Talk:Jatav

I am Sitush, currently contributing as an IP due to not being at home. Abstruce has moved this article from Jatav to Jatava. The edit summary says As per -> 'India. Office of the Registrar General. Census of India, 1961, Volume 15, Part 6, Issue 4.' { http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JMnUAAAAMAAJ&q=Jatavas#search_anchor } Also, http://www.google.com/search?q=Jatavas&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1. The preceding edit summary (same diff) changed the name to Jatava throughout the article, claiming "Officially known as Jatava(s) ...".

WP:COMMONNAME says, inter alia, that

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.

I have reverted the naming within the article and I contest the move itself. My rationale includes:

• that the name is official is irrelevant per our policy
• that it is official is also dubiously weighted. The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs website hosts this document. I looked at it a couple of days ago and the situation does not appear to confirm "official" status because some entries refer to both names, some to more than these two, and some to one or the other. Alas, the site has yet again gone AWOL, at least in the UK. The AWOL-ness is a frequent problem for nic.in-hosted websites viewed from the UK but hopefully I can present a detailed analysis before too long.
• the sources currently favour the use of Jatav
• Searches using Google etc can easily produce skewed results but there are substantial variations. Abstruce's own Google Books url viewed from the UK shows 784 mentions to "Jatavas". Revising the search term gives:
  • 9540 for "Jatava"
  • 13,000 for "Jatav"
  • 16,700 for "Jatavs".

A check of how India media such as The Hindu and The Times of India refer to the community might be interesting, although fraught with many of the same problems that affect Google search results.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sitush, I hope You are doing well !! Yes, You have every right to contest the move; everyone here does.

Well, a minor flip-flop You have done here "by Yourself", that may not have much of relevance, but for the sake of clarification, Please notice: When I moved the page Jatav to Jatava, the edit summary provided was -->> " Officially known as Jatava(s) -> 'India. Office of the Registrar General. Census of India, 1961, Volume 15, Part 6, Issue 4.' { http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JMnUAAAAMAAJ&q=Jatava#search_anchor } ". See for Yourself; it's not the one You have mentioned above. The difference is slight, but there is a difference.

Well, here's the thing, let's focus on "Jatava" and "Jatav"; both being the contested titles -->> * 9,540 for "Jatava" (Google Books) * 13,000 for "Jatav" (Google Books). Now, 9540 is certainly a lesser number than 13000; no doubt about that. But, the difference is not heftily way too much to ignore -->> India. Office of the Registrar General. Census of India, 1961, Volume 15, Part 6, Issue 4. Manager of Publications Also, Please note that the national census report dates after 26 January, 1950. As is quoted at Wikipedia:Official names,

Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.

In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be.

Friends, Please note that the census is de facto valid as an official document, and, it's noteworthy that it's after 26 January, 1950.

Just a little "irrelevant", but, it would be a worthy move to mention it here -->> There appears to be some differences even between the Indian bodies for Jatava or Jatav, as well. India. Office of the Registrar General. Census of India, 1961, Volume 15, Part 6, Issue 4. Manager of Publications refers to the community as "Jatava(s)"; while K. S. Singh, the former Director-General of the Anthropological Survey of India refers to the community as "Jatav(s)". And I am well aware that at Wikipedia, as long as the policy WP:Balance is shining, no source can be assumed to be a compelling source or enforced. <<--

So, like Sitush, I too, respectfully request some active participation. We will surely resolve this, Dear Gentleman. ← Abstruce 13:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are completely hung up on the issue of official naming. I've already explained, here and on your talk page, that it is irrelevant per policy. All you have added to the discussion is support for my opening contention that, in fact, it is not as official as you originally stated. Unless you can come up with a policy-based reason for your move of this article and that reason takes into account WP:COMMONNAME, well, the move is going to be reverted. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the article back to Jatav. It is an accepted principle on moves that, if a move is contested, it should first be undone and then discussed via an RM discussion. (This is not a comment on the article title.) --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The correct caste terminology as per official indian govt. is Scheduled Castes, Forwards Castes, Backward Castes, Other Backward Castes, MOST backward Castes.

Dalit is no longer the correct terminology, it is the same as calling a black person a 'Nigg*', or some other curse word. TimesGerman (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not censored. We use the most common name, which is not necessarily the official name. There are plenty of groups classified as SC that are not dalits. And there is also another, less-used but politically-correct name for dalits (harijan?). Government classifications change over time, are often politically motivated and are often obscure. Stick with something that people can relate to. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

your above statement shows that you have very little knowledge on this. All Dalits are Scheduled Castes, this is the official and most recognized way to classify castes in India. Harijan was coined by Gandhi and it means "children of god". This word was hated by all Scheduled Castes and is now banned by the Indian government for official use. The word "Dalit" means "broken people" and this word is rejected by members of scheduled castes because it makes people think they are somehow inferior and meek. The correct terminology to use "Scheduled Caste" and not "Dalit". I suggest you do further research on this before reverting again. TimesGerman (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

read the wiki pages on Dalit and Scheduled Castes. Especially read the 'Etymology' section in the wiki 'Dalit' page. TimesGerman (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

some links on this: http://www.halabol.com/2012/07/04/dalits-vs-scheduled-castes , http://seekingbegumpura.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dalit-or-scheduled-caste-a-terminological-choice/ TimesGerman (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have far more knowledge about this subject matter than you think and name-calling is going to get you nowhere because you'll find that my positive reputation here precedes me. I also seem to have far more knowledge of how Wikipedia works, which includes that we do not rely on the content of other articles as sources and we do not keep reinstating a bold change when it has been reverted. I am going to revert you once more and we are going to continue this discussion. If you revert me again then you will likely be blocked from contributing.

