have been deleted without any explaination. The Archive of this talk page is blank. It should be reverted back. Opinions may differ but we should reach to some conclusions before deletion. Contents on page may be ratained till strong counter evidences are available. burdak 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not delete contents 

message: Dear Shri Burdak (and other interested readers):
I have restored the Archives as best I could. This is the first time I have done such a thing so I hope I have done it properly - but please let me know if I have missed anything or done anything wrong. Cheers, John Hill 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear John Hill, Thanks  for the action of restoring the deleted content from talk page. It is OK.burdak 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Archives

message: I just noticed the following overblown racist nonsense in the "Life and Culture of Jats" section: 
:"Jats are thoroughly independent in character -this was noticed many times by British Empire army officiers- and assert personal and individual freedom, as against communal or tribal control, more strongly than any other people. . . . Jats are by nature adamant if they are treated with contempt or injustice. They are independent by nature, self-conscious, and never hesitate to give their life for their people in times of war."
Does the writer really think anyone other than a fanatic is going to believe that Jats "assert personal and individual freedom, as against communal or tribal control, more strongly than any other people."? Or that they (presumably meaning ALL Jats): "never hesitate to give their life for their people in times of war." 
Does the writer really think that only Jats get upset if they are treated with contempt or injustice? Does the writer not realise that, by making such statements, he (or she) is treating ALL other peoples with contempt? 
Such ridiculously overstated generalizations and comments have no place in an Encyclopedia such as the Wikipedia and will only cause readers to ridicule Jats and see them as braggarts, racists and liars. It can only bring Jats in general into disrepute - and this would be totally unfair to other Jats.
I am getting very tired of trying to tidy this page up and make it a reasoned, balanced account of Jats and their culture - and nor should I have to - I am not a Jat. There must be plenty of very sensible and well-educated Jats out there who would be embarrassed to see this sort of divisive nonsense being promoted in public. 
Please, would some level-headed Jat take this responsibility on themselves? And, while you are at it, please have a look at all the other articles related to Jats and purge them of this sort of garbage? John Hill 10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is having who on? Please help make this a good, balanced account of Jats and their culture.

message: I have just removed Harshavardahana from the list of ancient rulers claimed to be Jats. According to Xuanzang, Harsha was of the 吙舍 feishe or Vaishya caste. See: Watters, Thomas. On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India. Two volumes. 1904-1905, Royal Asiatic Society, London. One volume reprint: Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1973, pp. 343-345; and the Grand dictionnaire Ricci de la langue chinoise. 7 volumes. Instituts Ricci (Paris – Taipei). Desclée de Brouwer. 2001. Vol. II, p. 578. 
However, according to some historians they were Jats, but this appears to be based solely on a suggestion made by Alexander Cunningham in 1871 that Xuanzang must have mistaken "the Vaisa, or Bais Rajput for the Vaiya, or Bais, which is the name of the mercantile class of the Hindus". Cunningham, Alexander. The Ancient Geography of India: The Buddhist Period, Including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang. 1871, Thübner and Co. Reprint by Elbiron Classics. 2003., p. 377. 
As Thomas Watters has pointed out, this is most unlikely as Xuanzang, "had ample opportunities for learning the antecedents of the royal family, and he must have had some ground for his assertion." Watters, Thomas. On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India. Two volumes. 1904-1905, Royal Asiatic Society, London. One volume reprint: Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1973, pp. 344-345.  
Proponents of this improbable hypothesis apparently include: Bhim Singh Dahiya in his Jats, the Ancient Rulers, A clan study in the Pre Islamic period, 1982, Sterling Publishers New Delhi. and Thakur Deshraj, in Jat Itihas (Hindi), Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi, 1934, 2nd edition 1992 page 87-88. who apparently claim that "Harsha’s clan was Virk, but Dilip Singh Ahlawat claims that he belonged to the Bains clan of Jats. The Virk clan  is linked to the Virks of Mandsaur, Central India, and Bains to the Punjab.  Both Bains and Virk are said to be clans of the Jats." 
For more details see the revised page on Harsha. John Hill 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harshavardhana was probably not a Jat

message: Ravi Chaudhary:
Thank you for your recent invitation to join your Jat History Yahoo group (at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/) to present my “arguments” regarding my comments on articles relating to Jats on the Wikipedia. Regretfully, I must decline as I am already over-committed to a number of on-line groups as well as working on Wikipedia articles and preparing three books for publication. I really cannot take on more at this time.
What I would like to say to your readers, and readers of the Wikipedia, is that I am more than happy to discuss the reasons for any suggestions or changes I make to Wikipedia articles on the appropriate “Talk” or “discussion” pages in the Wikipedia itself.
I should also add that any comments I have made in the past or may make in the future have been and will always be signed by me, with my real name, John Hill. You can be assured that any remarks or changes made in the Wikipedia without my name attached were not made by me.
Now, I would like to reply to the comments you have posted today (3rd March, 2007) on your group’s discussion page about me and my work which I think are unfair and offensive. 
Someone wrote in to your group suggesting that I am “basically a good scholar” and that I have posted a [draft] translation from the Hou Hanshu on the internet. You have replied: “Unfortunately, he has become so enamored with those manuscripts that he has started to believe them to be the gospel truth. There is a difference between making a translation and then reinterpreting \ the translation. . . .” 
I am at a loss as to what could possibly have led you to make this false accusation. If anyone would like to go back over my discussions on the Jat “Talk” page (and the archives) they will find that I have only once made a very brief reference to the texts I have been translating (and never even mentioned them by name). All my other remarks are based on, or refer to, other sources. And to say that I “have started to believe them to be the gospel truth” is a most unfair and unwarranted attack on my integrity as a scholar and, indeed, as a person. 
Mr. Chaudhary, I ask you for a public apology both on your list and in the Wikipedia. John Hill 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for an apology by Ravi Chaudhary

message: There are some very prejudicial remarks in this article which I have tried to remove such as "Jats are thoroughly independent in character - this was noticed many times by British Empire army officiers, assert personal and individual freedom, as against communal or tribal control, more strongly than any other people. They usually have light brown skin, dark eyes (although light eyes are not uncommon), dark hair"
This is offensive as this makes an exclusive trait of something that is an inherent human faculty in many tribes, races and peoples. Therefore removed.
The reference of usually light brown skin and occasional light eyes is nonsense as what survey or research has been done on the Millions of Jats of India, Pakistan, UK, USA and around the world to be able to assert such a strong claim? They are obviously Indians so appear Indian in appearance. I feel the article is trying it's best to assert foreign origins, looks and even native traditions.
The food habit section is nonsensical and it's relevance in this article is questionable. Does the Jat race have it's own unique eating habits?! Does any other Indian tribe (not religion, I said tribe) have it's own unique eating habits? I feel this should be removed or re worded.
The reference of constant conflict with Gakkers etc by the time of babur is again wrong. The actual babur-nama, states that the Gakkhers were the chiefs and rulers of the Jats. Even ravi said it was untenable in the archived page, but still allowed it to remain in the article and thus continue to mislead readers. Hence removed.
Where is the mention of the migrations of many Jat tribes into Kashmir? Mirpur is dominated by Jats and yet no mention of their history is made. Do only the ancient "questionable" theories only warrant room here? What of the simple farmers and hardworking Jat tribes who never fought but remained peaceful cultivators? What do the Jat chronicles state regarding this area of the tribes history?
I will look into further work on here as I get time. At the moment, a lot of work needs to be done. 
Any further suggestions welcome.
--Rahpal 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Rahpal, you seem to be born on Wikipedia on 4 March 2007 and have deleted lot of content from Jat page. If you go on deleting this way it will be left with a stub. You are deleting well referenced paras saying no proof. When it is cited properly what proof is needed? When Babur wrote Babarnama he wrote about himself only why should he write about deed of Jats or Rajputs. How can you say he was wrong? Have you contributed this article or any other article on Wikipedia about a social group. You go to Rajput article and find that men are born from fire or by the power of mantras. See here a para from Rajput article produced here "The Agnivanshi lineage, claims descent from four persons who were born from fire or by the influence of Ved Mantras. According to Pouranic legend as found in Bhavishya Purana,an yagna was held at Mount Abu, at the time of emperor Ashoka's sons. From the influence of Mantras of the four Vedas four Kshatriyas were born". Now have tried to correct it? Why are you so worried about Jat article?  Your good contributions are welcome but go on deleting  can not be understood. If you know about Jats something then add. There seems bias in your approach. Please refrain from deletion. burdak 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice the language of the article. The Agnivanshi clans CLAIMS descent...Puranic LEGEND. These are clearly stories, and not meant to be regarded as historical fact. Besides, we don't have very many primary sources on our history. The Babur-nama is a good source of information when it makes mention of historical fact. Mughal bias does come into play, but bias would have no reason to distort whether or not Gakkars were Jat chieftains. --Sakredfire 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in need of help

message: I have just removed the section where it was claimed that: "The Persian traveller Biruni stated that Lord Krishna was a Jat . . .". Alberuni claims that Krishna (Vâsudeva) had a child in Mathura by a Jatt and that this child was also called Vâsudeva. In his account of this, Alberuni refers to his mother as coming from "a Jatt family, cattle-owners, low Śûdra people." This may very well have been an attempt by a Muslim writer to denigrate the Hindu god. (Sachau, Edward, C. Alberuni's India. Rupa & Co. 2002. p. 396. ). I, therefore, don't think this derogatory reference to a much-loved Hindu god has any place in a general article on the Jat people. In any case, this is an obviously legendary story which has little, if any, historical value. John Hill 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of section referring to a claim by Alberuni that Krishna was a Jat

message: Hi Dear John Hill, I have gone through your recent edits and notes. It seems there is some bias in your edits against Jats. Firstly you deleted reference of Jats in Mahavamsa simply because on the basis of the fact that you did not find it in Online edition of Mahavamsa, without going in to details of the printed book which had been referred.  You deleted this content even from discussion page of Chandragupta Maurya, which was unwanted. Entries from discussion pages are not to be deleted. Secondly you mentioned that Swami Dayananda has not mentioned about Jats simply on the basis of Online Edition of Satyartha Prakash. Here it is to be made clear that in his book Satyartha Prakash he has mentioned about Jats specifically a story of Jatji and Popji in which he ridicules the orthodox philosophy of Brahmans and how Jatji rectified. He has also given chronology of Aryan rulers in Satyartha Prakash. Before deletion you should be fully sure. Thirdly you deleted Ancient Jat rulers section from Jat People article. I do not know what is your intention. The ancient rulers believed to be Jats have some references. We can give those references and can say that further research is needed to testimony the facts. But the deletion will loose these references and we will not reach to any conclusion. Lastly you deleted Jat reference to Krishna. Krishna was having 16000 wives and obviously his descendants are there in this world. If Jats have any ancestry linkages it will reduce his status. It is of academic interest to know the linkages. It is in Jats that there is a clan called Kasania or Krishnia meaning descendants of Krishna. You do not have counter evidences for deletion. You  contributed minimum contents to this article on Jats but doing the deletion work regularly. When you do not have any content to contribute then how can you decide which content needs deletion lacking the facts when references are already there. The historians who have mentioned these linkages are not Jats only but from all castes of Indian society. So it is not the fact that only Jats are glorifying this community. The existence of more than 3000 clans in the Jat caste shows its social diversity and should be considered as a testimony that these have been rulers in ancient times. In India the social groups have been always aligned with the ruling people. Because of this fact we find many clans common in Jats, Rajputs and Gujars, as  they have been rulers at different periods in history. I have also seen your comments on Raphal’s discussion page where you write as if to correct the Jat article is your motto. It is not in good taste. It appears that your discussion with Ravi Chaudhary has made you to be biased. I hope you will keep a balance and not delete Jat contents. Discussions are for the betterment of Wikipedia and not to damage its contents. burdak 10:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wrong.
The Krishnia, could also be named after another forefather. Such things happen over time. Are you suggesting that the divine Krishna's descendants would still be known by that name almost 5 thousand years later?! I dont think so.
None of the kings mentioned are known without doubt as Jats, despite what a suggestion by a isolated writer says. Chandra vanshi's (the forefathers of the Yadus, Bhattis and Sidhus, Brars) are even theorised to be descendants of aliens by one western writer, should we include that? Ofcourse not. So be reasonable.
You are very biased and I agree with Mr Hill, you are sanitising some statements like Krishna was a Jatt. If you are to use this source, then use it fully! Add the full passage which states the low Sudra status part? It was a misinformation that you sanitised and included. Thats dishonesty in disseminating info on here. Be real.
There is no info about the rest of the proud Jatt regions, such as Malwa etc. I would like this to be expanded.
--Mein hoon don 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John too. Burdak, you accuse John of bias, but display bias in excess yourself. My cousin's family's surname is Gupta. He is not a Jatt. By claiming anyone and everyone in indian history was a jatt, you offend other indians. This isn't because being a jatt is offensive, but you're taking away from the history of their own clans by trying the build up yours. Besides, genetically most indians are fairly uniform anyway.--Sakredfire 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Sakredfire, The Guptas of today and the Gupta Dynasty are two different things. Guptas of today are vaishyas, but the people of Gupta Dynasty were not Vaishyas. They were kshatriyas. The historians who proved them to be Jats have been mentioned in this discussion. It is not my view but of the historians who have written so. I do not accuse John Hill for this. My point was on bias in deletion. Deletion leads to loss of Data. You can add fresh points counter to my points. It is welcome. It should be with suitable sources. It is surprizing on history part that they know everything about Guptas and Mauryas except their origin. It is this point we are searching. Thanks, burdak 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's very poor how this article is getting marred with "maybe", "legend", "historians proved" on issues that have never been proven. Krishna point is blatantly wrong and should have no place here. Why is there no proper history of the past few centuries? Why do these "biased" editors keep displaying theories instead of hard, undisputable facts for all to read and be inspired and educated about? There are too many people like this on wikipedia....I have put back the clarification that such kingdoms were not hard proven Jatt kingdoms. Do not remove it, as you are misleading people here Mr Burdak, and you know this very well--Mein hoon don 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen that you have done many changes on Jat articles without providing any references.Nobody is preventing you from giving the factual history rather than "maybe", "legend", "historians proved" statements. I do not believe in removing but it seems that you are simply finding falt without putting facts based on sources. Hope you will add positive factual historyburdak 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have seen that you are following me around wikipedia and yet are not actually focussing your attention on neutralising this article. Nobody can prevent me from contributing, but you seem to be prevented from getting off your romanticising and self serving position and stating hard facts. You also rather conveniently forget, that you yourself are the one who is adding the ridiculous "maybe", "legend" lore and misleading readers. You have already been caught out above with the Krishna point by Alberuni. How many more things I wonder are you also going to be caught out on as the discoveries come to light? Hope you will provide some factual history for a change, rather than any more unreliable legends and jackanory stories.....--Mein hoon don 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't be biased

message: Dear Shree Burdak: It seems to me that we have had this discussion in various forms several times already and it is certainly getting to be very tiresome, repetitive and long-winded. I will try once more to make myself clear – but if these differences continue I will have to appeal for help from the Wikipedia Administrators. I apologise in advance for the length of my reply but you have raised a number of points and made a number of accusations.
What I have objected to on the Jat page have been the many and regular confusions between legendary material and well-documented historical events as well as unsupported, or misquoted (and even sometimes falsely supported or attributed) claims made by various writers. 
Even worse, perhaps, have been the grossly inflated claims and frequent racist comments, showing that this page has been made the forum of some ruthless people with a very low regard for accuracy and truth. 
As you are well aware, many other readers have also been complaining about these issues and there have been numerous arguments on these Talk pages about them – it is not just me as you seem to be implying.
This continuing bickering and re-editing is a huge waste of time. I suggest that the whole matter should be reported to Administrators to check the article and all the many references and maybe “lock it”, or restrict access to it after that process is completed.
However, as you specifically refer to edits I have made, I will take this opportunity to answer them (again) one by one, in the order in which you brought them up.
Point 1a: You have made the comment that I have: “deleted reference of Jats in Mahavamsa simply because on the basis of the fact that you did not find it in Online edition of Mahavamsa, without going in to details of the printed book which had been referred.” 
As I did not have a copy of the book available, I did check the on-line version at:  http://lakdiva.org/mahavamsa/editorsnote.html which claims to be the full scanned text of the first 37 chapters of Geiger’s book, which are, apparently, the only sections he referred to as the Mahavamsa. One can only assume that p. 27 of his printed book (which you refer to) must have been included in this scan – especially as it is claimed to be from the Mahavamsa. Just to be certain, though, I will try to obtain his book on inter-library loan and then check again and report back to this Talk Page. (This process will likely take several weeks as I live in a very remote region). In the meantime, if anyone has the book and could send me a scan of this page – please email it to me –with all the publishing details (my email address is available on my User Page). 
Point 1b: You state that I “deleted this content even from discussion page of Chandragupta Maurya, which was unwanted.” This is completely untrue! I removed the so-called quote from the body of the main article – not the discussion page – have a look at the appropriate entries for 11 January 2007. Please stop distorting the truth and attacking me unfairly! 
Point 1c: I have discussed in detail my reasons for my suspicions about this so-called quote from the Mahavamsa more than once. In fact I asked you as early as 4th November last year (see Archives of this Talk Page) to show proof that such a quote really exists – you have still to answer me.
Point 2. What do you have against on-line books? When a published book is properly scanned there should be the whole text of the original. I checked the whole text of the English translation of the Satyartha Prakash by Swami Dayananda, Sarasvati, Chiranjiva Bharadwaja, Published 1975, Sarvadeshik Arya, Pratinidhi Sabha, 732 pages, at: http://books.google.com/books?id=920AAAAAMAAJ&vid=OCLC05080824&dq=Dayananda+Sarasvati&q=Jat&pgis=1#search I have checked for keywords such as “Jat” (and all words beginning with these three letters including “Jatji”), as well as “Popji” and other key words – without any of them occurring in the text. If you can show how and where the so-called references you are interested in occur in the printed book but not the on-line version – please do so. 
Point 3: You say I: “deleted Ancient Jat rulers section from Jat People article. I do not know what is your intention. The ancient rulers believed to be Jats have some references. We can give those references and can say that further research is needed to testimony the facts. But the deletion will loose these references and we will not reach to any conclusion.” 
If you check the many notes I have made you will see that I have clearly pointed out that there is no general agreement amongst scholars on the family background of Kanishka, or the Mauryas, the evidence is extremely sparse and insufficient at the moment to prove anything. Just because someone makes a claim in print does not mean it is worthy of being included in the Wikipedia. For example: if someone published a book claiming Abraham, Adam, or Muhammad were Celts – should this be inserted in the Wikipedia as if it was worthy of consideration?
Point 4: You state: “. . . you deleted Jat reference to Krishna. Krishna was having 16000 wives and obviously his descendants are there in this world. If Jats have any ancestry linkages it will reduce his status. It is of academic interest to know the linkages. It is in Jats that there is a clan called Kasania or Krishnia meaning descendants of Krishna. You do not have counter evidences for deletion.”
I really don’t know how to answer this but, I can assure you that the vast majority of people in the world would find it rather hard to believe that Krishna had 16,000 wives. I am not critical of your religious beliefs – you are quite entitled to hold them – but please don’t expect other people to accept what you say as fact, even if it is found in some ancient scripture. If you discussed them as religious traditions and properly qualified them, I would have no argument with you – but that is not how they were presented.
If Krishna really had that many wives and died in 3102 BCE (as you have previously stated), he is very probably an ancestor of all of us – so why claim him specifically as a Jat? Why quote a Persian Muslim author who lived some four thousand years later as an authority on this subject? Furthermore, why quote someone (Alberuni) who claims he is descended from a Sudra woman if you are trying to prove he was a Jat? And, finally, if one wishes to quote from Alberuni about Krishna – should the story about Krishna’s partner (and mother?) came from a Jat family of “low Śûdra people” be included – not just the “sanitised” statement that Krishna “was a Jat.”
Point 5: I can see nothing wrong in deleting what I see as false or misleading information, legendary material presented as facts, and racially supremacist propaganda from any article (and I assure you I do the same on other pages I come across). I have had little to add to the more than ample coverage of Jats. I am well aware that “it is not the fact that only Jats are glorifying this community.” You will notice that there are huge portions of the article (in fact the majority of it) I have never questioned or discussed. There is no need for me, as you suggest, to add to the already very detailed accounts of Jat history – only to point out and/or remove questionable or falsified material. 
In general, I have great admiration for Jat people and their history and am proud to have had many fine and close Jat friends. If I was a Jat I would be glad to tell the world of my ancestors’ background and history – and there would be no need at all for me to make up fanciful stories. But I would be very embarrassed and angry if I found members of my own people making false or unsubstantiated boastful claims. 
In fact, I have frequently found myself facing up to “white” racists in many countries, and I believe it is my duty to speak up when this happens and not go along with it. Sometimes I have been able to reason people out of their hatreds, but I must admit that it has more often been quite ugly and frightening and I have been badly beaten for it more than once. I can’t say this has made my life easier or happier, but at least I can, after all these years, still look in the mirror and not despise myself for a coward on such issues.
Most large groups of people contain fanatic minorities who distort the past to suit their own ends, or to compensate for feelings of hurt or inferiority – especially people who have been colonised or ruled by others and had to face their scorn, and who then compensate by trying to assert their superiority over others. This is, however, a very dangerous game (just look at the horrific lessons of the last century in this regard). So, Shree Burdak, I become a very persistent critic when I see this developing and try to nip it in the bud. This is not to say that I will always be right, I am very likely to make mistakes on one or another point, but the large number of distorted statements on these pages in the past, and the many criticisms from other readers confirm that something has gone really wrong here and needs to be addressed seriously and with goodwill.
Finally, you claim I write on Raphal’s discussion page: “as if to correct the Jat article is your motto. It is not in good taste. . . . I hope you will keep a balance and not delete Jat contents. Discussions are for the betterment of Wikipedia and not to damage its contents.” 
I can only answer that everything I have done has been done openly and in good faith in an attempt to improve what has seemed to me (and obviously to quite a few others) a badly flawed article. I will quote here what I said on Rahpal’s page for everyone to judge for themselves if I am guilty of what you accuse me of: “I like the way you have written the qualifications to the claims that have been made on the Jat People page about ancient Indian rulers being Jats. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone and bring this particular argument to an end.”
And on that note I will close this over-long reply.
Sincerely, John Hill 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Shree Burdak - “history” versus “legend”

