This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

Hey, vandalism is being done under Jats header in this article. Same stuff which was removed multiple times by other editors has been added again in Jats header.

Please remove "Moreover, Jats earned the zamindari from Mughals by submitting their daughters as tribute. As a result of this, the Jat clans who made this transaction were organised into a relatively higher social grade vis-a-vis their own brethren as they would only take daughters from other Jats but would only give their daughters in Mughal harem. Such grades came to be known as Akbari Jats, Jahangiri Jats, Shah Jahauni Jats and Aurangzebi Jats deriving from the regnal name of Mughal monarch in whose reign these leading Jat families made any such transaction. Such grades came to be known as Akbari Jats, Jahangiri Jats, Shah Jahauni Jats and Aurangzebi Jats deriving from the regnal name of Mughal monarch in whose reign these leading Jat families made any such transaction.[126][127][128]"

Source for said verbatim is Punjab Gazetter 1911 which is not considered reliable source. Apart from that content used in Gazetter was originally written by D.Elliot in his reports and under the Jahangiri,Akbari jat stuff in footer D.elliot clearly wrote that "It needs not too be said that Akbar, Jahangir etc never took Jat wives" so according to WP:RS ambiguous and non-verifiable claims are not suited for wiki articles.

And please remove "Moreover, Jats earned the zamindari from Mughals by submitting their daughters as tribute. As a result of this, the Jat clans who made this transaction were organised into a relatively higher social grade vis-a-vis their own brethren as they would only take daughters from other Jats but would only give their daughters in Mughal harem." because citized sources don't mention anything about "Jats earned the Zamindari from Mughals". It's clearly self authored non-verifiable claim.

I would also like to suggest that there's no need for a seperate section for "Jats" just like Rajput, Maratha, Mughal,Sikhs sections were not mentioned seperately, so "Jats" section should be removed imo as it doesn't have much reliable content anyways. Amitdabas123 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

29th March, I would like to put it here that unsourced and contentious stuff that was removed by LukeEmily on 12th of March was reverted back vandal on 15th of March without any source for said contentious stuff. Vandal was later again seen engaging in disruptive behaviour with other editor. Amitdabas123 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistorianAlferedo is insistent on adding a source of an AI generated photo captioned with a commander 'Man Singh' and a person who doesn't reliably exist, identified as being an adoptive niece of Akbar. Inclusion of supposed in-laws of the emperor Akbar I directly contradicts with the existing book source, to which you added the word "other", directly contradicting the book that clearly writes otherwise.

As already referenced,

this is the source that is being insisted on being included in an extended-protected article. Book quotes how Jahangir said there would be a capital punishment on someone who gave [Muslim] brides to [Hindu] Rajputs.

Stop including it. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:@RevolutionaryPatriot You should have carefully observed that there were many more citations for the information claimed, if still the information seemed to be a bit suspicious then a contributor must add a citation needed template rather than just removing all that information for no good reason. Every contributor on wikipedia must be respected and edit warring must be avoided. Also, why you so strongly want to change this information? Seems like forcing one’s opinion without attaining consensus that too with the use of a single citation. Please respect other wikipedia contributors and avoid such type of behaviour. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there were many more citations for the information claimed

You have 0 history citations behind this made up story. Stop uploading an AI generated photo captioned "Bibi Mubarik".

Every contributor on wikipedia must be respected and edit warring must be avoided.

This isn't edit warring you are disrupting this extended protected article. It has had enough disruptions it doesn't need you to add your citation AI generated photo evidence. Don't revert this again. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chill buddy and dare not to threat other contributors like you did here again. We’re all here to add unbiased and reliable info here, if you considered any citation to be unreliable you should have removed it rather than removing the content. Moreover read the other citations carefully before just forcing your opinion regarding this sub-section of this article. I don’t understand why are you so obsessed to the information that you alone think is correct. Attain consensus first, wikipedia is for all the contributors there is no sort of rank or anything so better don’t try to show me having more edit count means you can do anything or threat other users. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RevolutionaryPatriot hey i would like to add in here, this other guy Historian Alfredo is also hell bent on adding unsourced material under Jats section.

I'm new to wikipedia editing so i didn't have enough authorisation to edit this article so LukeEmily helped to remove the Unsourced and contentious stuff on 12th of March but Historian Alfredo reverted it back on 15th of March without providing any source for the said contentious, controversial and unsourced stuff. I now noticed that this person is engaging in disruptive behaviour with edits done by you also. This person has certain Rajput POV. Editors shouldn't engage in disruptive behaviour and edit warring. Amitdabas123 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]