We do not necessarily use the politically correct term for something; instead, we tend to prefer use of the most common term. Based on this, we probably should actually use "untouchable". I'd be willing to compromise by saying something like "... one of the untouchable communities, or dalits, who are classified as a Scheduled Caste under modern India's system of positive discrimination." - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually you don't seem to even understand that not all so called Dalits were untouchables and even if a caste was untouchable, not all sub groups were necessarily untouchable. A better statement would be to say "Dalit or Scheduled Caste community". The user can wiki link to the scheduled caste page to understand scheduled castes and reservations, since reservation is a controversial topic and will lead to unnecessary editing of caste related pages.TimesGerman (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of what I said: the Chamar/Jatavs are described as untouchable in numerous sources, including the ones shown in the article at present. This is not about some other community who may or may not be. Your statement will not work because it is imprecise: they are not one or another but rather both. I appreciate that this may be a subtle distinction but that is how the English language works. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

They may be described as untouchable in some sources and Dalits in other sources but in most sources they are described as Scheduled Caste' since this what the official standard is to describe the so called Dalit. You still have not provided an answer why the you don't agree with the word of Schedule Caste. Is it because you just don't like that some-one else is better at the topic than you?TimesGerman (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hm. So, you have changed the article without agreement and failed to discuss the matter any further. You've also engaged in another snipe, you have provided no evidence and you are ignoring, for example, the title of the most recent academic study of the Chamar/Jatav community that is mentioned in the article and that you have yourself referred to elsewhere before, ie: *Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011). Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253222626.. Of the other sources that are presently cited, this one refers to them as both SC and untouchable, while the others make no comment (I'm about to remove two because they do not support the statement that a living person is a Jatav or a Chamar, but I note that one does refer to them as dalits). We need to talk this through but your hot-headedness is not helping matters - I am trying to find a compromise here that makes sense to readers around the world, not just single-purpose accounts on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC).Reply

Let's discuss this after a few days. I tend to get very involved in this topics, so I will take a time out for a few days.TimesGerman (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. Put the article back to where it was before this began (WP:BRD) and let me know when you want to pick up the issue again. The article had been in its prior state for some time and being so for a little while longer will not cause the earth to stop spinning. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sir, i also belong to a jatav caste and it is very difficult to listen us as a name , as an abusee ' chamar' by other castes and upper caste people , as i am a student of bba 1 st year , i face many of these problems that our caste is said to be a chamar caste by people. Lalitjatav0001 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I request wikipedia to help us toremove this abuse from our caste . Now a days inthis 20th century every thing has changed except this our caste abise that his attachted to our caste . We , jatav caste people have changed our position in many fields such as politics and, education but still we feel that we are slaves to the upper caste people because of their thinking towards our caste. Dear sir/mam, chamar word is used as an abuse in todays scenario. We will be very thakful to you if you help us to remove this chamar tag from our caste . Thank you Lalitjatav0001 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear sir, now a days in this modern world somehow,the people/students of jatav caste are facing many discrimination in front of upper caste people . I also belongs to the jatav caste which ,the society calls "chamar" . We feel very bad because in this 20th century everything is changing by passing of time but we 'the jatavs' feel ourself as we were 20 years back . Instead of Lalitjatav0001 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Little away from the discussion at hand, let me advise you that why present people/students (naturally educated ones) believe in the caste theory. you must be proud that society discriminated you but you opposed, struggled and finally fetched the resources and education. Presently no one can bar you for your caste. I think it is not other people but you who is not ready to condemn the caste system. Neglect the sick thinking of others who believe in castes and caste based society and raise your actual standard of knowledge and mental hygiene and project it as an example for others. Think broadly, the words like "chamar" or what so ever are not the abuses but are the words by which the whole community gets attention of the Government and benefits like reservations and I have seen people happily accepting these words. Make your mind caste free. About the present discussion I must admit that you or anyone can add or alter anything if the reliable sources support your view. but if anything for any reason shall not be changed if not supported by the sources. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It has also been suggested that the Chamars and Jats inter-married and formed the Jatavs. { Lynch, Owen M. (1969). The Politics of Untouchability. New York: Columbia University Press. OCLC 31520. "It is sometimes said that they are descendants from the marriage of Jats with Chamars." } ← Abstruce 05:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lynch seems to be seen declined towards Jatavs in his writings. He based his writings on the fabricated history posed by the Jatav caste associations. We have to see and examine that what other writers say on this fact. However, the subject sentence was there in this article with the same reference and other related views but was removed by some eminent editors. Regards.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It has been written that jatavs "'claimed"' to be kshatriyas.But it has been proved that they were kshatriya.I am a jatav.Please also remove chamar word from this page.The correct terminology is scheduled caste. Dhruvverma1611 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The sources mentioned are depicting the data in respect of the Chamar Community as a whole, hence can be included only in the article Chamar. For this article, the facts pertaining to the distinctive Jatav subdivision of the Chamar caste shall be included. Hence all irrelevant information is being rolled back. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see your point regarding the first citation. It is however true and well known that the Jatav community has significant concentrations in UP. I have added more specific citations..