message: Thanks Mr John Hill for your long reply. I have two points to reply urgently. Firstly Geiger’s book,referred to as the Mahavamsa.  p. 27 of  printed book was requested by me to verify because I do not have a copy of it. Since you are working on the subject kindly ensure from print book and let us know all. I am in too interior area to have access to a library right now. We will wait for your confirmation. 
Second point to clarify about  Satyarthprakash is that Arya Samaj Jamnagar (Read Vedas and Satyarthprakash on-line) is online but is not complete. I have with me a hindi copy of Satyarthprakash by Arsh Sahitya prachar trust. It has got the story I mentioned in Ch-11 on pages 234-36. It is in Hindi and is produced below -
सत्यार्थ प्रकाश में जाटजी और पोपजी की कहानी
एक जाट था । उसके घर में एक गाय बहुत अच्छी और बीस सेर दूध देने वाली थी । दूध उसका बड़ा स्वादिष्‍ट होता था । कभी-कभी पोपजी के मुख में भी पड़ता था । उसका पुरोहित यही ध्यान कर रहा था कि जब जाट का बुड्ढ़ा बाप मरने लगेगा तब इसी गाय का संकल्प करा लूंगा । कुछ दिन में दैवयोग से उसके बाप का मरण समय आया । जीभ बन्द हो गई और खाट से भूमि पर ले लिया अर्थात् प्राण छोड़ने का समय आ पहुंचा । उस समय जाट के इष्‍ट-मित्र और सम्बन्धी भी उपस्थित हुए थे । तब पोपजी पुकारा कि "यजमान ! अब तू इसके हाथ से गोदान करा ।" जाट १० रुपया निकाल कर पिता के हाथ में रखकर बोला - "पढ़ो संकल्प !" पोपजी बोला - "वाह-वाह ! क्या बाप बारम्बार मरता है ? इस समय तो साक्षात् गाय को लाओ, जो दूध देती हो, बुड्ढी न हो, सब प्रकार उत्तम हो । ऐसी गौ का दान करना चाहिये ।"
जाटजी - हमारे पास तो एक ही गाय है, उसके बिना हमारे लड़के-बालों का निर्वाह न हो सकेगा इसलिए उसको न दूंगा । लो २० रुपये का संकल्प पढ़ देओ ! और इन रुपयों से दूसरी दुधार गाय ले लेना ।
पोपजी - वाहजी वाह ! तुम अपने बाप से भी गाय को अधिक समझते हो ? क्या अपने बाप को वैतरणी नदी में डुबाकर दु:ख देना चाहते हो । तुम अच्छे सुपुत्र हुए ? तब तो पोपजी की ओर सब कुटुम्बी हो गये, क्योंकि उन सबको पहिले ही पोपजी ने बहका रक्खा था और उस समय भी इशारा कर दिया । सबने मिलकर हठ से उसी गाय का दान उसी पोपजी को दिला दिया । उस समय जाट कुछ भी न बोला । उसका पिता मर गया और पोपजी बच्छा सहित गाय और दोहने की बटलोही को ले अपने घर में गाय-बच्छे को बाँध बटलोही धर पुन: जाट के घर आया और मृतक के साथ श्मशानभूमि में जाकर दाहकर्म्म कराया । वहाँ भी कुछ-कुछ पोपलीला चलाई । पश्‍चात् दशगात्र सपिण्डी कराने आदि में भी उसको मूंडा । महाब्राह्मणों ने भी लूटा और भुक्खड़ों ने भी बहुत सा माल पेट में भरा अर्थात् जब सब क्रिया हो चुकी तब जाट ने जिस किसी के घर से दूध मांग-मूंग निर्वाह किया । चौदहवें दिन प्रात:-काल पोपजी के घर पहुँचा । देखा तो पोपजी गाय दुह, बटलोई भर, पोपजी की उठने की तैयारी थी । इतने में ही जाटजी पहुँचे । उसको देख पोपजी बोला, आइये ! यजमान बैठिये !
जाटजी - तुम भी पुरोहित जी इधर आओ ।
पोपजी - अच्छा दूध धर आऊँ ।
जाटजी - नहीं-नहीं, दूध की बटलोई इधर लाओ ।
पोपजी बिचारे जा बैठे और बटलोई सामने धर दी ।
जाटजी - तुम बड़े झूठे हो ।
पोपजी - क्या झूठ किया ?
जाटजी - कहो, तुमने गाय किसलिए ली थी ?
पोपजी - तुम्हारे पिता के वैतरणी नदी तरने के लिए ।
जाटजी - अच्छा तो तुमने वहाँ वैतरणी के किनारे पर गाय क्यों न पहुँचाई ? हम तो तुम्हारे भरोसे पर रहे और तुम अपने घर बाँध बैठे । न जाने मेरे बाप ने वैतरणी में कितने गोते खाये होंगे ?
पोपजी - नहीं-नहीं, वहाँ इस दान के पुण्य के प्रभाव से दूसरी गाय बनकर उसको उतार दिया होगा ।
जाटजी - वैतरणी नदी यहाँ से कितनी दूर और किधर की ओर है ?
पोपजी - अनुमान से कोई तीस करोड़ कोश दूर है । क्योंकि उञ्चास कोटि योजन पृथ्वी है और दक्षिण नैऋत दिशा में वैतरणी नदी है ।
जाटजी - इतनी दूर से तुम्हारी चिट्ठी वा तार का समाचार गया हो, उसका उत्तर आया हो कि वहाँ पुण्य की गाय बन गई, अमुक के पिता को पार उतार दिया, दिखलाओ ?
पोपजी - हमारे पास 'गरुड़पुराण' के लेख के बिना डाक वा तारवर्की दूसरा कोई नहीं ।
जाटजी - इस गरुड़पुराण को हम सच्चा कैसे मानें ?
पोपजी - जैसे हम सब मानते हैं ।
जाटजी - यह पुस्तक तुम्हारे पुरषाओं ने तुम्हारी जीविका के लिए बनाया है । क्योंकि पिता को बिना अपने पुत्रों के कोई प्रिय नहीं । जब मेरा पिता मेरे पास चिट्ठी-पत्री वा तार भेजेगा तभी मैं वैतरणी नदी के किनारे गाय पहुंचा दूंगा और उनको पार उतार, पुन: गाय को घर में ले आ दूध को मैं और मेरे लड़के-बाले पिया करेंगे, लाओ ! दूध की भरी हुई बटलोही, गाय, बछड़ा लेकर जाटजी अपने घर को चला ।
पोपजी - तुम दान देकर लेते हो, तुम्हारा सत्यानाश हो जायेगा ।
जाटजी - चुप रहो ! नहीं तो तेरह दिन लों दूध के बिना जितना दु:ख हमने पाया है, सब कसर निकाल दूंगा । तब पोपजी चुप रहे और जाटजी गाय-बछड़ा ले अपने घर पहुँचे ।
जब ऐसे ही जाटजी के से पुरुष हों तो पोपलीला संसार में न चले ।
Regards,
burdak 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Mr John Hill

message: I have added dispute marker, because after reading it through, all it states is that Jatts are the same  genetically as all other Punjabis. So why have this section here? Also where is this information from? What paper was this published in?
--Mein hoon don 14:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic Section

message: Jat find mention in the Norse mythology. He has been mentioned as ancestor of Odin and Odin is father of the Norse tribe. Odin (Old Norse Óðinn) is considered the chief god in Norse mythology and Norse paganism, like the Anglo-Saxon Woden it is decended from Proto-Germanic  *Wōđinaz or Wōđanaz
Snorre list the generations before Odin and starts with Thor and Siv and followers Loride, Eindride, Vingtor, Vingener, Moda, Mage, Seskef, Bedvig, Athra, Annan, Iterman, Heremod, Skjaldun, Bjar, Jat, Gudolf, Finn, Fridlef and Odin/Oden. Snorre uses the same kind of ancestors' to Odin as we find in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Jat in Norse mythology
Jat has been shown as the Prince of the GOTHS; Progenitor of ancient Germanic Kings (in tradition)
Prince of the GOTHS
----
burdak 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has to be the height of ignorance. Now Mr Burdak, if any word that phronetically sounds similar to Jat, or spells similar or same is going to be attached to Jat history, then surely you can see how ridiculous this is becoming. I know some people ancestor worship, but this is going a little too far, no? By putting this up you are again implying a connection (your excuse below of trying to suggest the info as "legend" doesnt wash, it's obvious what you are doing. Are you seriously saying that all germans are now "legendarily" connected to Jats?! Is Adolf Hitler now sired by the Indo blooded Jats? This is going too far. You need help. Quickly.--Mein hoon don 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jat in Norse mythology 

message: Dear Shree Burdak: Are you really trying to suggest that there is a connection between the god "Jat" in Norse mythology and the Jat people in India, just because of a similarity in the way the names are written? A great deal of linguistic evidence must be assembled before making a serious proposal of some linguistic connection between names. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep coming up with such wild flights of fancy? 
Far more likely would be some connection between Annan and the River Annan in Scotland. At least we know the Norsemen reached Scotland.
You give a reference by a Dr. Samar Abbas based, apparently, on a paper by B.S. Dehiya: "The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133, in which Abbas makes the claim that B.S. Dehiya "proved" several major points, including the following:
* The Mauryas, Muras, or rather Mors, were Jats, and hence Scythian or East Iranic in origin.
* Consequently, Ashoka, Chandragupta and all other emperors of the Mauryan Dynasty were Scythian Jats (p.116).
* The Atharva Veda was the creation of Iranic sun-priests or Magas, and was not part of the original Vedic tradition (p.128).
* The primordial Jat religion was that of the original Iranic race, namely monotheist Sun-worship, which they and their Maga priests carried wherever they migrated (p.119, 128).
* Chanakya or Kautilya, brain behind the Mauryan Empire and author of the famous Artha-Sastra, was an Iranic sun-priest or Maga (p.128).
* The Mauryas or Mors were close kin of the Amorites of Babylonia and Egypt. (p.131)
* The Jat immigrants are close kin of the ancient Gutians of Sumeria (p.131), and the Goths or Gots (p.125), known in Latin as Getae."
Not bad going - "proving" all of this in just 21 pages! 
I have just read Abbas' account of these "proofs" and they mostly seem very far-fetched speculations to me, based on little more than conveniently chosen vague similarities of names over huge periods of time and space. But, perhaps, other readers would like to have a look at them too and see what they think? I would be interested to hear their views.
Next you will be trying to tell us that the Mauryas derived from the North African Moors or vice versa! After all, Dr. Abbas does say: "Grammatically, Maurya is a derivative from Mūra or Moor by adding the śyan suffix (Mahābhāṣya, 8.2.1). Therefore, the original word remains Mor/Moor and not Mayūra etc. The last word Mayūr or Mayūraka is a Sanskrit translation of the original clan-name Mor, which was unfortunately found to be the same as the Hindi word Mor meaning peacock." 
He adds: "Thus we can conclude that the correct name of the clan of Chandragupta was Mor. It is the same word which is the surname of some people in England and written as `Moor'. It is, again, this word, which is the European `Moor'."
And again: "Grammatically, Maurya is a derivative from Mūra or Moor by adding the śyan suffix (Mahābhāṣya, 8.2.1). Therefore, the original word remains Mor/Moor and not Mayūra etc. The last word Mayūr or Mayūraka is a Sanskrit translation of the original clan-name Mor, which was unfortunately found to be the same as the Hindi word Mor meaning peacock." 
The Moors are a member of a nomadic people of Arab and Berber descent who originally occupied lands in various parts of North Africa, and whose members continue to live there. If you check carefully you will discover that these are the people generally referred to as Moors in Europe. Shree Burdak, do you believe there is also a connection between these Moors and the Mauryas - if not, why not? It would seem as likely as any of the other speculations in the article by Dr. Abbas. 
To my mind all of these speculations seem to be based on the occurrence of somewhat similar-sounding names - and little else. John Hill 10:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to "Jat in Norse mythology"

message: Dear John Hill,
I have not given any conclusions about the connection between Jats in India and Jat in Norse mythology. I have clearly mentioned it as mythology and not the History. That is why I gave the heading mythology.  Even Scandinavian people or people of the rest of world are not sure if Odin was a real person or fictional person but there are many writers like Thor Heyerdahl who thinks that Odin was a real person. I quote from above article - 
:"Thor is not the only to believe on  the earliest Scandinavian myth writer Snorre Sturlasson at Island in 13th century AD. (Saxo Grammaticus lived a little earlier) Snorre told that Odin came from Turkland and wandered to Saxland were he founded some kingdoms and made his sons kings there. Soon he wandered again and now to Reidgotaland = Jutland and made more children and kingdoms. At last he wandered to Svitjod = Sweden and settled there and got more time for making children and kingdoms. In illiterate times folk wisdom was stored in songs and tales. There is no time line so it could have happened thousands of years ago. Mythic heroes could have some forefather" Jat in Norse mythology
So I put this topic for discussion. There are authors who write that these Goths were Jats as mentioned by Bhim Singh Dahiya. I have got one book by Mangal Sen Jindal, he is not a Jat, who writes that Goths were Jats and Jutland was their homeland.
If there is a common name in India and Scandinavia there must be some connection. If the name is there it must have some meaning. In Lithuanian language word Jāt has got meaning -"The cavalier". This indicates Jat as real persons in those countries.
Dear John Hill why you are so allergic to new probabilities ? 
Do you think Jats in India were here since ancient times? 
Were there no migrations of these populations? 
Could the people from Iran not go to Scandinavia or India? 
This article on Jat people is not only confined to history but if it has some mythology should it not me discussed?
burdak 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to John Hill

message: Dear Shree Burdak: Thank you for answering my question as to whether you were trying "to suggest that there is a connection between the god "Jat" in Norse mythology and the Jat people in India." I am relieved to find that you are not, but only raising a possibility. 
I did notice with approval that you had headed your entry "Jat in Norse Mythology." However, on reading your note I assumed you were trying to imply there was a connection between Indian Jats and the Norse god Jat, because you placed it on the Jat people Talk Page and you made reference to articles which claim to establish close connections between Indian Jats and an extremely wide range of other ancient peoples. 
The article by Dr. Abbas (who is discussing or reviewing an article by Dr. Dehiya) that you refer to claims very close connections between modern Jats and the Indian Manda and Maurya dynasties (and, therefore, with Ashoka, the rulers of Khotan, etc., etc), the Magas of Iran, "Dahis or Massa Gatae on the Caspain Sea," "Usbeck Tatars," the Amorites of Babylonia and Egypt, the Gutians of Sumeria, the people of Balkh and Merv, Scythians, the Yuezhi, the Yakshas, the Goths of Europe, the founders of the city of Ecbatana in Iran, the rulers of Nineveh - the 'Ari Zantoi' - a "royal governing class of Persia", Ugrians, Uighurs, the Mura and Nairi of Assyrian records, and others. Moreover, he claims that Jats provided the origin of European names such as More/Moor, Hans, Chavannes, Gauls, Rose, Irish 'Mug' and Gothic 'Magus' and even that that the ancestors of Cyrus and Darius were vassals of Jats. You must admit that Drs. Abbas and Dehiya are "drawing a very long bow" - especially when they are claiming "proof" of many of these assumed connections; that they are facts which we should accept as true.
Now, to attempt to answer some of your questions to me. 
You ask: why I am "so allergic to new probabilities?" It is exactly the sort of meanings contained in this word "probabilities" that I object to when it used to describe what I see as, at best, possibilities incapable of proof and, at worst, wild speculations. I don't think these matters have much place in the Wikipedia unless they are clearly marked as such.
Yes, I think it is possible that some of the ancestors of modern Jats have been in India for a very long time. Some of these ancestors quite likely go right back to the original inhabitants of India, many tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years ago. And, during this long time there would have been much mixing between groups and, of course, migrations (undoubtedly leading to more mixing). 
It is when you imply that Jats are not descended from a range of peoples, but are an Aryan "race" that I take exception. I believe that Jats, like all of us, are of mixed descent - and that there is no such thing as a "pure race." So, to say that Jats are partly descended from Aryan peoples is undoubtedly correct. One might even be able to claim that modern Jats are mainly of Aryan stock (whatever that might mean), although I don't know how this could be proven. But, to say that Jats ARE Aryans is a nonsense. 
You have previously defended the use of a note on "Physical Features" [of Jats] which contained terms like "pure Aryan features," "pure Aryan characteristics," "pure Aryan", "unmistakably Aryan", and "non-Aryan features" in this Wikipedia article (see note on "Neutral point of View" above). It is this sort of unprovable and divisive racist speculation and propaganda that really worries me and, I believe, should have no place in these pages. 
Finally: Of course people from Iran have gone to Scandinavia and India (and many other countries) - they still do. And, over time, they have mixed with other groups, as they still do - not only in other countries - but also in Iran, where there are undoubtedly Arabic, Indian, African, Turkic, Jewish and Scythic admixtures, amongst others (as in India). 
I hope this clarifies the points you have raised. Sincerely, John Hill 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear John Hill, Thanks for your note. The subject of migration of Jats needs to be expanded. I hope you will add from the literature you have. Not right now but in future to get better picture of their distribution. burdak 03:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sorry but this is going way too far, after reading the latest additions above about the Germanic links and the long theories of these so called scholars, I feel awful to say, that history is being abused. A lot on this page especially. How can people be seriously urged to contribute when they read that Thor's brother Jat "could be" the father of all Jats, that Hitler is a Jat, Michael Schumacher by that logic is a Jat. Please someone take control of this matter and stop this becoming a serious joke. Mr Burdak, you throw accusations whenever someone challenges your "legends" and "proofs" and yet ignore your racial and supremacist propoganda of jackanory stories. Get real. Soon. Please. and then please contribute. There is so much available about Jats as a people, why hide so much and make wild claims of ancient "legend connections"? Why are you doing this? Insecurity is not an excuse for this behaviour surely. This isn't meant to be rude, but abrupt. Surely you can see where you are now going a tad too far in these crazy connections? I look forward to your useful contributions of fact. Until then, keep legend in the story books, and out of history books please.--Mein hoon don 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Shree Burdak

message: I have just removed another attempt by Shri Burdak to refer to the appalling and insulting reference to Krishna and the Jats by Alberuni from this article. Shree Burdak, this has all been discussed at length previously (please have another look at all the notes under "Deletion of section referring to a claim by Alberuni that Krishna was a Jat" above on this same page). 
Do we have to keep repeating this pointless argument? Can't you see that such an unsubstantiated, insulting report (insulting, by the way, to both Krishna and to Jats) by a Muslim author about events occuring thousands of years before his time has no place in a serious encyclopedia? Are you, perhaps, secretly a fanatic Muslim trying to ridicule Krishna and Jats?
I have also toned down some of the reported claims of UN Sharma to indicate that they are nothing more than claims - or, at the very least, not well-established historical facts.
If other readers are interested in what has been happening on this page in terms of what I see as racial supremecist propaganda, please have a look at the edits I have made and decide for yourselves if I am being unreasonable. Thank you, Sincerely, John Hill 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear John Hill, I do not understand how connection of Jats with Krishna is insulting to Jats or Krishna. When Bharatpur rulers themselves call as descendants of Krishna and this claim is substantiated with their ancestry records. Have you gone through UN Sharma's book ? What are the facts to substantiate your deletions. I again write that many facts will be derived from ancestry records that will form the part of History. If you are so sincere about history based on historical facts then why do not read the Rajput articles, where people called Agnivanshi Rajputs are produced from fire with the help of mantras? Have you gone there and edited any of those articles to improve the authenticity. Your tone about the Muslim author seems to be insulting to Al-biruni. Here your role in deletion seems unreasonable. burdak 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting poorly substantiated claims once again

message: First of all, please let me unreservedly apologise to you for the unkind comment I made referring to you in my last note which was written in haste and in frustration at having to revisit items I thought we had already fully dealt with. 
As to my other comments - I stand fully behind them and leave it to other readers to make up their minds as to whether they believe they are valid or not.
I agree that some facts may be "derived from ancestry records that will form the part of History" - but, they would have to be carefully substantiated from other sources before they could be accepted as "history." Ancestry records are notoriously unreliable, as they tend to glorify the family histories they purport to record, and hide uncomfortable facts.
I had not previously read the article on the Agnivanshi Rajputs simply because I have not been aware of unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated claims about famous historical figures being made - as has been commonly done on this page. I have just now looked up Agnivanshi in the Wikipedia and found the story I think you are referring to. It is headed "The Agnikunda legend" - thereby clearly indicating that this story is not being presented as historical fact. I also note the page has boxes questioning its factual accuracy and saying that it doesn't adequately cite its references or sources. There is, therefore, no call for me to say anything.
Finally, I leave it up to the readers to decide whether Al-biruni was biased or not. However, I think it should be obvious to most people that Al-biruni, a Persian traveller who visited India about a thousand years ago, was most unlikely to have been an expert on events that were claimed to have taken place in India thousands of years before his visit and involving a god who would have been considered an anathema to someone of his religion. Why, then, do you think he might be worth quoting in a general article on Jat people?
Sincerely, John Hill 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Shree Burdak

message: The evidences from history and literature in support of the fact that Jats have descended from Krishna are as under:-
*When Jarasandha invaded Mathura with a vast army; and another asura, Kalayavan by name, surrounded Mathura with army of thirty million monstrous fiends, Then Krishna departed to Dwaraka along with Andhakas, Vrishnis, Bhojas etc clans. Mahabharata mentions in chapter 25, shloka 26 that Lord Krishna founded a federation ‘Gana-sangha’ of Andhak and Vrishni clans. This federation was known as ‘Gyati-sangh’. Each member of this ‘Gyati-sangh’ was known as ‘Gyat’. Krishna was chief of this sangha. Over a period of time ‘Gyati’ became ‘Gyat’ and it changed to Jat. The use of sutra - Jat jhat sanghate in sanskrit by Panini's grammar seems to have started from here. Thus Krishna is the real ancestor and founder of Jats. Mahabharata: Krishna – Narad Uvach Thakur Deshraj: Jat Itihas (Hindi), Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi, 1934, 2nd edition 1992. Page 106-109 
*According to Pandit Lekhraj descendants of Yadu are known as Yadavas after their eponymous ancestor Yadu. Yadu changes to Yadav which changes to  Jadav and Jat as per Sanskrit grammar. Parmesh Sharma & Rajpal Shastri: Kshatriyon ka Itihas
* Nazmul Gani in Karnam-e-Rajput writes that Jat community is right in having proud of being descended from Krishna.Nazmul Gani:Kārnām-e-Rājput
*The Arabian traveler Al-Biruni has mentioned that Jats have descended from Lord Krishna. Alberuni's India, vol i, p 401Al-Biruni, India:Translated by Kayamuddin, Published by National Book Trust, India, 1997 page-176 The Muslim contries have a notion that Jats are the ancestors of Yadavas.
*James Todd writes that Jats are descendants of Krishna. Cf. Pali inscription, no. 1, Tod, op.cit., p621 James Todd: Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2 Vols., Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1972 (reprint), first published in 1829
*Dr S. Jabir Raza of Aligarh Muslim University writes that as a mythological origin, jats are said to be the descendants of the gods Shiva and Krishna. Dr S. Jabir Raza:The Jats - Their Role and Contribution to the Socio-Economic Life and Polity of North and North West India, Vol.I, 2004. Page 55, Ed. by Dr Vir Singh , Publisher - M/S Originals (an imprint of low priced publications), A-6, Nimri commercial Centre, Near Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi-110052.
*Mr Neshfield, a renowned scholar of Indology, writes that The word Jat is nothing more than the modern Hindi pronunciation of Yadu or Jadu, the tribe in which Krishna was born.
*The Sinsinwar Jat rulers of Bharatpur have been recorded as Yadavavanshi, the descendants of Krishna by Prakash Chandra Chandawat. Dr. Prakash Chandra Chandawat: Maharaja Suraj Mal aur unka yug, Jaypal Agencies Agra, 1982
*UN Sharma has mentioned the chronology of Krishna in which starting from Sindhupal in 64th generation of Krishna to Bharatpur ruler Maharaja Brijendra Singh (1929-1948) all the rulers are mentioned as Yaduvanshi Jats. UN Sharma :Jaton ka Navin Itihas
* Thakur Deshraj has mentioned in "Jat Itihas" that Bharatpur rulers were Chandravanshi, which was a branch Vrishni clan Yaduvanshis in which was born Krishna. Thakur Deshraj: Jat Itihasa, Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi. 1936, Page 628 (in Hindi)
*Almost all early Jat rulers have been mentioned by contemporary poets as Yaduvanshis. The poet Sūdan Sudan: Sujan-charitra, page-4, poet Somnath Somnath: Sujanvilas,page 133, poet Udayram Udayram: Sujan samva have written about the origin of Sinsinwar Jat rulers of Bharatpur in Brij language as under -
:तीन जाति जादव की, अंधक, विस्‍नी, भोज ।
:तीन भांति तेई भये, तै फिर तिनही षोज ।।
:पूर्व जनम ते जादव विस्‍नी ।
:तेई प्रकटे आइ सिनसिनी ।।
:Translation:-The Yadavas had three clans of Andhaka, Vrishni and Bhoja, out of which was originated the Sinsinwar clan.
*Raja Laxman Singh writes in Memoirs of Bulandshahar that it is a verified fact that the Jats of Bharatpur are descendants of Yadavas in which was born Krishna. The states of Bharatpur, Karauli, Jaisalmer, Mysore and Sirmaur link their ancestry with Krishna.Raja Laxman Singh: Memoirs of Bulandshahar
* Prakash Chandra Chandawat has conducted Ph.D. research work on Maharaja Suraj Mal of Bharatpur in which he writes that  The Bharatpur Jat rulers are from the Yadavavansha descended from Krishna. The rulers of Bharatpur and Karauli have a common ancestor Sindpal, in the twelfth generation of Sindpal were Tahanpal, whose youngest son is the ancestor of Karauli rulers and third son Madanpal is ancestor of Bharatpur rulers. After the puranic records of Yaduvanshi Krishna, the historical records are found from the time of Dharmpal, who wasin 77th generation of Krishna. The ancestor of Bharatpur rulers was Madanpal and his descendant was Balchand in the 19th generation.Dr. Prakash Chandra Chandawat: Maharaja Suraj Mal Aur Unka Yug (1745-1763). Jaypal Agencies, Agra. 1982, Page 15 (in Hindi)
*Jat historian Bhaleram Beniwal has written after recent researches with evidences in his book "Jāton kā Ādikālīn Itihās" that Krishna was by all evidences noting other than Jat. He has mentioned the above referred evidences in addition to the following authors which mention Krishna as Jats. Bhaleram Beniwal : "Jāton kā Ādikālīn Itihās" (page 26-30), Jaypal Agencies Agra These are Yogendrapal ShastriYogendrapal Shastri:Jaton ka utkarsh (page286), Motilal Gupta Motilal Gupta: Matsya Pradesh ki Hindi Sahitya ko den (page214) Walter Hamilton Walter Hamilton: The east India Gazeteer (Vol. 1, page 233). burdak 08:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is a highly suspect account. How can you deny what has been written above Burdak? Or are you not reading it on purpose? You have been proven to sanitise things for the article to appear one way when it is in effect completely different. Alberuni blatantly said Krishna was born to lowly Shudra Jats and is this blatantly implies that Jats are Shudra and lowly in the same line. How can you accept this? Are you out of your mind? Alberuni's comment should be deleted completely. I dont care who the Bharatpur rulers are, this reference is prejudicial and shouldn't be here. For record, you know this and are being coy being re introducing it a few weeks later. --Mein hoon don 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidences to substantiate Krishna - Jat connection

message: Dear All: I think it is time to take a deep breath and try to discover some way out of this impasse. I was feeling really sad yesterday that I had allowed myself to become so emotionally involved in this dispute that I stooped to making some unkind personal remarks. It is clear to me now that Shree Burdak and others (mostly anonymous) hold very strong religious and racial beliefs about the origins of the Jats and no amount of argument or evidence to the contrary is likely to change their minds. 
Similarly, it is unreasonable to think one could convince a committed Muslim, Jew or Christian that their holy books do not contain the true word of God which should be taken absolutely literally - or that, even if we can agree that these books do contain some real historical data, many of the stories they contain are fictional, legendary or, at best, parables.
However, in all these cases, it must be admitted that most people who do not belong to these groups (and many that do) cannot accept that the world was created only about 6,000 years ago (apparently believed by more than half of American citizens), that the Bible or the Koran contain the only true account of God's thinking, or that Krishna died in 3102 BCE and had 16,000 wives, or that anyone ever invaded "Mathura with army of thirty million monstrous fiends." 
A general article in the Wikipedia such as this one on Jat people should, I suggest, focus on verifiable "facts" and make only brief reference to such claims - perhaps with a summary of one or two major traditions - under a heading such as: "Jat traditions and legends" with reference to a separate page with this same heading where these beliefs could be discussed in detail.
This would, I believe, help resolve these problems. We would then have a good, reliable page describing Jats, their customs and history, plus a separate article dedicated to describing legends and traditions associated with (and believed by some) Jat people. Please, would everyone involved in these discussions think seriously about this suggestion and maybe, if they agree, start such a page and move some of the more contentious material from this page to it? Many thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, John Hill 23:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal to resolve this dispute

message: Dear all, there should be no comment on Burdak or John Hill. The comment should be on the content which I have provided for discussion. There is no question of changing the mental make up of any body. Somebody is religious or athiest is his personal matter and not to be discussed on this page. I have quoted the reputed authors who are historians. As far mythology is concerned there is only one book Mahabharata referred. You can not get rid of Mahabharata in India. It is an epic not a history book but some of its contents have been researched and found historically true. So if there is no counter evidence it can not be simply rejected since John Hill or somebody else does not agree on it. 
About 3102 BC it has been mentioned in the History book  "R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhury, Kalikaranjan Datta: An Advanced History of India, fourth edition, 1978, " on page 1067 in the chronology of Indian History. Mahabharata does not mention this date. Wikipedia itself mentions in article on [Krishna]] - 
:"Krishna's birth date as July 19th 3228 B.C.E. Professor N.S. Rajaram in his article 'Search for the Historical Krishna' states: We have therefore overwhelming evidence showing that Krishna was a historical figure who must have lived within a century on either side of that date, i.e., in the 3200-3000 BC period".
So friends concentrate on the issues and not on persons. I agree with last para of John Hill regarding dividing the Jat people article into sections. I appreciate your concerns about Wikipedia. 
I will request you to go to other articles on Wikipedia about Indian topics. Such as Rajput which tells about origin of Rajputs -
: "According to Pouranic legends Khstriyas were born from Hands of Vishnu while Brahmins from the mouth and Vaishyas from stomoche and Shudras from feet". 
The same article writes about origin of Agnivanshi Rajputs- 
:"The Agnivanshi lineage, claims descent from four persons who were born from fire or by the influence of Ved Mantras. According to Pouranic legend as found in Bhavishya Purana, an yagna was held at Mount Abu, at the time of emperor Ashoka's sons. From the influence of Mantras of the four Vedas four Kshatriyas were born". 
Indian epics never mention Krishna as Shudra. It was later priestly class not in harmony with the philosophy of Krishna who may allege it. Caste concept was not at that time. Varna is different thing, which were as per category of work. Since Krishna was a ruler how can he be classed as Shudra?  
How are you feeling insulted on Al-biruni? He was the first muslim scholar to study India and Brahminical traditions. May be his comments do not suit certain class in India. The context of Al-biruni may be different but we simply take him as regards to mentioning Krishna in relation to Jats. Caste itself is a mythical origin and can not be discussed here. How does it matter if somebody calls Shudra or Brahman. Do you believe one can be born from mouth to become Brahman or born from feet to become Shudra?
Thanks and Regards,
burdak 07:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong wrong wrong. If you are citing a legend (despite it's religious value) then it must be indicated as such, not as factual evidence. But your behaviour indicates something interesting. You are being cornered about the proofs you allege here, and when they are found as wrong or sanitised, you start harping on about other pages and allegations? Those will be dealt with in due course, but let's deal with what we have here shall we? The Indian epics regard Krishna as a king, yes. But Jat? no. Alberuni mentions Krishna as a Shudra Jat. You like to use the Jat part but sanitise the Shudra part? Whats wrong with the full reference? Jats are Jats. Are you going to confirm to the whole wide world that Shudras and Vaishyas can't be Jats? Please be real and get out of cuckoo land Burdak.--Mein hoon don 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concentrate on issue not on persons 

message: What are you trying to do? When will you stop trying to push your one-sided view of events to the exclusion of others? You continue to trap yourself by changing or omitting things to suit your own views. 
Here is but one example: In your recent reference to Krishna's birthdate you quote from the article on Krishna in the Wikipedia, but conveniently omit the key part of it, which is contained in the first sentence: "Traditional belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations gives Krishna's birth date as July 19th 3228 B.C.E.[4][5]"
Please note that the article carefully states that the date (which is quite different than the one you propose) is a "Traditionl belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations." It does not claim that it is a fact or that it is true - it indicates by this qualification that, while it may be believed by some people, it may well not be true or accurate. So, readers who do not believe in the literal truth of early Indian scriptures, or who do not trust the findings of astrologers, are pre-warned that this is not meant to be accepted as established fact.
It is exactly this sort of qualification I am hoping you will learn to use to qualify your speculations.
The date for Krishna's birth given by R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury, and Kalikaranjan Datta is, according to you, 3102 BCE, while the Wikipedia article gives 3228 BCE as the "traditional date". I am sure I could find astrologers who would give a different date altogether. So, which should we believe, and why?
Is it not a tenable position to say that the Mahabharata is an inspiring ancient legend which may or may not contain kernels of historical truth, but is unlikely to be able to provide us with trustworthy dates?
You also (conveniently) forget to mention that the references to the Agnivanshi lineage in the Rajput article are carefully listed under the sub-heading "=== Legendary ===", which gives the reader fair warning of the type of information this is supposed to represent. It does not list them as "history," or "fact" or that it was mentioned by some "historian". It clearly labels the material as legendary. 
This sort of qualification is all I have been asking for in this article. I believe it would improve it tremendously and make it credible and useful to a much wider audience if this was done; instead of presenting an article which will be seen by many, if not most, readers as naive, inaccurate and biased.
Finally, are you seriously proposing that I would have to disprove that Mathura was attacked by "thirty million monstrous fiends" before I can question the historical accuracy of the Mahabharata? Should I just accept this because you say that "some of its contents have been researched and found historically true"? 
I might add that there has been quite a lot of work done which "proves" that some of the contents of the Bible and Koran are historically true. Does that mean that you will then accept everything they say? Come on now, please answer my questions for once - and stop trying to ignore the points I am making, as you commonly do.
I could go on and on - but I really don't have the time or heart to keep on exposing the inconsistencies and absurdities of your positions. 
I am very pleased to see that you at least "agree with last para of John Hill regarding dividing the Jat people article into sections."  The sooner you get your interpretations of Jat "history" onto a page headed something like: "Jat traditions and legends", and off this page which is meant to be a sober encyclopedia article on the Jat people, the better it will be for everyone. Sincerely, John Hill 08:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh, Shree Burdak!

message: I notice Shree Burdak, while not responding to my note above, has just added a large amount of material on the Jats in Sind. Much of this may well be factual, and I certainly don't have the time to check it all for accuracy - but one claim caught my eye and I thought I should bring it up.
The account of Xuanzang (Hieun Tsang) does not specify who the people he saw in Sind were, and I believe it is impossible to state whether or not they were Jats, as Shree Burdak implies when he states: "In the seventh century the Chinese traveler Hieun Tsang witnessed their settlement. . . ."
There is nothing I can see in the account that could give any clear indication of who the tribe or community of almost a thousand families was, except to describe their occupations as slaughter and raising cattle. This description could refer to any of many different tribal, or other groups - perhaps they were Jats, perhaps they were not. And, if they were Jats, who were the other inhabitants of Sind at the time?  
In fact, Xuanzang says nothing about the "ethnicity" of peoples in Sind, although he does mention the caste of the king. I thought I would quote a couple of short sections from the latest English translation (The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions translated by Li Rongxi, Numata Centre for Buddhist Translation and Research. 1966), although the earlier translations by Beal and Watter of these passages are both adequate:
:"The country of Sindhu is more than seven thousand li in circuit, and its capital city, named Vichavapura, is over thirty li in circuit. . . . The king, a Sudra by caste, is a man of simplicity and honesty, and he respects the Buddha-dharma. . . . In a district of slopes and marshes extending to more than a thousand li beside the Sindhu River there live several hundred, nearly a thousand, families of ferocious people who made slaughter their occupation and sustain themselves by rearing cattle, without any other means of living." Ibid, pp. 345-346.
There is more - but I don't think it is any more enlightening about the origins of these people whom Shree Burdak implies were Jats. If anyone knows of any more positive evidence about the origins of these people, please present it here. Otherwise, we should probably remove this reference to Xuanzang's account from the page. Sincerely, John Hill 11:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If thats the case, then there is major fraud going on in this article. Wikipedia must be informed of this. Whats more worrying, is that the sanitisation of remote and highly improbably untenable links is being used here as confirmed historic references. Thats plain fraud.--Mein hoon don 11:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Mr John, If you go below what you quoted you will find that The Chinese traveler Hieun Tsang refers that 'there are several hundreds of thousands families settled in Sind.Beal, Vol.II,p.273 Obviously these unnamed people were the Jats.Dr S.Jabir Raza, The Jats - Their Role and Contribution to the Socio-Economic Life and Polity of North and North West India. Vol I, 2004, Ed Dr Vir Singh It is clear that Hieun Tsang does not mention ethnicity but it is made clear by Dr S.Jabir Raza as referred above. It is not that I implied it. Probably you jump very fast to conclusions. Hope there is no dispute. It is unfortunate that before I put a note some body has deleted the Jats in Sindh Section which I had to restore first. It makes clear that the man who has deleted is biased and doing vandalism.burdak 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mr. Burdak! There is no mention of the numbers of people in Sindh below what I quoted. I should mention that Beal's pioneering 1888 translation that you are referring to reads "hundreds of thousands of families (a very great many) . . . " but it seems to be an error - do check Watters who refers to "some myriads of families", and the latest translation (1996) by Li Rongxi (p. 346) who puts their number at only "several hundred, nearly a thousand, families . . ." If I can get hold of the Chinese text I will check it myself but, unfortunately, I don't have it here. For the rest of my answer please go to the Talk page of Indo-Aryan origin of Jats. John Hill 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jats in Sind

message: I have observed that large content of this article was deleted in last days. This is vandalism and should be stopped immediately. I had to restore sections like, Image of A Jat Sepoy, Jats in Shahnama, Jats in Sindh and Migration from Sindh, a part of Jats in Mahabharata. Can somebody find who did it and get him banned? burdak 05:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr. Burdak: I have just had a quick look through the history of this page and found that your image of a Jat Sepoy was removed by someone at the IP Address of 81.131.64.188 at 21:50 8th April - if that is of any help. He or she also made a number of other changes including interfering with some of the changes I had made. I may disagree with you on some things - but just removing sections without discussing it or even noting what one has done is not on. Please, whoever is doing this, stop immediately. Sincerely, John Hill 06:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mr John Hill ! I searched further and found that all the content referred above was deleted by the same fellow. I have warned him on his talk page. burdak 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to admit, that was in poor taste whoever did that. The Jats in Sindh was questionable but qorkable so should have been discussed here before removal. The Shahnama reference, well, after seeing the sanitisation happening here and the lies about sources claiming things which evidently they did not, I have to review the Shahnama references to see if they really did claim what it is alleged here they did. But I still think they should have been left and not removed.--Mein hoon don 12:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop vandalism 

message: I have just removed the comment: "It is also not accepted by modern consensus" which followed the qualifying sentence under the list of Ancient Indian kingdoms which some people claim to be Jat. It is not accurate to state that these claims are "not accepted by modern consensus" - there is obviously no consensus as we have been having an argument about this subject for a long time on these pages without reaching any consensus. However, the qualifying statement should remain as there is no proof that any of these kings or kingdoms were Jat - only speculations. Therefore, I have also removed the "citation needed" tag which is no longer necessary. John Hill 07:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some text and a "Citation needed" tag removed

message: Dear John Hill, I do not agree with the sentence put below the Ancient Jat Rulers heading. You have put following sentence:
:"It must be noted that the ancestry of the above kings has never been proven to be Jat"
Question arises how will you prove that one was Jat or not. One of the evidence adopted these by these authors is that clans are found on present day in Jats. It is the strongest evidence. It is on the basis of these historians we say that these rulers were Jats. If there is other school of thoughts who say that these are not Jats, but belong to some other clan then we have to cite the source. A general statement can not be put and assumed to be a truth. So you should not remove the citation tag. It is wrong. So I put it back. Let the citation tag be there so long further evidences come. If there is no source in support of this statement it may be removed. Thanks. burdak 10:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont think so. The citation is in itself a citation request! How can you say it needs another one? Because of a handful of theorists who only theorised it (funnily enough, mostly Jats themselves hence some bias ofcourse) how can we say that it is "confirmed" evidence which now needs to be refuted? I agree with John here Burdak, be reasonable and let's work through this. Stay calm and stop getting into a mood everytime assertions are challenged. And stop leaving silly messages on my page and on here too. Your acting immature as well as fanatical when you do silly things like this to give you an idea, Im going to do the same and show everyone how when you asked for help, you were "advised" to properly reference the contents!--Mein hoon don 12:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi. Nice to see you again. In case, it is a case of vandalism, I highly deplore the same, and in the long run, all vandals are dealt with suitably. However, Burdakjee, when we are on a wiki, other editors may always come and change the contents. In case, you want the images, please verify the images once more for suitable copyright tags and if they fit into the contexts, you may again add them. Moreover, you should try to properly reference the contents. --Bhadani (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to John Hill 

message: Dear All: First of all to answer Shree Burdak: I have not added the statement ""It must be noted that the ancestry of the above kings has never been proven to be Jat" - it was there already - someone else must have added it - although do agree with it. I simply removed an unnecessary comma and the second part of the statement which said: "It is also not accepted by modern consensus" - because I think that was untenable.
I am heartened to find that there are people really trying to find a way of correcting and making this article better. I am, however, very sorry all of this has dragged on and on for such a long time. I don't enjoy finding fault with things and having to constantly argue points - I would much rather be doing other things. It is just that I think that in an article in a free open encyclopedia which is available to people around the world, there should be informative, historically accurate, and reliable information which presents Jats in a positive but realistic way. Otherwise people will go away with a false idea of Jats - and may be turned off, or even angered, by some of the inflated (and, I believe, ridiculous) claims that have been made on this page. 
It has been my good fortune to know many Jats through my life, including close friends and people who have kindly and generously helped me when I was in need. And not only Jats, but Indians in general. I grew up amongst people of Indian descent, I have lived in India (and I should point out that, in many ways, I feel more at home in India than in my mother country - Canada). I am fascinated with Indian history and have have spent many enjoyable years studying it. My life has been immeasurably enriched by my contact with India and Indians, including Jats. So, it is with a deep sense of love and respect, indebtedness and responsibility, that I approach Indian history, and I hate to see it being misused in ways which I fear may increase communal tensions and/or bring Jats into ridicule.
There is far too much of such problems already in this sad world - surely here we can do better, avoid these unnecessary and negative actions, and present a truly accurate and positive picture of Jats and their accomplishments for the world to see and learn from. This article could be (and should be) an example of fairness, accuracy and interest to all.
It is for these reasons, dear readers, that I have kept coming back here and trying to point out the misquotes, suppositions passed off as facts, misrepresentations and inflated claims and incessant bickering. It is really quite shameful and unnecessary and has, at times, brought out bad feelings and even angry outbursts from myself - which has been an unpleasant surprise for me.
At this point I am really at a loss as to what to do. As I see it, the page at present contains a number of distortions and even falsehoods (many of which I have already pointed out and have tried to deal with - but most of them are still in there). Because I have found so many wrong claims in sections that I know something about - I am fearful and deeply suspicious that there may be others in areas that I don't know enough about to check properly. One problem is that I am at least 2,500 km from a decent library - so I only have my own small library of works on India to check, and whatever I can find on the internet. 
I really feel the page should be heavily edited, or even better, rewritten, to make sure everything on it is factual or, when dealing with legendary, mythological or traditional material this should be kept to a minimum and clearly marked as such. Such material could be expanded on other pages clearly marked as "Jats and Mythology", Jats in Legend", "Jats in Indian scripture", or similar. There is no need to get every reference to Jats onto one page. 
This should be a general page giving the average reader a reliable and factual account of who Jats are, and what their culture and achievements have been. There is no need to endlessly promote Jats and Jat accomplishments beyond what is well-established and known. Jats, as a group, are as good as any other people on the face of this planet, and their history is as interesting and as glorious as any I can think of. I know that Jat history has been ignored and distorted by other groups (particularly ruling groups and conquerors) at times. Please remember that this has happened (and is presently happening) to many peoples around the world. There is absolutely no need to feel inferior and try to compensate for this by overblown and false claims. This, I believe, is what I have been objecting to most on this page. 
However, this rather major work of revision is obviously not for me to attempt. I am not a Jat - nor am I an expert on the history of Jats. I am happy to help and certainly hope to continue making suggestions or to point out when I think there is an error (whether deliberate or not) but, really, it should be written by qualified people, preferably by Jats themselves. And Jats themselves should (I humbly suggest) take responsibility for this page to make sure that it is accurate and wholesome and not likely to bring ridicule on their community or to cause hatred or resentment. I can't do this for you - but I sure hope it happens - and the sooner the better.
When I do see something that I know about that I feel needs correcting I will continue to say so - and will continue to give my reasons for doing so. But, please don't feel that I am hostile towards Jats, or am trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult - quite the opposite is the case.
I wish everyone the very best and do hope that you can all find some way of overcoming your differences to produce a fine, informative article which you (and all of us) can feel proud of. Best wishes to all. Sincerely, John Hill 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to the above correspondences

message: The above note supplied by Mr. Burdak is taken word for word from http://www.jatland.com/home/Gupta_Empire , but, let us not judge him too harshly, as he was, apparently, originally responsible for this masterpiece of logic and historical reasoning himself on the jatland.com site.
We might as well close this page (and many if not most other pages on Indian history) and just refer everyone to Mr. Burdak's own "wikipedia." There you can find all the "proof" you will ever need (and far, far more) that, not only was Delhi - and many other places of import - founded by Jats, but the following kingdoms were all Jat kingdoms: 
* Jangladesh: Asiagh; Beniwal; Godara; Johiya; Kaswan; Nehra; Saran; Punia 
* Lichhavi Dynasty
* Mauryan Empire: Chandra Gupta; Bindusara; Ashoka 
* Kushan Empire: Kadphises; Havishka; Kanishka; Vasudeva
* Gupta Empire: Srigupta; Ghatotkacha; Chandragupta; Samudragupta; Chandragupta II; Kumaragupta I;           Skandagupta; Narasimhagupta 
* Malwa: Harshavardhana; Shiladitya; Singhavarma; Vishnuvardhan; Yasodharman 
* Sindh: Balhara; Nehra; Rai Dynasty 
You might also like to read about the Jat kingdoms in: Afghanistan; Asia; Assyria; Baluchistan; China; Egypt; Greece; India; Iraq; Iran; Italy; Jutland; Kent Kingdom; Maldives; Nepal; Scandinavia;    Turkey; Turkistan; Ukraine.
Seeing Krishna was a Jat and had 14,000 (I think that was the number) wives, and he lived some 5,000 years ago, it is becoming clear to me now that everyone in the world is a Jat and there is absolutely no need for any more historical or archaeological research as everything is "proved" already. Undoubtedly, Mr. Burdak will soon enlighten us as to how the Jats founded the Aztec, Mayan and Incan empires, Japan, Easter Island, Australian Aboriginal cultures, African cultures, etc., etc., etc.
Jats of religions other than Hindu (including Sikh and Muslim Jats) should examine the notes on the Ary Samaj page as you are clearly in serious error - see: http://www.jatland.com/home/Arya_Samaj . After reading it you will be sure to understand that your previous beliefs must be wrong because: 
"The Vedas were created by God as prior to the creation of the universe and given to the ancient rishis. It contains all the fixed truths of the universe, the True Knowledge. Such laws are unchangeable (i.e. Karma, Dharma and Physical laws), they are not of the changeable type (i.e. this webpage has the colour 'x')." 
And, again: 
"a) The Arya Samaj does not believe in the infallibility or immunity from mistakes. To err is to be human.
b) The only appropriate forms of worship are that of the fire (havan).
c) The Arya Samaj believes in the Law of Karma. This is the truth that "acts must follow by their consequences, that the result of actions cannot be warded off or atoned by any means". This is in connection with the theory of reincarnation.
d) The Arya Samaj does not believe in "Fate". Those born in a lowly position are not condemned to live a life of despair. It is the soul system that has degraded people to punish them for the positions of the rich and powerful.
e) Everyone can make and unmake his or her destiny through the Law of Karma.
f) The Vedas are infallible and expects every woman and man to know them and to expound them for the benefits of others." 
Now you know - you have no excuse! I guess we had better just ask Mr. Burdak if we can borrow all the articles from his Jatland website and forget about trying to write anything different here in the Wikipedia (for, if you try you will be sure to be abused and worn down into submission by the dogged persistence of Mr. Burdak and his true-believer friends). As Mr. Burdak has already said to one presumptious contributer to this page: "Mind it!!!!" John Hill 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont blame your anguish Mr Hill, Burdak and his friends have made this page amazingly ludicrous. I have only just added a dispute tag to the life and culture part of this article. Swords girded around their waists?! Ready for battle for their people? this isn't a romantic war propoganda novel, it's an encyclopedia!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mein hoon don (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do hope that one day this article might be worthy of being in an encyclopedia, but sometimes I despair. I am extremely busy at the moment trying to get a book ready for the publishers so I wish someone other than myself would edit out all the romantic and elitist nonsense that the page is already cluttered with (and is still being added to), and check out all the "references" because so many false and misleading ones have been given in the past. It has turned this whole article into a farce, which is really sad - and so unnecessary. John Hill 04:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is nothing left to research

message: I have tried to avoid using this tag as long as possible but I don't think I should continue being so  accepting of material that is likely to cause bad feelings between various communal and/or racial groups or, at the very least, are misleading to readers. Here are some of the statements which I feel show bias or unprovable assertions presented as "fact" and, therefore, should be removed from this article:
1. "In the government of their villages, they appear much more democratic than the Rajput; they have less reverence for hereditary right and a preference for elected headmen."
2. "Jats and Meds have been the oldest occupants of Sind." What about the Harrapans? How can it then be said in the next paragraph that: "Traditionally Jats of Sind consider their origin from the far northwest and claimed ancient Garh Gajni (modern Rawalpindi) as their original abode."?
3. "The Sinsinwar Jat rulers of Bharatpur have been recorded as Yadavavanshi, the descendants of Krishna by Prakash Chandra Chandawat.[23] Historian UN Sharma has mentioned the chronology of Krishna in which starting from Sindhupal in 64th generation of Krishna to Bharatpur ruler Maharaja Brijendra Singh (1929-1948) all the rulers are mentioned as Yaduvanshi Jats.[24] Sidhu Jats are also Bhatti Rajput in origin, and thus Yaduvanshi in origin." 
Why is the genealogy of some royal family, supposedly descended from a god, inserted into this article with no qualification. Genealogies, particularly, royal genealogies, are notoriously unreliable and often try to present a sanitised and glorified background for a family. Therefore this bald unprovable claim should either be eliminated from the article or clearly marked as a (probably) biased attempt by a family to show their descent from a deity.    
4. "The clan names of the Jats are unique in India. However, some of their clan names do overlap with the Rajputs and Gujars." Now - what is the point in saying that "the clan names of the Jats are unique in India" if, in the same sentence you state: "However, some of their clan names do overlap with the Rajputs and Gujars."?? This does not make sense.
5. "The Jats of the lower Indus comprise both Jats and Rajputs." Please let us know what Rajputs have to say about this. I have never heard of a Rajput claiming they were a Jat - but, perhaps some do. 
6. How can it be claimed that: "Nabha was a state of Siddhu Jats" when it is also said in the same paragraph that: "According to another version they the founder of this Sikh dynasty descent from Jaisal, clan of Bhatis the founder of the State of Jaisalmer in 1156."
7. "Today, besides agriculture, Jats are engaged in white-colour [sic!] jobs, trade and commerce." What about "blue-collar" jobs, and as servants? I have known Jats working in such positions. Why are only the more "respectable", positions listed. On the other hand, why not mention Jat doctors and lawyers and the hundreds of other positions filled by Jats? Wouldn't it be better just to say that as more Jats are moving into cities and foreign countries they are beginning to move into many new professions?
These points are in addition to the many others I have previously raised on this Talk page (and in the Archives) pointing out many falsehoods, misleading statements, wrongly quoted material, and racial and religious supremacist views - some of which, fortunately, I have been able to remove from the article and they have not yet been reinstated.
Please, dear reader, have a close look at these and the other disputes on this Talk page and then help to make this a factual article of interest to all and truly worth of Jats. 
Tonight I have also added a "bias tag" to the even more deeply disturbing article on the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats which interested readers might like to check.  
Sincerely, John Hill 10:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias tag added

message: I notice someone calling himself "James Smith2" (is this an alias for LR Burdak, by any chance?) has recently begun adding some more misleadingly referenced text.  
He states that: "Many Jats continued to resist, and a century later, Jatts would stage rebellions against the Abbasid Caliphs, even killing some of their Amirs" and gives as a reference a talk given by a Mr. M. H. Panhwar given to the National Museum in Karachi in 1979. In fact, Mr. Panhwar makes no such statement at all in his article - the closest to it is perhaps his account on p. 11 of his article that the Arab Hamari, Umar bin Abdul Aziz killed Imran bin Musa Barmaki the Abbasid governor of Sindh and with "the help of local Sindhi tribes of Jats, Meds and others he was able to capture Sindh in 854/5 AD and establish Habari dynasty."
Actually, the comment is taken word for word from the source of James Smith2's previous reference which is a stridently pro-Jat website at: http://www.surajmalfoundation.com/jattoday.html where the comment is unreferenced and, therefore, may reasonably be suspected of bias. 
Readers having a look at this website may be interested to note how many of the contentious statements made here in the past have been taken from it with hardly any changes. Many long passages have been taken word for word from this website. To give just three examples (the first three I have checked this morning) - the whole of the sections on the "Jat Kingdoms in Medieval India," the "Rai Dynasty" and "Bharatpur" have been pasted in practically without change (as far as I can see) from this Jat website. No credit has been given in this article for these long lifted passages. I believe this is plagiarism and not permissible in the Wikipedia and is probably a breach of copyright as well.
I suggest all such sections be removed, and then rewritten and properly referenced. Before I start removing them, though, would anyone like to make any comments please? Also, would someone else like to take on this necessary editing job? Sincerely, John Hill 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not good. I think you should take the initiative and go for it John. Funnily enough, Mr James Smith2 is actually complaining about me to other vandal patrollers when he himself is added breached unsourced and biased material? The poor attitude of the users of this article is astonishing and indicative of the bias we face here.--Mein hoon don 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More questionable references

message: Any edits you make (John) must be agreed with fellow wikipedians in consensus otherwise any unilateral edits will be reverted immediately.--Indian50 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: First, let me assure you I NEVER make edits without giving my reasons and signing my name properly. 
Second, there is absolutely no justification for you to insist that I must get consensus from "fellow wikipedians" before I make any "unilateral" edits. No one else on the Wikipedia has to seek consensus before editing - why are you making a special case of me? 
Also, why do you threaten to revert any edits I make immediately? Who do you think you are? Do you not check first to see if you think they are worthwhile edits? I notice on your User page that you say you are opposed to on-line censorship - your note above makes a mockery of this. If you make such a threat again I will definitely report you. 
Third, my question as to whether Mr. Burdak has been using aliases is in response to him asking another contributor to this page if he or she was, in fact, me. (They certainly were not - I only use one address - and that is under my proper name - John Hill). So, it is Mr. Burdak who started this querying of identity - not me. The first time I noticed he did this was on 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Indian50

message: I notice there has been some more (at least to me) objectionable material added to this rather sad page on Jats, including the following:
:"They are considered genetically superior to other castes and as a result can only marry within their caste. "It only takes a spoonfull of oil to contaminate a ships drinking supply"- a leading jatt comentator made on observing a jatt sikh girl marrying a muslim male.
:The Jat people, as is very well known, sprung forth from the locks of Lord Shiva's head.This ancient depiction, reference or portrayal of Jat people is testimony to their noble, and divine origins. The head is considered sacred in indian culture being one of the chakra's that allows the soul to leave the body on its cosmic journey. With this in mind it is not a difficult conclusion that Jat people have an important and original station in Indian culture. [6]."
I notice that the reference numbered [6] only gives "aa" - so I presume this is another case of vandalism.
I have hesitated to remove these statements because of threats to reverse anything I do on this page. Is there anyone else out there willing to make the necessary cuts? Thanks, John Hill 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More objectionable material

message: I was out for last many days not editing Wikipedia. Mr John Hill seems very much biased against me and wants to put a ban on expanding this article. John Hill had messaged that he is busy and some fellow should come in his place that created doubt in my mind about a certain fellow who was inactive for long period and became active only after John hills call. So I asked him if you are same as John Hill. It was a simple query not to offend any body. That fellow put certain allegations against me but I do not mind. I believe in good health and spirit of Wikipedia. So I contribute. Unfortunately many members have not contributed even a para about Jats and their history but have started considering as experts without understanding the social complexity of the society in India. It will not help. I have created content with reputed sources. We have to accept variety of views when there is no single opinion about a fact.
I do not know what John Hill wants to prove by his comments  about Jatland Wiki and Arya Samaj article on it. This site has its copyright policy made clear on its policy document so where is the need to ask permission of Mr Burdak. Mr Burdak is an editor on that site also like Wikipedia. Arya Samaj was written by some body else and not by me. At times I do editing. Why should it bother Mr John Hill at all.
I do not believe in alternate names. I always write in my own name and give the references.
Regards,
--burdak 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Mr John Hill 

message: I feel I must reply to Mr. Burdak's comments above. First, let me say there is no way I wish to put a ban on expanding this article - I would just like to see it accurate and free of biased and false information. The first thing to do would be to remove questionable material and recheck all the facts. Then, perhaps, we would stand a chance of having a fresh start on producing a useful encyclopedia article instead a misleading mishmash of fantasy and fact.  
I have spent many months now pointing out false quotes, misleading quotes, mythological and other unprovable information presented as facts, and even numerous racially and communally divisive comments in this and related articles (please check the earlier exchanges on this page and the archives to it). Most of my queries and comments above remain unanswered and only a few of them have been acted on. When will the authors (or someone else) attempt to reply to them? If there is no reply - I believe these passages should be changed or removed.
Mr. Burdak says: "We have to accept variety of views when there is no single opinion about a fact." I agree - but with the qualification that this lack of consensus must be made plain in the article so readers are not misled. This is something that has been very commonly lacking on this page - as I have regularly pointed out.
It have found it very difficult to have a reasonable exchange with Mr. Burdak because he either does not answer criticisms or he goes off on a different angle, and/or makes copious quotes from hard-to-check references and/or makes unfounded accusations. 
Please, Mr. Burdak, you do not seem to have understood what I have been writing about nor my concerns about lifting long unattributed passages word-for-word for some other website without even mentioning where the material was taken from. Please look at what I actually wrote above - and, when you understand what I have written, then, if you wish, please reply again.  
Finally, I am relieved to hear that Mr. Burdak, like myself (but unlike some of the people who have made personal attacks against me on these pages) does not believe in alternate names and says: "I always write in my own name and give the references." That is a good start. Maybe, Mr. Burdak, if we try to be unbiased, truthful, and always fair, together we can make this page truly worthy of the Wikipedia and a credit to Jat people. I believe it is worth a try for, as it stands now, it is far below standard. John Hill 07:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re. Mr. Burdak

message: Well, I guess if no one else will do it - I better start cleaning up a few of the many problems in this article. First, I will remove the section on Xuanzang where he refers to some people living along the Indus River. As I pointed out quite a while ago - there is no way to tell whether or not Xuanzang was referring to Jats or to some other group of people - he certainly never made this clear. Therefore, in spite of some claims attributed to a Dr. Raza, until there is some real evidence this information has no place in a Wikipedia article.
Secondly, someone has deleted the qualifying sentence from the list of ancient kings some writers have claimed here were Jats. As we have discussed this in detail earlier on these pages - and there is no real evidence (just claims) that some of them were Jats - I will, therefore, add a qualifing statement again to this list so that readers are not misled. Please do not remove it until some real evidence is given for these claims. John Hill 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of section quoting [[Xuanzang]] and qualifying statement added to the list of kings claimed to be Jats

message: Well, wonder of wonders, Mr. Chaudhary has finally deigned to make a rely to my request for an apology - almost three months after I posted it (see above)! But, of course, there is no apology (I wonder why I am not surprised at this?). Instead, I am assailed with more accusations: "All you are doing is to push your POV, and deleting and re deleting material that does not suit your POV."
Then you say: "You have been asked to join the “Jathistory”  group and prove your case if you can, rather than clutter up the article here. You choose not to. You are welcome to change your mind at any time." 
First of all - there is nothing I have to "prove" - all my arguments have been detailed on these pages already although most of my comments and queries remain unanswered. Those who have something to "prove" are those who have posted questionable information and refrained from answering queries put in good faith. 
What I have been talking about for the past year or more is how to make this a reasonable and balanced Wikipedia article on Jat people. Why should I discuss this somewhere else - out of public view? Why should I try to discuss matters with you on a site where I might well be censored? I say this because I sent a request for an apology from you to your website - but as far as I know it was never posted on it (though, I must admit I have not bothered to check the site for a couple of months now). 
No, Mr. Chaudhary - I believe any discussions we may have should be kept in the open - I wouldn't want to meet you down some back alley of the internet as, from your past behaviour, I can only expect abuse and deviousness. John Hill 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Chaudhary's reply - but no apology

message: Mr. Chaudhary - you started these personal attacks (as is clear from a reading of previous entries). I am still waiting for an apology. "When you change your attitude, perhaps a sensible discussion can take place." John Hill 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks are no substitute for an apology

message: First of all, please add any future comments in a headed section at the end of this page so that everything is in date order. Also, I do not appreciate having your comments inserted into the middle of mine (see the entry above: "No convincing proof of the Mauryas' ancestry exists"), which not only breaks up the flow of what I have written, but makes it difficult to distinguish what I have written and what you have written. This is considered to be vandalism - but as you are, apparently, new to the Wikipedia, I will excuse it this time. 
Now, to try to reply to your comments. First you quote me out of context from when I was looking (unsuccessfully) for a supposed quote of "Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata" in Geiger's translation of the Mahavamsa and asked if anyone could help me find it. In my more recent comments I said I had been aware for several decades that: "Chandragupta was a Moriya - or, as the name is now is generally written in English, Maurya." Now you state:
:Which is it, John Hill? First you write that you couldn't find that quote anywhere, and now you claim that you have been aware of this quote for decades! Mahavamsa states that Changragupt was a warrior (Khattiya) from Jats (jatah). The use of jatah for Jats occurs over and over in Indian history - from the Rgved to the reference to King Harshavardhan as "younger lord of the Jats" (jatahnam anujesvar).
Are you so blind that you cannot see that these are different matters altogether? I have long known that Chandragupta was a Maurya (or whatever variant of this title you choose to use) but I have yet to see any proof or quote in ancient literature that he was a Jat.
Secondly, you state: 
:Claims and counterclaims are irrelevant to reference based scholarship and evidence (full or partial) based conclusions. The names of Jat clans stretch back millenia, and Mori , Marya, Mahauarya, Manarya, Mora etc are Jat clans. Ashok's rock edict #1 calls them Mora, and not Maurya. See this far better researched article:
Well, first of all, the link you give doesn't work - I just get a message saying "File not found" - so kindly send it again so that I can read the article. Next, are you really saying that the other claims for the ancestry of the Mauryas are all "claims and counterclaims" and are not founded on "reference based scholarship"? 
Secondly, please give the text and a reference to the mention of "Mora" in Ashok's Rock Edict No. 1 -  I cannot find it anywhere. It is certainly not indicated (nor is there any indication of his clan) in the translations of this Edict in Romila Thapar's Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas (1961) Oxford University Press - see page 250, nor in D. C. Sircar's Inscriptions of Aśoka, 3rd Edition (Revised 1975), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, p. 41. 
As it seems you are not satisfied that the claims made for the Mauryas' origins on the Wikipedia page Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya are well enough referenced, I have quickly gathered some more references for you from the books at my disposal: 
Regarding the name or title Maurya: Vincent Smith, in his Early History of India (1908) Oxford, p. 115, says in regards to Chandragupta: "Although he was on the father's side a scion of the royal house of Magadha-the principal state in Northern India-his mother was of lowly origin, and, in accordance with Hindu law, he belonged to her caste, and had to bear the reproach of inferior social rank. The family name Maurya, assumed by members of the dynasty founded by Chadragupta, is said to be a derivative from Murā, his mother's name." 
Sircar, Ibid., p. 13, says: "The Mauryas belonged to a Himalayan clan like other such peoples as the Lichchhavis of north Bihar and Nepal. With their gradual absorption in the Brahmanical society, they claimed the status of the Kshatriyas, although orthodox Brahmanists regarded them as no better than Śūdras." 
Thapar, Ibid, p, 12 states: "The Mauryas came on the scene after what the Purāṇas describe as the uprooting of the Nandas by the brahman Kauţalya. The rise of the Mauryas from what appears to have been a comparatively obscure and humble position has been the cause of a variety of traditions concerning their origin. One of these states that the name Maurya was derived from Murā, the wife of a Nanda king and the grandmother or mother of the first Maurya. The Purāṇas, however, do not link the two dynasties, possibly because the Nandas were of śūdra origin, though the Mauryas are described in these texts as śūdra-prāyāstv-adharmikāh, 'mainly śūdras and unrighteous'. This may merely refer to their unorthodox sympathies." 
V. D. Mahajan, in his Ancient India, 8th Edition (1978) revised and enlarged, p. 251, says: "In the Mahavamsa, Chandragupta is mentioned as a scion of the Khattiya clan known as Moiya. In the Divyavadana, Bindusara, the son of Chandragupta, is described as Kshatriya Murdabhishikta or annointed Kshatriya, and Asoka is also described as Kshatriya. In the Mahaparinibhana Sutta, the Moriyas are described as Kshatriyas, who ruled in Pippalivana. As this book is the most ancient of all other books referred to above, its authority must be preferred to that of others. No wonder, it is taken as practically certain that Chandragupta Maurya was a Kshatriya. It is pointed out that the Moriyas were the ruling class in Pipphalivana in the 6th century B.C. between Rummindei and Kasi. They must have been absorbed into Magadhan empire. In the 4th century B.C., they became insignificant. No wonder, Chandragupta Maurya was brought up among peacock-tamers, herdsmen and hunters. It was during the reign of Agrammes when there was a lot of disaffection among the people that the Moriyas came into prominence under the leadership of Chandragupta."
Charles Drekmeier's Kingship and Community in Early India, (1962), Stanford University Press, pp. 167-168, says: "There is some question about the class origin of Chandragupta. The Punjabi king, Porus, is reported by Curtius to have told Alexander that the Nanda king ruling at this time was of low birth-a barber who had become the queen's lover and accomplice in the assassination of the former king. Mahāpadma, the founder of the dynasty (c. 364 B.C.), is described in the puranas as another Paraśurāma (the exterminator of the warrior class). If we are to believe the Buddhist sources, the youngest of the nine Nanda brothers, and the last to rule, was begotten by a man of unknown origin, probably a shudra. Plutarch reports that Chandragupta referred to the base origin of his predecessor, which suggests his own higher status. Kautalya accepts him as a kshatriya, but it is likely that the role of king conferred kshatriyaship by this time. Foreign sources reveal nothing about Chandragupta's alleged humble origin, and there is little evidence to indicate that he was himself of the Nanda dynasty, as some have held. The theory that Chandragupta came from the lower orders runs counter to the puranas and the Buddhist literature. However, the -gupta suffix was most common among members of the vaishya class. Professor Mookerji believes that the clan name Moriya provides a more convincing explanation of the dynasty name Maurya than other theories (such as those which would derive the name fromm "Mura," suggesting humble birth). This argument is based on Buddhist tradition, which holds that the emperor was the son of the chief of this clan."
Well, there you have it - a number of quotes from well-known and respected historians, both Indian and foreign, and if you can see any "proof" of a Jat origin in these often conflicting accounts, please tell me how you come by it. As far as I can tell, the only evidence you can refer to is a rough similarity of the name Maurya (or its variants) with those of some Jat clan, which may well be just a coincidence - it certainly falls far short of what I would call "proof". John Hill 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to DrBrij

message: I would suggest John Hill to first have a deep study of the Jat culture, Jat traditions, Jat Gotras, The Khaps and Sarva Khaps, Distribution of Jats and their migration, the struggles Jats have done for their land and prestige. After study of these things and proper understanding about a social group like Jats,  one can have arguments. How can you explain the existence of more than 3000 jat gotras or clans, Mr John Hill?. If Mr John hill can explain this we can move further for other arguments. We are unable to understand his attitude and objectives. It seems he is adamant not to accept any argument. His only proof is that it is coincidence of names. If you know this then you must know the origin of that clan also. Mor is a clan of Jats still exists, how can it be only a matter of coincidence. One question which bothers me always is why John Hill is so much interested in Jat people and not the other social groups in India like Rajput or Brahmans.
Regards,
burdak 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to John Hill

message: Mr. Burdak, the reason I have become involved particularly with the Jat page is because of all the inflated (and I believe unsubstantiated) claims about Jats in ancient history - such as claiming a long list of famous Indian kings as Jats (such as Aśoka, Kanishka, etc., etc., etc.) I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to back up these claims (in spite of my many requests for such evidence). 
The reason I am not so concerned with groups like the Rajputs or Brahmans is that I am not running into such far-fetched and boastful claims made by them, or making false quotes. Neither have I found them making ridiculous racist claims such as they were "pure Aryans," or the like.  
I have, however, made quite a number of contributions to early Indian and Central Asian history articles on the Wikipedia and also created a short article on the Gaddi People for it.
Now, it is quite true that I haven't made a detailed study of Jat history and culture - this is because my focus of interest is mainly on ancient Indian history - and there is, I contend, little data worth mentioning on Jats that goes back 2,000 years or more - except for a few minor references in documents of uncertain date - mostly of a legendary or mythological nature. Most of what is really known and established about the Jats is relatively recent - say over the last 1,000 years or so.
It is for this reason that I have hardly ever remarked on more recent Jat history (except to point out that it was wrong to use Xuanzang as a source of information on the Jats because he never mentions them by name, and there is no way of telling for sure which people he was referring to as living along the Indus River in the 7th century, as had been falsely claimed here - and that fact that Alberuni was probably not a very trustworthy source for the origin of the Jats which you had dated to about 4,000 years before he wrote his book).
Mr. Burdak, you are still trying to use very weak linguistic similarities of names to "prove" relationships - and as long as you do this you will find me demanding more evidence - they are simply not sufficient evidence on their own to claim connections as fact in an encyclopedia. 
You say above: "Mor is a clan of Jats still exists, how can it be only a matter of coincidence." [Presumably inferring that there is a relationship between the Mors and the Mauryas]." Well, Mr. Burdak, I don't think you would find a single recognised linguist who would accept this connection on its own as evidence worthy of serious consideration. It could be true, but it could just as easily be simply coincidence and, therefore, has no place in a serious discussion or in the Wikipedia. No wonder that if, as you claim, there are "more than 3000 jat gotras or clans" at least one of them sounds something like "Maurya." It would be very strange if there were none out of 3,000 that did.
These sorts of coincidences of similar-sounding names occur all the time. What you are talking about is mere speculation in which you seem to find confirmation of your fantasies. You may as well say that the Mauritanians, the Moravians, the Moors and the Mayas were all Jats (in fact, now I think of it, you have sometimes made these sort of far-fetched claims). 
No, Mr. Burdak, this is just not acceptable evidence except, perhaps to you and a small band of true believers. I think you will find a vast majority of people will find your hypotheses and speculations just that - speculations.
We have argued over these sorts of issues for far too long already - I do not wish to continue them. There is no point trying to argue with people such as you and Mr. Chaudhary whose minds are already made up. I have much better things to do with my time than endlessly arguing with those who clearly have little understanding of the basic principles of assessing evidence. So, these will be my last comments on the subject - unless, of course, you or others continue to make unsupportable claims in the Wikipedia that I happen to notice.   John Hill 06:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Mr. Burdak

message: For goodness' sake, John Hill couldn't even find one quote from Mahavamsa and kept calling that quote (referenced quote) "doubtful". He is wasting people's time with his utterly nonsensical and verbose posts. He has no idea about clan studies, is ignorant of linguistics, has no understanding of Indian history and cultures, and is trying to assume the position of both the judge and the jury on this page merely by being stubbornly ignorant in his verbosity. Even when references are provided, and the methods used to arrive at conclusions mentioned, he still objects that he can't understand it (or find the reference due to his lack of research skills).
I suggest that he be treated as a hostile. He is here merely to muddy the waters.
Addition:
If one is curious, they can look up the "references" John Hill provides about the origins of Mauryas. He quotes the opinions of various authors as his "proof". If that isn't laughable, what is?
--DrBrij 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a statement is "referenced" does not mean it has been correctly interpreted or even that it exists at all - as has been sadly shown on these pages a number of times. I stand by the fact that the quotes I made above (see "Reply to DrBrij") indicate there is considerable doubt and disagreement amongst scholars as to the origins of the Mauryas - what do you find "laughable" about that? I suggest that it is you who "is here merely to muddy the waters." John Hill 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Hill is too ignorant to realize his foolishness 

message: Just because a statement is "referenced" does not mean it has been correctly interpreted or even that it exists at all - as has been sadly shown on these pages a number of times. I stand by the fact that the quotes I made above (see "Reply to DrBrij") indicate there is considerable doubt and disagreement amongst scholars as to the origins of the Mauryas - what do you find "laughable" about that? I suggest that it is you who "is here merely to muddy the waters." John Hill 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Hill's puerile vandalism 

message: Everyone is, of course, entitled to describe religious beliefs, mythologies, traditions, hypotheses and theories in the Wikipedia, so long as they are clearly marked as such, not presented as "fact" and so long as they are supported by reputable, checkable references. Much that has been written on these pages over the past year or more does not meet these criteria.
For example, your statement that: "The case for Mauryas being anything else other than Jats is far weaker," obviously does not accord with the opinion of many leading historians. It is quite acceptable, however, to present it, with appropriate qualifications, as one of a number of competing hypotheses and theories - but not as a fact.
Your comments about the page on Jesus Christ are completely unwarranted. That article has been very carefully written to indicate that there is much uncertainty about his teachings and even notes that some scholars question whether he ever existed at all. If a similar approach was taken with the claims made on this page I would have no cause to dispute them. This is all I have ever asked for here. 
I must also protest your malicious twisting of what I have said. This is true vandalism - an underhanded bully-boy tactic. You have claimed above that: "John Hill has clearly admitted his utter ignorance about most things in the Jat_people wikipage . . ." when what I actually said was: "Now, it is quite true that I haven't made a detailed study of Jat history and culture - this is because my focus of interest is mainly on ancient Indian history." This is a far cry from admitting "utter ignorance" which, in any case, is untrue - I have lived among Jats for many years and over the past few decades I have had great pleasure reading about the fascinating history and culture and exploits of Jats (and other Indians and Pakistanis). What I was saying, and I thought quite clearly, was that the study of Jat history and culture has not been a major focus of my historical research and I do not claim to be an expert on it - not that I know nothing at all about it. I am very careful to not make unfounded claims - unlike some others on this page.
Finally, and worst of all, "DrBrij", whoever you are (there is no proper "User page" on the Wikipedia so one can find out), you have stooped to making wild personal attacks on me and insulting my intelligence and credibility as a researcher: ". . . he has clearly demonstrated his lack of research skill or an understanding of historical evidence. His method is to collect opinions and use them to  interfere with well referenced and researched articles. He has no capacity for independent analysis of historical evidence."
As will be very clear to anyone with the patience to go back over the voluminous discussions on this page and the archives will discover that many passages which had been added to this article have proved to be anything but "well referenced and researched." In fact, some of them have been not only inflated, boastful claims and speculations, but were clearly racist and inflammatory, and some of the references given were false. Fortunately, due to other concerned writers and myself, a number of these very questionable passages have been removed from the article, making it more balanced and accurate and, hopefully, less insulting to other peoples. For this we have been assaulted with a torrent of abuse and accusations - like the ones you have just made against me. You should be ashamed of yourself! I have nothing further to say to you. John Hill 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More insults and abuse

message: Dispute
Hi,
see refrences: History of the Sikh Misals by Bhagat Singh (Punjabi University, Patiala). SN Banerjee - A History of Patiala. Tazkirah-i-Phulkian - Bute Shah. Lepel Griffin - Raja's of Punjab. Tawarikh Guru Khalsa Part 2 Gian Singh. Some points to note:
1) Patial (Nabha and Jind) -THe Phulkians - were identified as one of the Sikh Misals.
2) As a Misal they followed Gurmatta or the meeting of Sikh Misal's that conveyed at Amritsar.
3) Sikh Misal's like the Ahluwalia helped defend the Phulkian's often.
4) The citation used to back up the article are spurious.
5) The fighting forcs of the Phulkian was not Jat in content but contained, Kalal, Tarkhan, Rajput, Julahai, Mazbhai's (all Sikh's).
6) The present day ancestors of these states are intertwined in Sikh politics. Captain Arminder Singh an example.
7) Guru Hargobind (Sikh Guru) - helped form the states by giving patronage and protection to Mohan (one of the first ancestor's of the Patiala state) against hostile Bhatti Rajputs.. It would not have been formed other wise. Mohan fought at Meharaj with Guru Hargobind (as a loyal Sikh), against the Mughal's.
8) Loyalty to the 10th Sikh Guru expressed in a Hukamnama (Edict) - HUkamname - Ganda Singh.
I can cite many other reasons and sources, but I move that these are NOT Jat Kingdom's but solely Sikh one's due to formation, charachter and custom. These should be moved to Sikh section.--Sikh-history 10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patiala, Nabha and Jind 

message: Dear John Hill,
You wrote in above note that
:"Fortunately, due to other concerned writers and myself, a number of these very questionable passages have been removed from the article, making it more balanced and accurate and, hopefully, less insulting to other peoples".
Can you qualify this statement further -less insulting to other peoples.
It may be anything in favour of Jats but no sentence insulted others. Will you quote those sentences?
regards,
--burdak 06:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insulting other people?

message: Dear All,
Just concentrate on the very TOPIC Jat_people , Do not try to divert the topic to Rajput,Brahman,Ahir,Gurjar etc.
 
As , This shows some sort of 'complex'.
PS to John Hill: 
Dear John, 
You need to know more about Jat People,History,Culture,Social Formation of India etc.
Warm Regards.
Kshatrap 10:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Kshatrap: I agree - enough is enough. Let us stick to the topic. Thanks for your advice - am just now reading and doing more research on Jat history. Cheers and best wishes. John Hill 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just concentrate on current topic only

message: Your obfuscation is more vandalism, John Hill.
The Jesus wikipage states that "some historians question the historicity" of Jesus. The fact is that there is no evidence, zero, for his existence, other than myths created by Paul and others after him. Based on that fact alone, I can flag that page as "disputed". 
History is not physics. History is piecing together of pieces of puzzle. The counter-claims on the Mauryas belong on the wikipage on Mauryas if they do anywhere, and not on Jat_people wikipage. Your claims about having known Jat persons or having lived among Jats are highly suspect. You have no authority to deface this wikipage. Stop your vandalism. 
You have demonstrated utter lack of knowledge of India, of Jats, of the Mauryan empire, and you have shown an inability to look up referenced materials (like the Mahavamsa quote which you also labeled "dubious"). Your entire basis for this vandalism is your collection of incoherent and flimsy opinions that you have picked up from some books. That is outrageous. 
Stop defacing this wikipage.
--DrBrij 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Hill's puerile arguments again 

message: I clicked the Jesus article link given above by Dr Brij and find these facts in the  Chronology of Jesus:
:"The most detailed accounts of Jesus' birth are contained in the Gospel of Matthew (probably written between 65 and 90 AD/CE),[5] and the Gospel of Luke (probably written between 65 and 100 AD/CE).[6] Scholars debate over the details of Jesus' birth, and few claim to know the exact year or date of his birth or death."
As per the application of Mr John Hill of the dispute tag, the Jesus article comes under dispute. As both the period of writing of Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke and birth of Jesus are based on speculations. There is no historical evidence. This is not to hurt any body's feelings but a counter  evidence for Mr john Hill as he says about Albiruni and Krishna being disputed and based on speculations.
regards,
--burdak 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus disputed 

message: This would be almost funny if it wasn't so boring and predictable, sad and disturbing! I see the authors of the above two entries have (once again) totally missed my point and selectively chosen information they (wrongly) think bolsters their case. They obviously have just read what they want to read and ignored the rest. 
They have somehow managed to miss, or failed to understand the reason for the many qualifications to the Christian point of view in the Wikipedia's article on Jesus, and the carefully worded headings indicating that some story or information comes from a Christian Gospel (therefore implying that it may not be believed by people other than Christians).
Please also keep in mind that I am definately not a Christian and so am not looking for justifications for Christian points of view - or knocking others because they have a different faith. 
Here are just some of these qualifications and presentations of alternative views I have quickly culled from that one Wikipedia article that were unaccountably totally missed or disregarded by our intrepid would-be scholars:
:"A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus.[4]
:"Christian views of Jesus (see also Christology) center on the belief that Jesus is the Messiah whose coming was promised in the Old Testament. . . ."
:"Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate; critical scholars, on the other hand, debate the extent of their historicity."
:"Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy. The accounts in the two gospels are substantially different, and various theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancies."
:"In the account given by the synoptic gospels. . ."
:"According to the Gospels. . ." (This qualification is given several times and there are other similar ones)
:"The Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution brought skepticism regarding the historical accuracy of these texts. Although some critical scholars, including archaeologists, continue to use them as points of reference in the study of ancient Near Eastern history,[45] others have come to view the texts as cultural and literary documents, generally regarding them as part of the genre of literature called hagiography, an account of a holy person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal. Hagiography has a principal aim of the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus.
:"The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; it is based on: a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and alleged similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology.[46]"
:"Those who have a naturalistic view of history generally do not believe in divine intervention or miracles, such as the resurrection of Jesus mentioned by the Gospels."
:"Some people believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus have little or no historical basis.[48] At least in part, this is because they see many similarities between stories about Jesus and older myths of pagan god-men such as Mithras, Attis and Osiris-Dionysus, leading to conjectures that the pagan myths were adopted by some authors of early accounts of Jesus to form a syncretism with Christianity. A small minority, as well as popular writers such as Earl Doherty, carry this further and propose that the gospels are actually a reworking of non-Abrahamic myths and not based on a historical figure."  
:"Muslims, however, do not believe Jesus to have divine nature as God nor as the Son of God. The Qu'ran warns against believing that Jesus was divine.[92] Muslims believe that Jesus received a gospel from God called the Injil in Arabic that corresponds to the Christian New Testament, but that parts of it have been misinterpreted over time so that they no longer accurately represent God's message (See Tahrif)." 
:"Judaism holds the idea of Jesus being God, or part of a Trinity, or a mediator to God, to be heresy."
:"Mandaeanism regards Jesus as a deceiving prophet (mšiha kdaba) of the false Jewish god of the Old Testament, Adonai,[111] and an opponent of the good prophet John the Baptist, who is considered a great teacher in Mandaeanism."
:"Philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell saw Jesus' teachings and values as surpassed by other philosophers; Russell writes 'I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to History. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.'[114] Friedrich Nietzsche saw Socrates and Jesus as foundational to Western culture and criticized them both. He considered Jesus' concern for the weak to be a reversal of noble morality and accused Christianity of spreading the concept of equal rights for all (which he despised)." 
How could one trust any research by people who have missed so many clear statements on just one page they claim to have read?
'''
It would be wonderful if the above two gentlemen who wrote with such venom had similar regard for the truth and the value of opposing opinions. I look forward to the day when such qualifications are regularly made regarding claims on this page too. 
And, how dare you insinuate I am a liar? The statement that: "Your claims about having known Jat persons or having lived among Jats are highly suspect . . ." is beyond all bounds of fair play - you have no grounds for such a provocative statement. I lived next door to a Jat family in Trinidad for 6 or 7 years and the sons of that family were among my closest friends. I attended weddings, pujas and many festivals. I have worked with Jats, dated a Jat, lived continuously for almost three years in India (1979-81) - where I got to know many Jats as well as people from all walks of life in India - some of whom I still correspond with. I have visited and paid homage at innumerable Hindu shrines, Sikh gurdwaras, Muslim mosques, Buddhist and Jain temples.  I have visited many if not most of the major well-known (and many many other) holy sites, archaeological sites, research libraries, and museums in northwestern India, northern Pakistan, and many in Afghanistan, in my search to learn about Indian and Pakistani history. I have consulted numerous scholars from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Nepal, Tibet and many other countries, and read countless books and scholarly articles about the region. I visited India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nepal first in 1973 and have made many visits to the area since. I have travelled right around India and across it several times. 
Please, keep your fantasies and poisonous vitriol to yourselves and let us not clutter up these pages with such hateful and ridiculous arguments. This is supposed to be a page about Jats, their history and culture - not a noticeboard for the propagation of one point of view or a podium from which you can attack anyone who might question you and your view of truth.
This is my last discussion with any of you on such matters. I will not again be put in the position of defending my honesty or my openmindeness and integrity as a researcher on this site. 
I have never before been treated so shamefully by Indian people and I am deeply hurt and shocked. You can say what you like about me - it will not affect the truth - I leave it to the fair-mindedness of other readers to judge you for what you are. For your own sakes, please consider the karmic effects of your actions. John Hill 05:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

message: John Hill, 
Do you still not get it? It is fraud to claim that Jesus may have been a real person. The Jesus wikipage only claims that "some historians" believe that he may not have been real. The truth is that any objective historian would discard the story of Jesus as pure myth, owing to a complete lack of evidence for his existence. Get it now? That fact alone should make an honest person put the "disputed" flag on that page. 
You copied and pasted so many quotes from the Jesus page, but few of them say that Jesus is a myth. 
Apart from myths, there is not one shred of evidence for his existence. Get that through your head. The wikipage is dishonest in suggesting that he may have existed. There is zero evidence for that suggestion.
History, dear interfering layman, is not physics. You make a lot of claims about proof, or lack of it, but where is the proof of your competence to discuss Jat history?
Again, as I wrote earlier but you are too thickheaded to understand, the counterclaims about Mauryas belong to the wikipage on Mauryas, and not on the wikipage on Jat_people.
I repeat my judgment that your claim to have met any Jat persons is highly suspect. Your ignorance of their attitudes and beliefs is reason enough to make that judgment. 
Your tall claims about research are galaxies away from your ability to research a reference (like the one from Mahavamsa that you called "dubious" for so long, until you were embarrassed to learn the truth behind that reference). You didn't blink an eye though, and went on straight to make other flimsy claims based upon nothing but your collection of poorly researched quotes from some books you had. That is outrageous.
Stop defacing this wikipage.
--DrBrij 07:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Hill hides his incompetence with inane verbosity 

message: I am curious as to what languages Mr Hill knows and where he learnt these languages?
Where  and when did he learn Chinese for example?
He claims to have spent three years in India studying History.
I am also curious where he performed these studies?,at what institutions?, under which historians?, and in what languages he did this study ?
His user page,and his postings here, are silent as to his qualifications, and as to where, and how, he specifically acquired his alleged ' knowledge and competence' in History,   and specifically Jat History.
Ravi Chaudhary 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COMPETENCE OF JOHN HILL 

message: Mr. John Hill alleges that the antiquity claims of Jats are based on historians who are Jats only. He forgets that Kanungo, G.C.Dwivedi, Cunningham, Todd, Sir Herbert Risley,C.V. Vaidya,K.P.jayaswal,H.A. Rose,E.B.Havell,Mangal Sen Jindal,Dr. Prakash Chandra Chandawat,UN Sharma,Strabo,Ptolemy,Pliny,Dr Mansur RastgarFasayi,Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery,Elliot,Ibn Hauqal, O'Brien, Dr S.Jabir Raza, Al-biruni,Richard F. Burton,A K Mittal,Rahul Sankrityan,J.N.Sarkar,F.X. Wendel,Bingley,Dr. Ajay Kumar Agnihotri,Siyar,K L Sharma,j.Marshall and other reputed authors who have written about the history of Jats and referred in Jat people article are not Jats. It shows how little he knows about the history of Jats.
I searched John Hill's attempts on Wikipedia against Jats and found on following talk pages his crusade against Jat history. He has gone to many people who are good editors on Wikipedia against ancient history of Jats and the antiquity of Jats. Where as he himself has no idea about Jat people, history, gotras, ancestry, culture, traditions and their migration. Then question arises he is realy to improve the Wikipedia or this page on Jat history. 
I quote from following pages which make John Hill's intentions clear
----
See here what he writes to PHG on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PHG
Concern about the Kanishka article
Dear PHG: I am writing to you as I have noticed that you have written a number of excellent, well-researched articles on early Indian history, Buddhism, the Kushans, etc., and have also made significant contributions to the article on Kanishka.
I would like to ask for advice about what to do regarding what I believe is happening on the Kanishka page. It seems a couple of Jat writers are promoting a very Jat-oriented view of Indian history and have been making (what I believe are unsupportable) claims that many famous Indian kings (including Chandragupta Maurya, Ashok Maurya, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II, Kanishka, Yasodharman, and  Harshavardhana, among others) were all Jats.
I have had several run-ins with a couple of them on the Jat Discussion page but have found it pointless trying to argue with them as they continually make references to books written by Jat "historians" quoting their statements as "facts" that I am unable to verify, and challenging me to  "prove" that such and such a king was NOT a Jat. Apparently, if I am unable to do this I am expected to just accept their Jat-oriented "historical traditions" as established "fact."
I have tried to point out (see my notes in the Jat Discussion page archives) the differences between traditions and facts but logic seems to have little effect on these people who, in my view, approach "history" from the standpoint of "true believers."
They have added a whole section called "The clan of Kanishka" to the article on Kanishka and I (at least) believe it makes a mockery of the careful reconstruction of the history of Kanishka and the Kushans which has been assembled over the last couple of centuries by a wide range of distinguished scholars.
Sections like this, with questionable traditions and beliefs presented as factual is one of the main things that brings criticism of the Wikipedia (and, indeed, modern historical scholarship in general) into disrepute and gives it a reputation as an untrustworthy source.
I believe this matter should probably be put to some form of arbitration with neutral editors. I have been trying to discover how to initiate such a process but have been unable to do so.
I would be most grateful indeed if you could please advise me what I should do next.
Many thanks, John Hill 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is objective of John Hill ? 

message: I said I wasn't going to reply any more - but seeing as you are spreading a false claim that I have been a blocked user on the Wikipedia, I feel I must. Next time please check what the situation really is before you start accusing people unjustly. I suspect it was simply a result of your obvious lack of research skills, but, for whatever reason, you did not include the replies to my question about whether I was blocked or not - that you were so ready to quote above. Well, here are the editors' replies:
:Oh Damn, sorry about that not you lol I ment to remove that as I had a better idea. I would recomend that you check out Editors Assistance (WP:ASSIST). I posted a link to your case on there project since you are after advice on what to do. Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh to answer your question, you left User:USERNAME on the case and that was what I was commenting on. Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 04:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Mr. Burdak

message: This article is 90 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.Shyamsunder 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: The reputed historian Qanungo writes that the philologists like Dr Trumpp and Beames Elliot's Memoirs of the Races of North-Western Provinces of India, I, 135-137 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 the slightest trace of Scythian. But they were silenced by the progressive science, which established the unassailable dictum "Language is not a proof of race." Qanungo, History of the Jats, Ed dr Vir Singh, Delhi, 2003, p.4
Next, the anthropologists appeared in the field armed with his scientific apparatus to measure the skull and noses of the various peoples of India for the purpose of restoring their lost pedigree. This investigation resulted in the sevenfold classification of the races of India by Sir Herbert Risley, who declared the Rajput and the Jat to be the true representativs of the Vedic Aryans. This was the first scientific assault upon the Indo-Scythian theory. Qanungo, History of the Jats, Ed dr Vir Singh, Delhi, 2003, p.4
Sir Herbert Risley's classification of Indian Races table:
S.No.	Community (Caste)	Stature (cm)       	Cephalic Index	Nasal Index
1.   	Jat              	169.1 and different	79.8          	63.1
2.   	Rajput           	174.8              	72.4          	71.1
3.   	Gujar            	173.03             	72.4          	66.9
4.   	Sikh             	171.6              	72.7          	68.8
5.   	Khatri           	166.2              	74.00         	73.1
6.   	Maratha          	163.2              	78.3          	80.1
7.   	Kayasth          	164.1              	72.6          	74.8
8.   	Kshatri          	166.1              	73.00         	77.7
9.   	Bhatia           	165.81             	82.91         	73.58
10.  	Parsi            	167.73             	82.47         	67.67
11.  	Chamar           	-                  	72.8          	86.0
12.  	Kunbi            	160.0              	77.4          	79.2
13.  	Kuki Naga        	156.6              	76.2          	85.0
14.  	Khasi Naga       	156.9              	78.6          	86.3
15.  	Bodo             	160.8              	78.4          	88.0
16.  	Kanet            	161.8              	77.5          	66.4
17.  	Pashtun          	168.7              	76.5          	68.4
18.  	Yadav            	-                  	76.2          	76.7
19.  	Aryan            	174.8              	72.4-74.4     	71.6
20.  	Dravidian        	162.4              	74.1-76.6     	73.1
21.  	Mongol           	159.5              	84.3          	84.5
The skull or Cephalic Index is considered very important in the classification of races. The Length-Width ration of the skull expressed in percentage is Cephalic Index. These are classified into three categories the Long (Less than 80), Medium (75-80) and Short (more than 80). Dr Atal Singh Khokhar, Jāton kī Utpati evam Vistār (Jarta taranginī), 2002, p.322
Dr Naval Viyogi in his book 'Nagas, The Ancient rulers of India'Dr Naval Viyogi:'Nagas, The Ancient rulers of India',2002 discusses in detail Sir Herbert Risley's studies to decide the racial affinities as evidences of anthropology for consideration to prove the affinities of Naga people with other races. Based on his tables the above list has been enhanced.
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. Dr Atal Singh Khokhar, Jāton kī Utpati evam Vistār (Jarta taranginī), 2002, p.322
Thus, the Jat has been declared by all eminent authorities, to pass successfully the combined test of physical type and language of a true Aryan. R.P.Chanda's Indo-aryan Races, p.78 Thus science may be said to have succeded fairly well in establishin the Indo-aryan origin of Jats. Qanungo, History of the Jats, Ed dr Vir Singh, Delhi, 2003, p.5
----
: Is this not the same science used by Nazi's to prove their racist theories? Nasal indicies were used by Goering and the Nazi Party.--Sikh-history 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific studies to prove Indo-aryan origin 

message: For some unfathomable reason (refer to the above entry) we are now treated to studies made way back in the 19th century of the Cephalic index on various Indian "castes" published in 1901! The Cephalic index is no longer considered to be a very reliable way of measuring race - see, for example, the discussions and references in the Wikipedia article on Cephalic index. Furthermore, the measurements are not even compared with ancient specimens. The Jats are only compared with some other modern groups and, in this process, it was discovered that they had a lower "nasal Index". So what?
The totally unscientific approach to "evidence" in this passage may be judged by the words used by Mr. Burdak (presumably taken second-hand 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? And how does this show anything as "proved" - especially as to who is the be "the most honoured"? What total rubbish! What a total waste of all our time! John Hill 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudo Science strikes again!

message: John Hill whines:
The Cephalic index is no longer considered to be a very reliable way of measuring race - see, for example, the discussions and references in the Wikipedia article on Cephalic index. Furthermore, the measurements are not even compared with ancient specimens. The Jats are only compared with some other modern groups and, in this process, it was discovered that they had a lower "nasal Index". So what?
Perhaps John Hill should read the Wikipage on Cephalic index himself and tell us how his claims are supported by it. Does John Hill even know about the nose references in the Rgved and among the Turkish and Mongol tribal histories? 
John Hill again: 
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? And how does this show anything as "proved" - especially as to who is the be "the most honoured"? What total rubbish! What a total waste of all our time! John Hill 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Hill shows even more incompetence 

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 say "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.
burdak 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re To Mr John Hill

message: You do not seem to understand the basic rules of giving evidence. 
Referring to some author on a disputed point is hardly enough to establish the ethnicity of a king. I could give references to countless examples of highly-regarded modern historians, linguists and archaeologists who have given detailed arguments for and against many theories about the origins of these particular ancient kings. In fact, I have already referred to a few of them on these pages. 
You do not seem to realise that I have never said that any of these kings was NOT a Jat - only that the "evidence" given to support the hypotheses that they were Jats look very unconvincing to me, and are not supported by most modern impartial historians and other scholars working in the field. 
I would never try to prove that these kings were NOT Jats, as I don't think there is enough evidence to decide definitively one way or the other at the moment. 
The only way out of this impasse that I can see is to examine opposing views and positions and provide frequent qualifications (as is done throughout the article on Jesus, which "DrBrij" so crudely attacked a while ago). 
You could equally go and find many references to people who claim the world is flat - but how many people are going to believe you - no matter how many references you could find?
You say: "Wikipedia is not supposed to provide original research." Quite true, but just adding reams of references does not give the reader any idea of what the authors are saying. A summary of their positions and how they came by them would be handy, to say the least.
No, before you start claiming these kings were all Jats - some real evidence is needed and, even if you manage to find some, then you will need to heavily qualify your claims as they don't stack up against the findings of most of the leading authorities on the history of these kings.
And, do you really believe readers to believe that comparing the cephalic index of some Jats with other peoples from the same region proves the "Indo-aryan origin" of Jats? Wouldn't it be wonderful if proof was so easy to establish? 
Mr. Burdak, once again, if you are going to quote me - please have the basic courtesy of quoting me fairly - and not out of context. What I actually said was: "The totally unscientific approach to "evidence" in this passage may be judged by the words used by Mr. Burdak (presumably taken second-hand 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.". 
The reason I qualified my statement with presumably is because that is who you gave as a reference for this incredible statement, and I am never sure whether the quotes referred to actually exist until I see them myself. As you well know, I have exposed several false and misleading "quotes" on this page before.
Do you really expect other people to believe that so-called scientists and historians who refer to Jats as "the most honoured" are impartial sources for historical research? But, then, I should know by now that there is no point trying to argue with a true believer.
And so, I think it is long past time, gentlemen, to refer this whole matter once again to the Editors for their suggestions. I did it once before myself and got nothing but abuse and false accusations from you for doing so - so I think it is the turn of one of you this time.
I am willing to do my best to answer any queries the Editors may have.
I have suggested this course of action several times previously and you have, apparently, not yet done so. Is it, perhaps, that you don't want them looking too closely at the article and all the abusive statements on this page, not to mention all the racist, Aryan-supremacist comments still defacing the related page on the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats? John Hill 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh, Most Honoured Ones!

message: Do not delete content and references from Ancient Jat Kingdom Section. If you delete content how will it expand. Let there be the request to expand so that user can do it. Refrain from Vandalism. Your comments are personal attacks and racist in nature.
burdak 07:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are one to talk! John Hill 07:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A racist tone:John Hill !

message: Well, I just had a quick look at all the many references Mr. Burdak has added in reponse to the names of the ancient kings listed under the heading: "Some Jat historians and other writers claim that ancient Jat kingdoms include those of:"
Among the "references" for Kaniṣka he lists: "James Legge,A RECORD OF BUDDHISTIC KINGDOMS, ch. XII, footnote-6." In other words, Mr. Burdak is stating that Legge claimed that Kaniṣka's kingdom was a Jat kingdom. Is this what you really meant, Mr. Burdak? Have you ever read the footnote?
The actual footnote reads: "This king ["a king of the Yüeh-she"] was perhaps Kanishka himself, Fâ-hien mixing up, in an inartistic way, different legends about him. Eitel suggests that the old name of the country may still exist in that of the Jats or Juts of the present day. A more common name for it is Tukhâra, and he observes that the people were the Indo-Scythians of the Greeks, and the Tartars of Chinese writers , who, driven on by the Huns (180 B.C), conquered Transoxiana, destroyed the Bactrian kingdom (126 B.C), and finally conquered the Punjâb, Cashmere, and a great part of India, their greatest king being Kanishka (E.H., p. 152)" 
I only wish Mr. Burdak would be so careful when he quotes someone else.
So here we have Legge (writing in 1886) saying that "Eitel suggests that the old name of the country may still exist in that of the Jats or Juts of the present day." (My italics) This is a long way from Legge claiming that Kaniṣka's kingdom was a Jat kingdom - he is only referring to another scholar's suggestion - he makes no comment on the validity of this suggestion at all. 
So far I have been unable to check his other "references" - but it is more than interesting that the only one I could check right away is false and misleading. It makes me very suspicious of the other ones he gives. Perhaps other readers with access to some of the other books he refers to could check the "references" he gives and report back to us what they actually say?
Anyway, in the meantime, I will remove this false reference and reinsert a rider stating that many eminent historians either ascribe these kings to peoples other than Jats, or state that the evidence as to their origins is unclear. I could give scores of such references to the works of up-to-date and well-respected scholars but I feel this is not the room to be giving numerous references with discussions of their findings and theories in one Wikipedia article. It is more than cluttered enough with Mr. Burdak's "references." John Hill 10:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another false quote from Mr. Burdak

message: Since the page was getting too big, I have put most of it on a new archive named JH Vandal (since a lot of it is JH's incompetent rambling and vandal edits). 
--DrBrij 05:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New archive JH Vandal 

message: Please do not make personal attacks against other users .Also please adhere to Wikipedia:Fringe theories in respect of various claims made about Jat kingdoms. Also sources qouted should be per WP:RS  Shyamsunder 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policies 

message: The Archive has been arranged by  period January 2007 to May 2007 for the shake of convenience. It can not be by names. The discussions of June are brought to the current archive. burdak 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive by period 

message: I am very pleased and gratified to discover that Mr. Burdak has referred to a statement by Prof. Maheswari Prasad referring to the "non – occurrence of word Jat as such in ancient literature", and his explanation of why this might be so. It is good to see that my comments about the lack of reliable references to Jats in ancient Indian literature have finally been taken seriously. 
I would also like to thank Mr. Burdak for removing the spiteful creation of an "archive named JH Vandal (since a lot of it is JH's incompetent rambling and vandal edits)" by "DrBrij" (who remains a shadowy figure without a proper User page).
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity of publicly thanking those of you who have written emails to me supporting my efforts to bring this article (and related ones) up to Wikipedian standards and to express their concern that it had been taken over a few ethnocentric vandals.  
Hopefully, now, some calm and sanity will return to these pages and we can get on with the task of developing an interesting, fair and unbiased account of the fascinating history of the Jat people. 
I continue in hopes of happier and more productive exchanges in the future. Sincerely, John Hill 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Things are finally beginning to look more positive

message: If you wish to become competent in the knowledge of Jats, then visit the yahoo group on JatHistory run by Mr Ravi Chaudhary, and read up on the material posted in the files archived there.
Do not, however, resort to vandalizing Jat pages while demonstrating your utter lack of the knowledge of the subject, as was made evident in previous posts. 
And it is better to know the relevant stuff than to have a user page on wiki filled with unverifiable claims. Your claims of having known Jats are suspect, and so is your competence on Jat history.
--DrBrij 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To "John Hill" 

message: It is you who has regularly shown an abysmal ignorance of ancient history and how to critically assess historical evidence. You are also guilty of vandalizing these pages - witness what you did to the archives recently, showing yourself to be a very rude and disturbed person. Please spare us your unfounded accusations, tirades and vitriol. Let's try to keep this a happier place for all. John Hill 07:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you wish for me to copy/paste your ignorance of the Mahavamsa quote, and your ignorance of the nose length references in the Rgved? You vandalized the Jat page for a long time because of your ignorance on the first issue. Your incompetence has been exposed, even in the few ideas you occasionally post. Have some shame, and stop being a vandal.
--DrBrij 01:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To "DrBrij"

message: 1. "A Brief History of India" by Alain Danielou 
(winner of the Broquette-Gonin Prix de l'Academie francaise), a
French scholar who learned Sanskrit and spent considerable time in
India at Shantiniketan and Benares Hindu University.
On page 143, Chapter 11, The Golden Age of Gupta 300-600 C.E.
"....... For an examination of the Gupta era, we possess numerous
archaeological and literary documents as well as Chinese documents,
such as the Journal of Fa Hsien, who stayed for three years at
Patliputra....."
"The founder of the Gupta dynasty seems to have belonged to the Jat
caste of Rajputana, indicating that he was probably a Scythian."
The book is an English Translation of Danielou's French version. It
is published by Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont, USA. Danielou
wrote about 30 books on India. This book's ISBN number is 089281923-5
Ravi Chaudhary 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SECOND GUPTA DYNASTY [[Gupta_Empire]]

message: Well, I am glad to see that M. Danielou has carefully qualified his note and opinions by stating that the founder of the Gupta dynasty "seems to have belonged to the Jat caste of Rajaputana, indicating he was probably a Scythian." (my italics) It would be interesting to discover if he has any evidence to support his hypothesis and, if so, exactly what it is. John Hill 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It is good to see a well-qualified opinion

message: This is what JH vandalized this wikipage about earlier:
There are a number of speculations as to the background of Ashoka's famous grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya, but claimed connections with the Jats seems to be based solely on unverifiable statements made by Jat "historians" on the basis of a claimed quote from the Buddhist history, the Mahavamsa: "Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata", supposedly taken from p. 27 of Geiger's translation of that book.
Some time ago I specifically queried this quote on this Talk page as I could not find it anywhere in Geiger's translation (see Archives), or in the original Pali. To date, I have never had this query answered so, until the evidence is given, one must assume that this quote is suspect, and cannot be taken seriously.
And now he claims (after he was shown to be a bad researcher) that:
    "Moriyanam khattiyanam vamse jatam siridharam Candagutto ti pannatam Canakko brahmano tato"
This is, quite obviously different than the original so-called "quote" on this page..
My goodness, how brazenly JH lies. What exactly is different, JH? 
The interpretation given to "jatah" as Jat, is a well researched one starting from the Rgved to pre-Islamic Indian texts, if you will only read through the references. (And no, I will not do that for you again).
Then, this JH went on brazenly to ask:
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? And how does this show anything as "proved" - especially as to who is the be "the most honoured"? What total rubbish!
Again, he showed his utter incompetence at historical research of clans and tribes. The Rgved mentions many times that the Arya tribes prided themselves on their "well shaped noses" and the absence of such noses of their opponents, the dasyus. 
In History, comparitive measures are always local, never universal. This was so because interactions between peoples were limited to a few hundred miles usually. But it is asking too much for JH to know anything like that. Cephalic index is a scientific measurement - for example, it is one factor used to determine the ethnicity of a skull found in an archaeological dig. JH thinks that labeling something "Nazi" is enough to discredit it. But rocket and missile technologies were also "Nazi" in origin.
Again, JH was shown to be an ignorant fool. But that never stops him, does it? 
--DrBrij 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "John Hill" again uses inane verbosity to hide his incompetence 

message: Wiki does not demand proofs. It is not a media to publish original research as stated earlier. It is needed to provide a verifiable reputed source. The sources in support of Guptas being Jat are reputed and ample in number. John Hill seems to be  acting as a Chowkidar beyond his powers. What is the problem John Hill now?
burdak 05:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes indeed, that would be a nice change Mr.Burdak - verifiable reputed sources which, when they are checked turn out to say what they are claimed to say. I must say this is not something you are noted for, Mr. Burdak. A quick check through the archives will show several instances of you misusing quotes.  John Hill 07:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki proofs

message: Who is this brazen pompous vandal and bully who goes under the name of "DrBrij" (who carefully covers all his tracks - and doesn't even have a proper User page)? It seems he is ashamed to show himself. 
He is very quick to insult others and call them liars and make all kinds of wild accusatios he can't back up.
If he can't see a difference between "Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata" and "Moriyanam khattiyanam vamse jatam" he should probably go to an optometrist. 
He notes that the "cephalic index is one factor used to determine the ethnicity of a skull found in an archaeological dig". Quite so, though it is not of much use to separate peoples who are relatively closely related. But, in the quote given from the appalling 19th century "study" it was the ONLY factor mentioned from which completely unsubstantiated claims were made. For starters - no one really knows what the cephalic index of the so-called "Indo-Aryans" was or, indeed, who they were.  
Finally, "DrBrij" - I was referring to the repulsive Nazi Aryan supremacist fantasies (which certainly have found echoes on these pages) - not to their rockets. It would be a nice change if you read what is written before you rush in your rage to attack it. 
It is rather humorous to see you, of all people, referring to me as "an ignorant fool" and a "liar." You make a fool of yourself almost every time you deface these pages with your hateful accusations. John Hill 08:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazen bully DrBrij

message: Only a really idiotic person will claim that the translated Pali text:
Says "John Hill":
If he can't see a difference between "Mauryanam Khattyanam vamsha jata" and "Moriyanam khattiyanam vamse jatam" he should probably go to an optometrist.
Oh, dear god. Does this "John Hill" not know that translated texts can differ in spellings? Both translations have the same meaning. But then, ignorance never stopped this "JH", has it?
--DrBrij 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never claimed to be an expert in Indian languages. It was not made clear at the time that the quote was a translation from Pali into Sanskrit and therefore made the internet search for certain terms impossible. That is why I originally asked for help - something any reasonable person would do in such a situation. Instead of help I continue to receive a torrent of abusive scorn and insults typical of a very disturbed, aggressive and unhappy person. I hope you can get help with your problems. John Hill 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the Talk:Tomara page is any guide, your rudeness and personal insults are by no means only aimed at me - and other people are on to you as well. I am sorry if you think I am making you aggressive and unhappy, but I am obviously not your problem "DrBrij" - your problems are your own, and are clearly getting out of control. Oh, and by the way - you don't have to put my name in inverted commas - John Hill is my real name. What I say, I say openly - I am not afraid of being known - I don't hide behind pseudonyms - nor am I afraid of  admitting when I am wrong or apologising if I have said something unfairly in the heat of the moment (as can be readily confirmed by looking back over these pages). Now, if you don't mind - I would like to end this unhappy and unnecessary exchange and get back to other, more positive and constructive things. John Hill 05:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pathetic rambling from "John Hill" 

message: The WIKI  discussion pages are for  brief , but not for not detailed discussions about the article. 
Mr Hill's postings here are not helpful to an orderly discussion of any topic.
Any detailed discussion should be held on non wiki sites, where  a ‘thread’ can be established and easily followed.
This is not possible  using the Wiki format.
John Hill has refused to join an academic oriented group, devoted to the discussion of Jat History- 
www.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/
One option may be for him to set up his own Yahoo group- it is free, to discuss his theories.
John Hill is again requested to refrain from using this page or making edits to the article, until he has achieved consensus with the other editors.
Ravi Chaudhary 21:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKI discussion pages 

message: If Mr. Chaudhary, Mr. Burdak and "DrBrij" (if, indeed, (s)he is a separate person - we have no way of telling) focussed on improving the article in an unbiased way rather than continuing to make unwarranted personal attacks on me, and filling these pages with their abhorrent communalist and Aryan supremacist fantasies, maybe we could end this disgraceful saga, as I have tried to do many times. But, I will not be bullied into attempting to reach a "consensus" with their gang before I comment on the next false quote or more pseudo-scientific racist rubbish defacing the Wikipedia. Nor am I about to join Mr. Chaudhary's self-described "academic orientated group". I have had a careful look at it several times and it seems to me to be a site for the promotion of a very biased, simplistic and prejudiced view of history. If the three of them (or two, as the case may be) are not happy with that, then they can call on the Wikipedia moderators for some help (as I have suggested several times previously). Otherwise they will keep on hearing from me each time I spot them trying to deceive people or making fools of themselves again. The Wikipedia and its readers need and deserve honesty and balance - not propaganda. John Hill 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: I would have appreciated if John Hill could add a single para to this article. He is bent upon deletion of content but does not want to study the available literature being quoted by the authors. He does not believe in Indian Authors, however reputed they may be. I advise John Hill to have a break for few days, get books on Jat history study them and enhance this article. Otherwise it is assumed that he is having some racial bias and does not want this article to grow under the his false holy intentions of improving Wikipedia. I have doubt in my mind that John Hill has certain theory in his mind but hesitant at present and wants to bring on this page silently. burdak 04:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:John Hill

message: Please, Mr. Burdak, stop spreading blatant and hurtful lies about me - it is really most unethical and reflects very badly on yourself - not on me. Please, for your own sake, stop this nonsense now. Have you no regard at all for the effects of karma?
The truth of the matter is that I have frequently referred to Indian historians on this page, as you must know, and just 3 days ago I added a quote from the controversial Vinayak Damodar Savarkar which I specifically noted that I agreed with. Do please read the quote above on this page from Shri Savarkar - it contains a message I had hoped you might take to heart.
Earlier today - just hours before you wrote these horrible false accusations (check the times given on the 'history' page if you do not believe me) - I added a properly referenced paragraph to the main Jat people page as well as making adjustments to another sentence in the body of the article. 
This is not the first time you have accused me falsely. I hope for your sake it is just because of your usual slipshod and negligent approach to research and not out of sheer maliciousness that you continue to do so. Please read what I write before you blindly attack me once again and insinuate that I am racist and spread lies such as this one today that I do "not believe in Indian authors, however reputed they may be." Indian authors and philosophers have had a profound positive impact on my life and my thinking and I continue to draw inspiration and hope from them on a daily basis.  John Hill 05:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS In the note above I asked you to refer to the time of my edits if you wished. I was just rechecking everything now and, at first glance, could not figure out why my latest edits (here) seemed to have been done earlier than the ones on the main Jat people page. But then I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_history which makes clear that the times given on this page are in UTC whereas, for some unknown reason, the times given on the main Jat people page are given in local time. John Hill 07:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please, Mr. Burdak

message: I have just found another incorrect reference on the Jat people page. It was to a supposed book by Alexander Cunningham called "History of Sikhs." Now, Alexander Cunningham never wrote a book by that name - or anything like it. However, he did make a reference in another book to the Iatii mentioned by Ptolemy as living (with a lot of other tribes) beyond the Yaxartes or Syr Darya river in Central Asia. I will now correct that reference. I presume, through sloppy research, someone has confused Alexander Cunningham with Joseph Davey Cunningham who has written a book entitled "A History of the Sikhs" (2005). 
It would be very helpful in future if editors would check to make sure they are giving the actual name of the book, publishing details, date and the proper author as well as a page number.
Also, a reference to a mention of this obscure tribe in some manuscript of Pliny is provided in note 28 - but the link given as a reference does not show any mention of the Iatii. Would someone with access to a good library please check this reference? Otherwise it should be removed. John Hill 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please be careful with references

message: In the passages under "Jats in Mahabharata period" we are told that there is a reference in the Mahabharata that states that one of the names of "parmatma or parmeshwar is Jata (जट)" (in the passage: "mahānakho mahāromā mahākeśo mahājaṭaḥ"). 
However, Kisari Mohan Ganguli, who translated the Mahabharata into English (1883-1896), gives the translation of this passage (which comes in the middle of a very long list of attributes of the deity) as: "Thou hast matted locks of vast length". There is absolutely no indication in the English translation of a meaning of a Jat clan or people. See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a017.htm 
This interpretation is further confirmed by the Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, p. 409, where he defines जट as "wearing wisted locks of hair . . . (as worn by ascetics, by Siva, and by persons in mourning)" and as used as the name of several plants, and also for a Pāṭha - a particular sort of arrangement of Vedic text. There is no mention at all of it referring to Jat people.
So, would someone who is truly expert in Sanskrit please explain to the rest of us how such different interpretations of an apparently simple passage have come about? Is there any room for doubt here? Many thanks, John Hill 04:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Jaṭa (जट) really refer to Jats?

message: Thanks for your advice. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the book you mentioned - and I just phoned our library but they cannot even find one available on inter-library loan.
I have already checked the Etymology subsection of Jat people article and the Sanskrit text. Yes, we all know that there are many slight variations of the basic word 'jat' which can have a number of different interpretations. 
Your explanation sounds almost plausible but why is this passage stuck in the middle of a long list of attributes of the deity? It doesn't seem to fit the context. The English translation runs: 
:"Thou hast hair of infinite length. Thou hast a vast stomach. Thou hast matted locks of vast length. Thou art ever cheerful. Thou art of the form of grace. Thou art of the form of belief. Thou art he that has mountains for his bow (or weapons in battle). Thou art he that is full of affection to all creatures like a parent towards his offspring. Thou art he that has no affection. Thou art unvanquished. Thou art exceedingly devoted to (Yoga) contemplation. 4 Thou art of the form of the tree of the world." 
Are you suggesting that the section that I have put in bold here actually names the deity as a Jat?  It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the passage at all - it just doesn't make sense here. And, could the translator really have got this passage so wrong? 
We have already heard your claims that Krishna was a Jat. So are you now actually suggesting that Shiva as well as Krishna were both Jats, Mr. Burdak? I would like to hear what Hindus of other communities think about your claims. They certainly sound very far-fetched to me. John Hill 06:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Were both Krishna and Shiva Jats, Mr. Burdak?

message: I thought others might like to see the answer Mr. Burdak gave to the above question on my Talk Page in which he claims that the Jat tribe "was the oldest one" (we presume in India). I leave it to the readers to make up their own minds about the claims that a passage that a famous translator rendered as "Thou hast matted locks of vast length" proves anything at all about Jats. Anyway, I will paste it in below for your interest. John Hill 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Burdak's answer

message: It has been written in Indian epics and proves the antiquity of the word Jat. It shows that Jat tribe was the oldest one and its name comes along with Brahma. Can you tell me How old is Brahma Mr John Hill? Now you need to study the Indian epics to understand it.--burdak 14:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have proved nothing, Mr. Burdak - you haven't even established that a reference to Jats exists in the Mahabharata which, in any case, is an epic poem of uncertain historicity. John Hill 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proves antiquity of Jat

message: I see this morning that Mr. Chaudhary has written on my talk page:
"Mr Hill
Mr Burdak asks you a relevant question.- How old is Brahma?.
If you can answer that, you  can go to the the next step.
Any other answer, as you have given above, only clouds the issue. That continuous 'clouding' of  issues by you, is exactly what one of the complaints against you is.
Now do answer:
How old is Brahma? 
Ravi Chaudhary 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Burdak's question again

message: Mr. Chaudhary put another letter on my Talk page today. Here are my answers.
1. No, I will not undertake these discussions on my Talk page - they refer to vandalism on this page by Mr. Chaudhary, Mr. Burdak and the shadowy "DrBrij" (that is, if he actually exists as a separate person). I prefer to keep these discussions in the open where they can be easily assessed for themselves by each reader. 
:(I have just noticed that Mr. Chaudhary, while I have been writing this reply, has put another note on my Talk page, saying: "Why is it that you refuse to read what is written? I asked you ( on your page) to keep all discussion on your user page, and not post here. Are your powers of focus that low? Hencefoth keep all discussion on your page!" Why should I bow to such bullying?
2. He keeps insinuating that I have "biased slanted points of view," (which I deny) while I make the same claims about him. We obviously disagree - which makes a "dispute." yet he and Mr. Burdak keep removing the "dispute" tags I attach to this article without really trying to resolve the many disputes. Numerus times I have suggested that he or Mr. Burdak or "DrBrij" should ask for help from the Wikipedia moderators if they don't agree with my actions. I once did this and was attacked so viciously I am wary of doing it again. I believe it is their turn to do so. So far, they have not done so - I suspect it might be because they don't want their outrageous claims to come under further scrutiny - especially by the wikipedia administrators who, I feel sure, will take a very dim view of their ravings.
What I have been doing on these pages is simply to try to ensure the page is historically accurate and insist that anything that cannot be properly substantiated or is controversial is appropriately qualified and not falsely claimed as established "facts."
This has involved exposing bizzarely exaggerated and often very ugly ethnocentric claims (on this page as well as on the pages "Indo-Aryan origin of Jats" and "Common Ancestry of Jatt Names") such as Jats are "obviously pure Aryan," and have "pure Aryan features," pure Aryan characteristics", and are "unmistakably Aryan"; that "Jats are thoroughly independent in character, and assert personal and individual freedom, as against communal or tribal control, more strongly than any other people." (I added the bold here - to point out the bizarreness of the claim). Jats are said to be "the most honourable," "the oldest tribe" and much other related racist speculations and nonsense. I have pointed out numerous false quotes, misleading quotes, unsupportable claims that a wide range of the most loved Hindu deities were Jats, unsupportable claims that many famous ancient Indian kings whose origins are, in fact, unclear, were Jats, that foreign kingdoms (even the "Kingdom of Kent" in England!!), were Jat, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. 
Other ridiculous claims are that the god Krishna was a Jat and died in 3102 BC (based on some statements in Indian scriptures and astrological computations according to Mr. Burdak); "thirty million monstrous fiends' surrounded Mathura, etc., etc. Does this gang of true-believers really expect anyone to take them seriously?
I have also had to spend a ridiculous amount of time warding off vicious attacks on myself including outright lies, and unfounded and defamatory accusations from this gang of vandals. 
Mr.Chaudhary keeps talking about a "majority of editors" on this page who disagree with me. He may well be right - by now - as anyone who disagreed with him or his gang was viciously attacked and mocked. They probably had more sense than me and did not bother trying to stand up to their little band of racist fanatics and have gone to spend their time more fruitfully somewhere else.   
He keeps threatening to go on about my academic qualifications while refusing to divulge whether he has any of note. Let him! I have nothing to hide and everything to gain from such an attack. I have already pointed out some of my writings on Asian history which are available to everyone on the internet and continue to be referred to by eminent scholars in a large number of academic works. I have written many other articles, reports, studies, etc., on a wide range of other subjects that have formed the basis for many government and community initiatives. If he really wants to know what my "academic qualifications" are - let him first give his - then I will give him mine.
But, this is all really a smoke screen. One doesn't need academic qualifications to expose lying, boastful wild claims which can only make Jats a laughing stock in academic circles and bring both Jats and the Wikipedia into disprepute.
Enough of this underhanded attempt to turn the article into a propaganda broadsheet for the abbhorrent racial spupremicist fantasises of a small band of people who are thereby giving Jats an undeserved reputation as braggarts, bullies and fanatics.
It should be stopped now before it does any more damage to the reputation of Jats and the Wikipedia. Why not take me up on my offer of going to the Wikipedia administrators? I will happily abide by their decisions - I have nothing to hide or fear.
I will take a break for a few days to see if Mr. Chaudhary, Mr. Burdak and company take this up with the Wikipedia administrators but, in the meantime, the "bias" and "dispute" tags should be left in place as they are accused by me of serious breaches of both on this page. John Hill 05:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More questions and threats from Mr Chaudhary

message: Hi Hohn Hill, We are discussing here and you are abusing and threatening the contributors. You do not want that this article should grow. Normally fight or in this case discussion can take place if both sides have equal or balancing knowledge. Here it is lacking. If you do not agree with some body's contributions then you have to appeal to the administrator that it is disputed. In hindi there is proverb- Ulta chor kotwal ko dante. Means the thief scolds the policeman. I am not Dr Brij. I also advise to have first hand knowledge of Indian literature. Do not call our names here. Discuss the content. burdak 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No personal attack Mr John Hill 

message: I am very pleased to note that many of the mistaken quotes and more extreme and contentious issues I have complained about in this article have now been qualified, toned down or removed, making the article that much more reliable and accurate. Thanks to those of you who have helped in this process.
I would like to add here in relation to issues raised in the previous note (see above) that my objection to the description of the Jat "race" as "the most honoured one" by Herbert Risley back in the 19th century was not just due to the fact that it is a POV expression, but he made it on the basis of his measurements of "nasal indexes" of several peoples. Therefore, he was calling the Jat "race" "the most honoured" based on the shape and sizes of their noses! This is certainly one of the worst abuses of "science" I have come across in a long time and certainly brings anything else he has said on Indian "races" into very serious question. I am very glad to see his racist ramblings removed from the article at last. It is also long past time to remove them from other articles in the Wikipedia such as the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats. Would someone please attend to that?
Now, while the article is much improved, there is still much to be done to make it worthy of the Wikipedia. I corrected an mistaken reference to Alexander Cunningham the other day but, on closer examination of what is still left in the article, there is more that needs fixing. 
First of all, Cunningham seems to have been mistaken when stating that Pliny referred to the Iatii tribe. At least, the link given to support such a reference in "some manuscripts" of Pliny, does not turn up any such reference - and I can find no other references to the Iatii in Pliny. However, if any of you can find such a reference, please inform us and give details of your sources. It may be there is such a reference in an obscure manuscript of Pliny that I have yet to discover. 
As far as I know, the only reference to the Iatii (or, preferably, the Iatioi) in ancient literature is in Ptolemy 6.12.4, where he mentions them living "along the northern section of the Iaxartes" with the Tachoroi. Now the Iaxartes (= Jaxartes = the modern Syr Daria) is a long ways north of the Oxus, where Cunningham apparently mistakenly placed them. (See: Ptolemaios. Geographie 6,9-21. Ostiran und Zentralasien. Teil I. Containing Greek and Latin texts. Translated and annotated in German with English translation by Italo Ronca. Instituto Italiano per il medio ed estremo Oriente. Rome 1971, p. 107; The Geography. Claudius Ptolemy. Translated and edited by Edward Luther Stevenson. New York, The New York Public Library, 1932, (Published as the Geography of Claudius Ptolemy). Reprint New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1991, p. 143). 
So, it seems we have only a single brief reference - and no other information about this tribe - the Iatioi - and, therefore, no way of linking them to India at all.
Neither can I find any mention of the "Xanthi" in Cunningham. (Again, please correct me if I am wrong).
I will, therefore, adjust the section accordingly and deal with other issues at some later point when I can spare the time. Sincerely, John Hill 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to article

message: I suggest that the article be split into smaller articles. The size of the article is 138 KB, which is way above the recommended guidelines. The origin part can be moved to another article Origin of Jat people, while the information about the Jat kingdoms can be moved to History of Jat people.
Also, the article needs to source information from better sources. Some of the information in the article is sourced from obsolete pseudohistorical theories or books by Jat historians, riddled with ethnic patriotism or glorification attempts. The external links section also needs to be trimmed up per WP:EL -- it should include links to encyclopedic sources, not forums/discussion groups. utcursch | talk 07:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear John Hill 07:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with utcursch that the article be split into smaller articles. I also feel that several parts of this article do not conform to WP:Fringe and WP:RS. Shyamsunder 06:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size and other issues 

message: Someone has added a rambling account with this heading. There is no place called "Arab" and the first country discussed is Persia, which is definitely not considered part of the Arab world. Would someone who knows more about all this than me please tidy it up and check all the references, or, perhaps, it would be better to remove the section altogether? John Hill 07:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jat settlements in Arab(?)

message: Mr. Burdak has given another false reference! How many times has he vandalised this page by giving false references? I am tired of having to follow up on his misleading entries! I can't keep up with them all - his bag of false and misleading "references" seems bottomless! Would some Administrator please do something to stop his vandalism of this page. 
Today he gives another so-called reference - No. 54 - to "Central Asia in the Kushan period, Vol II, page 62. Published by the committee on the study of civilizations of central Asia on the commission of the USSR for Unesco under contract with Unesco, 1975" in which there is supposed to be some reference to Yaudheyas in the Kushan period (whom Mr. Burdak, of course, equates with Jats). 
Surprise, surprise, there is no such informtion at all on the page mentioned or any reference to Yaudheyas. In fact, there is no reference to Yaudheyas OR Jats anywhere in the book.
Mr. Burdak has also given an unsourced, so-called "quote" from the Persian epic the Shāhnāma which seems to show it talking about Jats. I cannot find anything of the sort in the Shāhnāma. Maybe it would help if Mr. Burdak gave a proper reference that we could check. John Hill 10:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is really sad - please Administrators - would you deal with this?

message: I am glad to see you have at least referenced that quote now - it was not at all clear before where it came from. As it does not agree with standard translations of that passage, one wonders about the unusual wording - so reminiscent of the odd "quote" you made from the Mahabharata the other day. 
But, more importantly, what about the completely false "reference" to "The History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. II"? Why have you (again) not replied to my pointing out of this apparent dishonesty? This is only the most recent in a very long list of false "quotes" and "references" you have made and I have exposed on these pages - as you well know. Now, I am willing to accept that maybe one or two false quotes could be the result of honest mistakes or sloppy research - but when the process is repeated over and over and over again one begins to suspect that the author is doing it deliberately and intends to deceive readers. So, quite naturally, I and others have come to mistrust any quotes you may give - especially to sources that are difficult to check. I am sorry - but you have brought this situation upon yourself.  John Hill 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Mr. Burdak

message: Hi John Hill, I am glad that you have accepted one thing. But you have not gone through the reference of article of Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery of Delhi about Shah Nama of Firdowsi. This article gives the text from The Shah Nama of Firdowsi, pages 420-421, verses: 9031-32, 9034, 9036, 9040, 9048-51. I reproduce from his article as under:
:"Bedu goft kaz to beporsm hamah
:ze shah o ze gardankashan o ramah
:hamah namdaran e an marz ra
:chu tous o chu kaous a gudarz ra
:daliran o gordan eIran zamin
:chou Gostahm o choun Giv ba afrin
:ze Behram o az Rostam e namdar
:ze har jat beorsam be man bar shomar"
John Hill, You jump to conclusions before reading my referenced book. You will get the answer of your second part as well in this article. Please read carefully the content. It has been quoted with reference to Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery. It is the conclusion of Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery and not mine. I reproduce the wordings - "Dr S.M. Yunus Jaffery writes that Firdowsi has used word Jat for those war-like persons, a word that seems to be equivalent of Yaudheyas that has been often used in the history of Kushan period". [Central Asia in the Kushan period, Vol II, page 62. Published by the committee on the study of civilizations of central Asia on the commission of the USSR for Unesco under contract with Unesco, 1975]. Hope this makes my point clear. But you have to be receptive. 
How do you say John Hill, without reading any reference to be false. Problem here is the editors here do not have in depth study of the subject. What we need is an editor having a knowledge of the subject and the people we are writing about. He should edit without bias and with NPOV. 
What I feel is that John Hill makes me accountable for what has been written on this page. It is not as per collective spirit of Wikipedia. Since the things get edited by many editors and the original things what I had initially wrote are quite different from present one. I do not have much time as well to fight on such issues. As far as my content is concerned I write with references. If some other editor gives another version it can be given side by side to make things clear to the reader.
I appreciate the efforts done by utcursch to improve the article in positive sense.
--burdak 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Burdak: You are the one who jumps to conclusions without reading what has been written. I didn't accuse you of giving a false reference to the Persian epic the Shāhnāma - I only said I couldn't find the passage you gave in the translations at my disposal and asked you to give a proper reference. What I DID say was that you gave a false reference to: "Central Asia in the Kushan period, Vol II, page 62." And so you did - I went and checked the book and there is NO reference at all in it to either Jats or Yaudheyas (ANYWHERE - let alone on p. 62) - so it is clear that you have misled people - not me. If you have taken this reference from Jaffery's book - then Jaffery has made an incorrect reference - and you have compounded his error by giving a second-hand reference without noting that this is what you have done. This is a sign of very sloppy scholarship. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, this is by no means the first time you have given totally wrong references on this page - it has happened numerous times. So, please be more careful in future and check references before you enter them or, at the very least, indicate that you are quoting the reference from someone else - and then don't list them in the reference section. If you follow these guidelines in future you may well save yourself more embarrassment and the rest of us a lot of wasted time. John Hill 04:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There seems no point in wasting time for John Hill. You are the person wasting time of others asking this or that unwanted things. I again say if you have some knowledge then at least write a para on this subject on your own. You have made attempt earlier also about these things. Earlier you said there is no mention of Jat in Satyartha Prakash. When I reproduced the whole story you said I do not understand Hindi. When you do not understand Hindi or sanskrit languages how you are claiming that you did not find. Then you said Shaha Nama does not have reference to Jat and you could not find it. I produced the entire text. Now you say without reading the book it is a secondary source. Do you know this author? Do you think the authors or telling lie. First you read and verify the book I referred and   then comment. Since you know nothing about Jat history, so your comments on this subject do not carry weight. First learn it and then tell me What do you know of Jats or Yaudheyas and their connection. Let other readers know it. burdak 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Mr John Hill 

message: Mr. Burdak has quoted a rather strange translation of a passage from the famous Persian epic, the Shahnama attributed to S. M. Yunus Jaffery, which apparently refers to "Jats": 
:"I would ask all
:About the king, the rebellions and the troops
:All the renowned ones of that region
:Such as Tus, Kaous and Gudarz
:The knights and the valliants of the country of Iran
:Like, Gostahm and praiseworthy Giv
:About Bahram, and the renowned Rostam
:I ask you about every Jat, you count them for me" 
However, as I have shown in these pages many times previously, the quotes Mr. Burdak makes are frequenty non-existant, untrustworthy, or are taken from highly suspect sources. Unfortunately, it seems we have another such case here now. 
The highly respected modern English translation by Dick Davis - The Lion and the Throne: Stories from the Shanameh of Ferdowsi, Vol. I, (1998) Mage Publishers, p. 222, translates this same passage as: 
:"I want to ask you about the leaders and champions of the other side, men like Tus, Kaus, Gudarz, Bahram, and the famous Rustam: identify for me everyone I point out to you."
In fact, there is no mention at all of Jats in any of the three volumes of his translation. But, of even more importance, is the fact that the Persian (Farsi) word for the Jāt people: جات does not appear anywhere at all in the original Persian text. See, for example, the full Persian text available online at: http://shahnameh.recent.ir/default.aspx?browse 
So, it seems probable that, once again, Mr. Burdak has cluttered this page with unreliable information which seems to support his vainglorious fantasies. Unless someone can supply evidence to show that I am wrong within the next few days I suggest the whole misleading passage about the Shāhnāma be removed from this article.
I would like to add here that I am not in any way trying to knock Jats or their history - my intentions are, in fact, quite the opposite. I believe the true history of Jats will do far more to boost their image in the world than unnecessary, boastful and untrue claims. This sort of misuse of history in the Wikipedia can only bring both Jats and the Wikipedia into disrepute. John Hill 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Jats REALLY mentioned in the Shāhnāma?