Talk:Zuṭṭ

Regarding the recent revert

Hi @Sutyarashi!

The source meets WP:RS. The Indian History Congress is reputable. It is the largest academic body of India with over 35,000 professionals. The journal has been cited more than 92 times which is more than enough. It is published and is distributed by a reputable party (JSTOR). Also, according to Wikipedia, a Journal which has not been peer-reviewed can still be added to represent the viewpoint. We should add a peer-reviewed journal when available. However, recent scholarly sources also add value. Per wiki, journals by "respected publishing houses" are still considered reliable even if not peer reviewed.

Now to address your point regarding primary source, the source is not primary. The primary source is Lisan-al-arab which the author interprets, reviews and discusses and not a WP editor. And even goes as far as to cite an additional source "Majma-e-Bahaar-ul-Anwar" which itself is already a secondary source regarding Zutts of Sindh. So it is sufficient to represent a viewpoint. If we go by your definition of primary sources. Then the whole article will fall apart because Nizami and Wink cite primary arabic texts. But we are aware that this is what we call a "secondary" source. Because the source has been interpreted by a recent author. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the author essentially repeated what the primary account stated, without addressing the inaccuracies in it.

For instance it claims that Asawira were from Sindh while it is known that it was not the case, and the author didn't make any attempt to address this apparent contradiction. Also Zutt/Jats didn't live just in Sindh; they were mainly native to Makran and surrounding areas. Given that it's already mentioned that Zutt were originally from region between Mansura in Sindh and Makran in the lower Indus valley, it is unnecessary reiteration of what is stated earlier, and not a correct one. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Though our main topic of discussion is not Asawira but here's a quote from another ref which is not limited to Lisan-al-arab: (a) Tribesmen of Sind Islamized. Prior to Islām a contingent of the Indian soldiers recruited from the formidable Jāts (al-Zuṭṭ), the Sayābija and the Asāwira served in the Persian army. You can access the source here. Check out pages 191 & 194 and their notes. It is also useful if you wish to expand the current article regarding Zutts.

Now about the concern of repetition, the author does not word for word repeat it, he breaks down the 7 different groups and also adds additional information where he finds suitable (like in the 1st & 7th point), this implies he supports the view that these groups resided in Sindh and does not deem it necessary to add alternative viewpoints about Asawira as his main study is literally about "Indian Impact on Arabian society". Similarly, Andre Wink repeats what the primary source states and writes Abu Hanifa a Jat freeman without addressing other significantly different viewpoints. He does not even write "according to x source" and instead just directly mentions the pg of the primary arabic texts in the citations. Why? Because his book is not some critical edition where he argues about different viewpoints. Does this mean its unreliable? Of course not. It's true Zutt/Jats were not limited to Sindh. I'm not denying that at all. Makran was under Sindh at some point though. Which Wink also states in his book. And Mansura is pretty central in Sindh if you've seen the map. Therefore, Hasan is not incorrect about Sindh and Kirman. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That source seems good. What statement you want to add in the article? Sutyarashi (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

For starters, please self-revert.

And from this source I wanted to add a statement about this. But I see that some of it already exists in the article. So I think you should add about the Zutt village on the River Ṭab and about where Hajjaj settled them and their families. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I already told you why the previous statement is not appropriate (Zutt being native of Sindh and Kerman). If your concerns are just about adding mention of Sindh somehow, you can add it without any reversion. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already established why it is well appropriate. The edit that got reverted was this According to Lisan al Arab, Jats originally belonged to the regions of Sindh and Kirman.

You can add "Makran" separately here if you want. But its very clear the author has included it in Sindh. Wink also supports those borders. So it is definitely appropriate considering they are scholars, and us WP editors are not. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Stating that Jats were native of Kirman (A claim which I have not gone through in any other source) and Sindh goes against other several references cited in the article, according to which they inhabited much larger region. Even in Sindh they were limited to the west bank of Indus. The present section is better as it is, but if you insist so it can be rephrased as Zutt (Jats) dominated regions of Makran and Turan (including Qiqan, modern Kalat), as well as land as far as west bank of Indus river in Sindh...The region from Makran to Mansura in Sindh was mainly populated by Jats. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Kirman, you can effortlessly find many sources simply by writing "Zutts kirman" in google books, which I just did. Ibn Haukal mentions "From Mansura to Makran" while Khurdabah says Jats safeguarded the region from "Kirman to Mansura". Here's a cit "Abdulla, A. (1973). The Historical Background of Pakistan and Its People. pgs.98-99".

And regarding Sindh, your own references support it. One of them being "Zakeri 1995, pgs. 120-121". It literally calls Sindh their original territory. With not just one reference but many, including those of modern scholars. Other than that it even mentions the presence of Zutts in Iran from the fifth century B.C. And lastly, we are not concerned with what you haven't "gone through". If we find good refs, we add them on wiki after verifying that the reference supports the text. Here, it clearly does. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In this case, you can rephrased the lead sentence of the section as At the time of Umayyad conquest of Sindh in the early 8th century, Zutt (Jats) dominated regions of Makran and Turan (including Qiqan, modern Kalat) as well as Sindh and Kirman. That would end the dispute. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really a dispute since sources support it but if you believe there is a dispute then I am going to avoid the mention of "Kirman". And will use your own added citation to support the text. The word "dominated" doesn't seem natural. But I am going to leave your text as it is and will instead add something straightforward at the bottom. Sir Calculus (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References