Mayawati is indeed a Jatav, I had cited just one of many possible citations.^[1] Let me know if you need more citations.

The accptance of Buddhism by the jatavas does go back to 1956.^[2] It is well documented. However a look at Shaadi.com matrimonials, and other sources suggest that a majority of them are Hindu.

Malaiya (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Appears to be a synonym of Jatav. I realise that another synonym is Chamar but I think that is the top level and Jatav is a subgroup. This could get messy, sorry. Sitush (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• jatav is totally different caste from chamar.dhusias might be chamars but jatavs aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3029:B76:9B4:E401:1593:870F (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Can you provide even a single reliable source for your above claim? BTW, see WP:HISTRS to know about this project's standard for reliable source in regard of caste-related topics. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Comment – Sitush, my cursory search of the academic sources shows that the Jatavs are either a subcaste of Chamars or simply "politicized" Chamars, and that they were historically shoemakers. Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

• "The largest caste of Uttar Pradesh was to be found among the Scheduled Castes, which represented 21 percent of the state's population according to the 1991 census, and among whom a single jati represented 11 percent of the state's population (that of the Chamars or Jatavs, the shoemakers). Chamars were politicized and adopted the name "Jatavs" long before many other Scheduled Castes, partly as a result of the work of Ambedkar, India's foremost Dalit leader during the British Raj and thereafter for many years."^[1]

• "Koris are a good example of Untouchables' upward mobility and the persistence of their identity in the urban context. They also show that untouchability does not vanish when socio-economic status improves. These elements are also found among the Jatavs of Agra, on whom Lynch has written a remarkable study. The Jatav case illustrates the full ambiguity of the upward mobility of Harijans, who remain, relatively speaking, an object of contempt in spite of a certain socio-economic advancement. The Jatavs are a Chamar subcaste who took advantage of the development of Agra's shoe industry to improve their lives. Here again is a case of Untouchables using their traditional skills to find a place in the modern world. Traditionally, Jatavs were cobblers, and when the modern shoe industry began to develop, they encountered little competition from other castes; as a consequence, 85 per cent of the labour force in these industries is Jatav."^[2]

At present, Chamar article mainly contains a demographic table, which can probably be summed up in a small paragraph. And I guess both the Jatav and the Dhusia can be discussed within the Chamar article. Anyway, I will look at the other available sources to get a clear picture. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jatav is not a seperate caste than Chamar or an upper caste Kshatriya. They are subcaste of Chamar community and included in same column with Chamars in Central and State list of Scheduled Castes. ( http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Scan-0019.jpg ) ChamarVeer (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jatavs are subgroup of Chamar community and they are not a seperate caste. Repeatedly this page is being vandalised by anonymous users. Page needs a protection to stop anonymous users to vandalise it and violate BLP. ChamarVeer (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we have to reflect what is said in reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I can't tell what this sentence in the introduction means: Jatav known is Gautam, kureel,Ahirwar,Anand,Chandra,Bharti,Raidas,Choudhary And it is neither grammatical nor attributed to any source. It should be rewritten to be clear and clearly cited. - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Jatav is the surname of chamar caste As like Yadav is the surname of Ahir caste Patel is the surname of Kurmi caste Kushwaha/maurya is surname of kori caste Pal is surname of gaderiya caste Tiwari/ Dube/mishra/pandey etc is surname of Brahman caste

Especially jatav,ravidassia,ahirwar kuril,dohre,gautam,rao, bharti ,Ambedkar,etc are the surname of chamar ( ravidassia) caste They are classified into scheduled caste in modern India They strongly believe in Buddhism , Ambedkar, Sant Ravidas Mkgautam847 (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mayawati - Chief Minister of Utter pradesh Charanjit Singh Channi - Chief Minister of Punjab Babu Jagajeevan Ram - Deputy Prime Minister Meera Kumar - First Female Lok Sabha Speaker 2409:4063:4EAA:FDCD:5FCF:5D:2321:6298 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

146.196.34.66 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not Chamaar caste it is actually a top level schedule caste

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Recoil (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

,Meghwal remove this please Mannu098765 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rajasthan Mannu098765 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

2409:4055:4E82:F35D:0:0:3A88:E60C (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Meghwal delete this they are different caste in jatav in Rajasthan region

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arun Kumar Sagar second time Member of Parliament BJP Dalit leader 61.2.22.148 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply