Talk:Ror

House of Chastana

Something to look at is the following reference, i) Ancient Indian History and Civilization, Author Sailendra Nath Sen, Publisher New Age International, 1999, ISBN 8122411983, 9788122411980

This reference talks of Chastana as being a ruler of Sindh to begin with. Regards Rorkadian (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tone

Hi! The tone in this article is pretty excited, not appropriate for Wikipedia. It may be because some of it is from other websites; I think an editor copied this link [[1]] though it may be the other way around. More edits to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestown James (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why is the neutrality disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.164.136 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the comment above yours, the tone is not at all neutral or encyclopedic. Just one example at a glance: "This was the ancient warrior blood speaking yet again". The article unduly praises rather than describes the subject. Not that the article needs to denigrate the Ror, or ignore positive things they've done, but it does need to state things in a neutral way that any reader, pro- or anti-Ror, would agree is concise and factual.

There are many other issues with sourcing, an overly dense intro, etc., but so far as neutrality it's largely a WP:TONE issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I belong to the ror community and I feel you have deleted some very relevant information. Deleting the muslim population info is not correct as this is a big differentiator between rors and other kshatriya castes of India. Can you please re-insert it? I agree that the tone of this article needs to be made neutral. Thanks for creating the list of rors as a separate aritcle. 59.92.195.72 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Muslim info was deleted due to the policy WP:SYNTH (an aspect of WP:OR). Both articles are worth reading to keep adding to your Wikipedia skills as you develop. Essentially, the material is not usable because the writer took various disparate facts (proportions of Muslims amongst various Indian communities) and used those to arrive at a new conclusion regarding Ror's interactions with Muslims. Per WP:SYNTH, we can't do thinks like "A is true (footnote) and B is true (footnote), therefore we can assess C"; that is for scholars to do, whereas we here are more reporters/archivists collecting the conclusions of scholars. In contrast, it would be totally legitimate to say "The Ror were the only group to do such-and-such (footnote to a book by a University of Calcutta scholar which explicitly supports this point)".

It was an interesting argument, and it's the sort of thing academics frequently do to build theories, but since creating new ideas and arguments is not part of Wikipedia, we must instead stick to reporting conclusions held by academics and journalists. Does that help clarify? On a separate note, glad you enjoy the deatched List of Ror, as it enables us to have a good and thorough list without adding undue length to the main article. I do emphasise though, to be added to the list individuals should have already-existing Wikipedia articles, and also it's important to check the link to make sure it's going to the right person, and not someone with a similar name. That is, if you're trying to link to the 20th century poet John Smith, you want to make sure that your link doesn't lead to the 19th century politician John Smith. Thanks for your interest and support of the article, and thanks for your patience in learning to work with the many policies and formats inherent to Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Writeup represented what every ror believes. If you happen to ask any ror that is the first thing they will say that "no ror ever converted to Islam and they did not give daughters in marriage to Mughals". How does the beliefs of a group get represented in an article? As I said earlier all other Kshatriyas did the opposite. Gave daughters and converted. So all Rors are very proud of this fact. 59.92.192.189 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the demographics. 59.92.135.121 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that the whole article including the 'Character' section needs to be checked. The reason why I am asking for this is that this article is about the Ror community; but by by looking at the article, it seems the article is about several other communities also, including Rors. I cannot understand that why the author of this article is dragging the other communities so much in the article, and the way it has been done!!! Also, I am aware that the Joshua project is not a reliable source, check-out the achieves at WP:RSN for this. --Abstruce ^(Talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Warrior : I have edited about akbari and birbali Jatts Reason : It is already stated that Jatts converted to Islam and they retained their Jatt identity even after conversion. Some of these converted Jatts from Majha region of Punjab(which is now in Pakistan) married their daughters to Muslims who were called Akbari and Birbali Jats which is not surprise because Islam doesn't believe in caste. In Muslims of subcontinent, marital relation with Muslims are viewed in high regard. Your link is giving impression that Hindu-Jatts gave daughter to Muslims, so i deleted it. If you want to keep that information about Akbari and Birbali Jats of Pakistan then you have to specifically mention that they were from Majha region of Pakistani-Punjab and they converted to Islam centuries before they started marrying with other Muslims.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.151.206 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 

I reverted you because there was no edit summary and I didn't spot that you had revived a really old thread here. Nonetheless, the content appears to be sourced and so you'll need to explain better why that sourcing is inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Article

I, for one believe that the article violates: POV, No Original Research Policies, and needs to be checked. --Abstruce ^(Talk) 14:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have supplied references to some of the citation requests you had marked. Regarding demographics: is it not true that rajputs, jats, gujars gave daughters to mughals and converted to Islam? Regards. 59.92.144.41 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I was off in the weekend! Well, have a look at the points below:

1. Converting to ISLAM Faith is one thing.
2. Inter-Marrying with Mughals willingly is one thing.
3. Inter-Marrying with Mughals under pressure from invaders in one thing.
4. Giving the daughters under pressure is one thing.
5. Also, it's not under discussion here, but Inter-Marrying with their brothers who have adopted The ISLAM Faith, would have meant another thing, as they would still be not Mughals, even after adopting The ISLAM Faith.

All, these points are different things. The statement in the article is: "...gave daughters to Turks and Mughals, under pressure from the invaders." I guess You may find it a bit tricky here, but I request You to read WP:SYNTHESIS. Of-course, I will put in My effort to guide You here, in case You ask Me to! So, as far as I can see, You have actually trying to SYNTHESISE things here while providing the references. Since the reference, You have provided does not specifically says, "...gave daughters to Turks and Mughals, under pressure from the invaders"; I am reverting Your edit as the reference does not support this statement. In case You don't mind a little advice, please read WP:IRS as well. Feel free to continue the discussion here, I will try to assist You as much as I can!

Also, For the statement, "Rors are the only Kshatriya group in India who did not give daughters to either Turks or Mughals.[30]" You have provided the ref: People of India HARYANA Volume XXIII ISBN 81-7304-091-5, Pub: Anthropological Survey of India, Manohar 1994, Page 425. What exectly does this reference says, Rors did not convert to The ISLAM Faith 'or' It strictly supports this statement; please, could You let me know what exactly does this reference says! --Abstruce ^(Talk) 09:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are You citing The people of India by Herbert Risley and William Crooke to support: Rors are the only Kshatriya group in India who did not give daughters to either Turks or Mughals ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstruce (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC) {{ --Abstruce ^(Talk) 09:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC) }}

Hey Mate, please continue the discussion here... also, I have serious doubts whether Herbert Risley and William Crooke backs-up the claims by Rors. Please have Your say. Are You sure about that ??? --Abstruce ^(Talk) 10:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference from Anthorpological Survey of India book says rors did not convert to Islam and neither did they give daughters to mughals. Also why did you remove the reference of jats giving daughters to mughals? Akbari and Darbari jats exist even today. Punjab govt website I provided states this clearly. Regards 59.96.38.156 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope You had a Happy and Safe Diwali. I check even two days later, but You replied late... I though maybe You have got the points. Well, I think that You may not have read all the stuff posted above by Me. In case You did read, then I am afraid that it's quite a difficult task to let You understand that why I removed it! I am not questioning Your potential, but I have put-in an honest effort, and I'm afraid that I may not be able to put-in more, after seeing You re-inserting the reference. I'm not removing it again to avoid Edit Warring. I've taken a better stance. Please go through the above posts one more time. A friendly advice: See- WP:No Original Research, WP:SYNTHESIS. Thanks! Abstruce ^(Talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

An advice: if You wish to provide information about character of Rors, then do it in a proper manner! The way it's been written, will definitely put the neutrality in question. I hope You are aware of this, and the possible outcome. Thanks! Abstruce ^(Talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have located book cited by You: People of India: Haryana, but no preview is available! I wanted to check it because I have doubts that you are Synthesizing facts here. Abstruce ^(Talk) 08:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I had a good Diwali. Hope yours was full of lights too. I will remove the "under pressure" phrase. Do you think the girls were given voluntarily? 59.92.198.190 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Cunningham notes:

"Even so late as the beginning of the eleventh century A.D., Mahmud of Ghazni gave his sister in marriage to Malik Shahu (Shahu is the Jat title), the chief of the Afghans of Zabulistan (land of the Johal Jats)."

— Cunningham, A. (Sir), Later Indo-Scythians, reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi, India, 1979, pp. 108-109, first published in 1893-94.

Dear Friends, have Your say, NOW !! ← Abstruce 20:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

James Tod

James Tod is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Whilst I am also aware that other articles here are not reliable sources, if anyone wishes to challenge this point then I suggest that they do read the James Tod article and take particular note of the number of third party reliable sources which support this view. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting every page in James Tod is wrong? Since you are confident that Tod is wrong it should be easy for you to refute what Tod has written and referenced to in this article. You are in the habit of acting like you WP:OWN articles. And please do not put warning templates on my talk page else I am going to report you again to Admin board because you vitiate the Wiki atmosphere by not listening to anyone else. Ror Is King (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is refuted. Tod is not a reliable source and I used as my basis for that the entire James Tod article. I do not propose to re-write the whole thing here: it is a Good Article and likely soon to be a Featured Article. Now please revert your edit again or I will seek administrative assistance: I gave you your chance to settle this amicably but, no, you are warring. You failed on the last occasion when you tried to claim that I was owning, in your reporting of me at WP:ANI in November, and you will likely fail again here because we simply do not use unreliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, in wikipedia, you cannot use another wiki article as a reference or citation. That said I just read the James Tod article and some of the criticisms are valid while some are invalid. But coming to the two references made in the Ror article from Tod:

1) Rajputs converted to Islam

2) Rajputs married their daughters to Mughals

On both these points Tod is absolutely correct. If you have references which refute points 1) and 2) please do provide them. Ror Is King (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained that I could just transpose those citations from James Tod to this talk page, but was hoping that it would not be necessary. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you do know that another wiki article cannot be used as a source. That said, if you can refute points 1) and 2) given above, by using references from the James Tod article, by all means do mention them here.Ror Is King (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have to verify or refute a statement in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? How do you know Tod is wrong? Unless you can verify what Tod is saying what gives you the right to remove the reference? Ror Is King (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you know Tod to be correct in these particular instances then presumably you also know of more reliable sources for the points in question.

Yes I do. Ror Is King (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains that Tod is an unreliable source and should not really be used anywhere.

Back to the same thing. It is your opinion and nothing else. Unless YOU REFUTE Tod's two points given above I am afraid Tod is right and you are wrong.Ror Is King (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, his works have been removed from numerous articles for this reason and often prior to my own involvement. Accept that, self-revert, try to find an alternate source and move on. You are wrong to battle over this. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely correct in asking you for citations. This is how wikipedia works. If you believe Tod as a source is wrong w.r.t to points 1) and 2) given above please back up your claim with some data. Else you are wasting everyone's time. Hope this helps. Ror Is King (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia's article content should be verifiable using reliable sources. Since Tod is not reliable, the options are either to remove the statements entirely, to provide an alternate or to tag them with a {{cn}}. I opted for the last because, as you have demonstrated, there is a reason to suppose that the statements may be correct even though the source is unsuitable. If the statements were still tagged in a few months' time then, yes, they would be removed. You are misunderstanding how we operate. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps you are lying. Look at this diff [2]. You actually deleted the Tod quote. What you should have done is asked for an additional citation instead of willy nilly deleting stuff as seems to be your habit. You go in with a presumption, without actually doing the research, that you are right and the source is wrong and so delete it. This is bad behavior.

Furthermore even now I see no effort from you to refute Tod. Ror Is King (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not suggest that I am a liar. Yes, I did delete that quote because it is pointless quoting an unreliable source. However, I also tagged with cite requests. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you tried to create a holier than thou impression that you just added {{cn}} tags, a good wiki behavior, when instead you were deleting quotes without giving a rhyme or a reason. Ror Is King (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have given a reason, time and again. You just refuse to get it. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have'nt seen one based on facts. You are still welcome to refute points 1) and 2) given above from Tod. Once you are able to refute them then your "reasons" will be acceptable. Ror Is King (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, I am not saying that the points are definitely wrong. They may be correct or they may not be, but we were relying on an unreliable source and that is not permitted. Now, either self-revert or face the consequences. You have been been throwing around inappropriate language, eg: here, and inserting incorrect warning templates, as well as completely missing the point in this thread. As someone else said here, you need to calm down. You also need to understand better how we operate here. It may be that a short block would give you some time to check the various policies out etc but that really would be using a hammer to crack a nut because it is all explained in this thread. Just accept it and use whatever source it is that substantiates your opinion that Tod was in fact correct. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok now you are threatening me that you can get me blocked by your friends who are perhaps admins? Instead of all this spleen should'nt you just focus on finding a reference for points 1) and 2) above which refute Tod? At least then your action of deleting Tod's quote has some justfication. Hope this helps. Ror Is King (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't help. There are only two things that would help here. (1) you self-revert and (2) someone finds a reliable source for the statements. I do not have to prove a negative (ie: that Tod was wrong), nor is it often possible to do so. But that does not mean that we should use him. Now quit the silliness, please. You do not have a valid cause to leave Tod as a source in this article. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When the reference is correct what is the need to revert? Do you have a citation which proves Tod wrong? You are being opaque. Ror Is King (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the damn policies. You are being tendentious, as you were in November. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read them. I need to see some data from you refuting Tod. If you don't have it stop blathering. Ror Is King (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments about Tod's reliability etc:

• Historian Crispin Bates: "a romantic historical and anecdotal account"
• David Arnold, another historian, a "travel narrative"
• Kumar Singh, of the Anthropological Survey of India, says his stuff was primarily based on "bardic accounts and personal encounters" and that they "glorified and romanticised the Rajput rulers and their country" but ignored other communities.
• Jason Freitag (Tod's only significant biographer) says they were "manifestly biased".
• William Crooke, who liked him, said they recorded "the facts, not as they really occurred, but as the writer and his contemporaries supposed that they occurred." Crooke also says that Tod's "knowledge of ethnology was imperfect, and he was unable to reject the local chronicles of the Rajputs." More, his "excursions into philology are the diversions of a clever man, not of a trained scholar, but interested in the subject as an amateur."
• Alexander Cunningham noted that Tod had made "a whole bundle of mistakes"
• Michael Meister, an architectural historian and professor of South Asia Studies, has commented that Tod had a "general reputation for inaccuracy ... among Indologists by late in the nineteenth century"
• V. S. Srivastava of Rajasthan's Department of Archaeology and Museums, says that his works "are erroneous and misleading at places and they are to be used with caution as a part of sober history".

It is not all bad news but the problem is that we cannot determine what bits are ok and what bits are not. Therefore, the entire source needs to be rejected in favour of alternates. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You still have not produced a shard which refutes points 1 and 2 given above. Now I see "Five colour Map" has towed your line. Are they your incarnation? I am reverting them. BTW I am going to start working on the James Tod article soon and I promise you that a whole bunch of stuff in it is absolutely bollocks. Ror Is King (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that user is a sock of me then open a report at WP:SPI; if not then please apologise. I have never heard of them before and was as surprised as you when they turned up. However, they have the right idea. I will say it once more: I do not have to refute your points because the policy in question is WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ror is King, you are fundamentally wrong about how Wikipedia works. In order to show a source is unreliable, we don't have to find a counter source that says the opposite. Rather, Tod is unreliable because 1) modern scholars generally reject both his methods and his conclusions, 2) because his "research" was not reviewed by a reliable editorial board prior to publication, 3) was based directly on hearsay and biased personal opinions. That makes him unreliable for basically anything except for things he directly experienced (i.e., Tod's accounts of what happened in India while he was there may sometimes reliable, but it would depend exactly what they are), and for his own personal opinions (like, it may be relevant in an article about British perceptions of India to reference Tod, since his writing did have a big impact at the time). Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that this is not a scholarly debate--we do not sit around trying to argue about what the "truth" is; rather, we analyze the quality of sources, and include information from those which meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV (and taking into account other policies and principles). No one has to provide counter-claims to mark Tod as unreliable. If you disagree, either Sitush or myself can open a discussion at WP:RSNB, which is a noticeboard people go to when there is a dispute about whether a source is reliable or not. If you do not wish to do so, then please drop the issue (or pursue some other form of dispute resolution; however, what you cannot do is attempt to create your own rules about how to judge sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with you and other friends of Sitush like Drmies is that you fan his inapproriate behavior and he comes across as a bully. Some of you are admins so you stoke each others back whenever someone complaints against Sitush. Take the current example. Not one of you is telling Sitush that he should have asked for additional references for the two claims from Tod in this article instead of deleting the quote. That would have been constructive and I could have easily provided many other references for both the claims.

Coming back to Tod as an unreliable source can you point to the Wiki repository which says Tod is an unreliable source. I have just started editing the Tod article and some of the criticism that Sitush has labelled against Tod is frankly childish. I am going to tackle it one by one. Ror Is King (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have said several times in this thread, you are welcome to use more reliable sources & it would not surprise me if some exist. I explained why the quotation was removed but the other statement was tagged. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not run on your whims does it? I have requested both you and Qwryxian to point out what is faulty with Tod's quote in this article. None of you have stepped up to the plate. Ror Is King (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ror, I apologize, because this may sound mean, but you don't get to make the rules. Wikipedia has rules about what is and is not a reliable source. Tod does not meet them for most claims. Furthermore, it is never a requirement that, if I remove unsourced or badly sourced claims, that I find a source to replace it with. Wikipedia must, first and foremost, reflect what sources say. If someone wants to add or retain information, the WP:BURDEN is on that person to provide the source. Otherwise, I could go to any article, add random information, and then say, "Well, it's up to you to find a source that I'm wrong, and until you prove otherwise, the info stays in the article." That simply doesn't work, and it isn't our policies.

However, you indirectly raise a good point: it's time that this issue got taken to RSN. Sitush, would you mind, sometime in the next day or so, making the quick case? I can do it, but I bet that you can do it better, given that you're the main editor who brought James Tod to good-article status. We need a quick paragraph that presents the argument for why James Tod is not reliable; then we can see what uninvolved editors think; the burden will lie on those who want to use him to show that he is reliable. If you'd prefer I tackle this, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I very nearly did it earlier but was advised that RSN is more for specific sources than specific authors. I'll do it, unless Ror Is King wants to make that effort. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A little more lengthy than perhaps is ideal but I have asked here. - Sitush (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, we should avoid behaving like intellectual dictators; Tod himself admits that there is scope for further research on Rajput history , political system and other connected aspects. However having said that, it needs to be emphasised that we cannot negate Tod without solid evidence and not merely on the basis of indivdual POVs or refering to recently 'fabricated histories' originating from interested parties even if published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.56.61 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not how Wikipedia works. By that logic, we could put in, say, information from the Puranas or the Quran as a source until someone proves that they are wrong. This is a confusion many people have: Wikipedia is not about proving one piece of information right or wrong. It's about putting information from reliable sources into articles, including having multiple perspectives should reliable sources disagree. On Tod, the consensus at WP:RSN was nearly unanimous: Tod is not a reliable source for matters of Indian history. Tod should be used to site Tod's views themselves, or possibly to discuss historical views about topics (which does not apply here). If a reliable secondary source discusses Tod, that could be included. Qwyrxian (talk)

Qwyrxian, I dont think it is correct to place Tod's work on the same level as The Old Testament, Bible, Quran, Puran etc. What should not be lost sight of is that Tod recorded the available knowledge, understanding and beliefs in his time. Typically Tod sometime erred in the matter of names, dates and some details for example he mentioned Nonad Singh as the King of Neemrana whereas he was a half brother of the King. His view which found similarities between the Hindu Rajput political system with the Europeon feudalism may be disputed. What cannot be faulted is the honesty of his approach in recording the historical sources. Tod can be countered only by indisputable newly discovered facts with an unimpeachable basis and not merely ideas generated through reinterpretation or revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.56.61 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way how does a 'secondary source discussing Tod' become reliable?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.56.61 (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue of Tod's reliability has been discussed at WP:RSN, which is a wider community forum than this page. Qwyrxian reasonably summarises the outcome. No-one has ever said that everything written by Tod was wrong. However, there have been numerous other historians of the region since his time and it should be possible to source statements to more reliable works than those of Tod. If we cannot do so then his statements should be omitted. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rai Diwaji

I have just tagged

The first few centuries of the Christian Era and a couple of centuries prior to that constitute the golden age of Ror history. Not only did Rors have ruling seats of power in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Sindh; during the times of Rai Dewaji in the 5th century AD, they consolidated their influence in the entire region from Afghanistan to Kanauj in India.

The source is Elliot, Henry Miers, The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period. Volume 1, Adamant Media Corporation, ISBN 0-543-94726-2, Page 405

My reasons for tagging are:

• The caste of Rai Diwaji and his descendants is uncertain - Elliott/Miers do not appear to note it around the referenced page, except to comment on p 406 that there is theory that they were Brahman (which they appear to oppose, sort of). There are numerous Raj-era sources that expressed doubt regarding the connection of Rors to Aroras, and also where Khatris fit in there. I'd be interested to know if that has been cleared up by modern, reliable sources.
• "Golden age" looks like peacock or even WP:OR, at least based on the page referenced & those immediately surrounding it. Elliott & Miers do not even know when the dynasty was founded and merely list some people who are known.

Basically, the paragraph relies on an old source and ignores other old sources. Surely there is something better out there? - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush,

The bardic view is that Rors were the founders and rulers of Rori Shankar. So, this should not be confused. We have never doubted or even contested Khatris or Aroras when they say they hail from Rori or Shankar (Sukkur now). Apart from them, a whole lot of Jats and Rajputs in Western and Northern India hail from the historical Rori Shankar complex. But that does not change or put in dispute the caste of the rulers of that capital complex and which I would again aver was Ror.

Best regards 195.191.109.191 (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. However, bardic sources are not reliable and should not be used in this context. Equally, the fact that they are being used elsewhere does not justify their use here - it merely means that the information presented elsewhere needs to be changed. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush! It is very unfortunate indeed that you are not saying anything new. Anyway, that gives me a chance to bring something original into the discussion. After a profound analysis, I have concluded that bardic commentary can be entirely divided into two different types.

The first type covers the history of neo-royals. In these cases, the bardic commentary is full of fables and almost very little truth. This applies for almost all such families who came into power after the political unheaval caused by the Turkic invasion.

The second type covers the history of the older royals, many of whom actually lost everything in the wake of the Turkic invasion. This second type is almost completely true with very little unreliable information seeping in, mainly due to the passage of time and the length of the duration since when these families were dispossessed.

Now, the Ror history given by the bards falls into this second type and that is the precise reason that out of the current castes, they are the only ones represented in the ASI records through the Kagarol excavation. In fact, let me also add that Carlleyle had found that Bhainsror was also related to Rors but under pressure from his superiors, who post-1857 wanted to give Indian history a completely negative direction, he gave it a Hun connection without any rhyme or reason. Thanks 115.241.131.236 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source (scholarly journal article, history published by a reliable publisher, etc.) that verifies these claims that primary sources are "true". Without that, you simply cannot base WP articles on what primary source of that type say. That's just our policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My recent removals

This was dreadful, sorry. A brief lesson about Wikipedia:

• all statements must be verifiable
• the easiest way to ensure this is to cite a reliable source. Preferably, more than one.
• an alternative way is to link (ie: it turns blue, rather than stays red) to an article that itself satisfies the above for the point in question, which in this instance is confirmation that the person is indeed a member of the Ror community.

I actually think that the alternative way is best, because we also have various policies regarding notability and unless someone meets that criteria then they should neither have an article on Wikipedia nor be on a list here.

It is not enough to think that "I know it is true". There is much which I believe to be true but, honest, I recognise that without compliance to WP:V etc I am wasting my time here. Those are the rules, simple as.

If anyone wishes to add content to this article then please can you ensure that you follow them. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been an awful task. In order to assist anyone who might wish to rebuild it (following the stipulations mentioned above, please!) here is a link to how the list appeared just before I fixed it. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to my list above, and as already stated on similar lists for other communities, simply bearing the last name is not enough. There are, for example, thousands of people in Scotland or of Scottish descent who have the surname "Nair" ... but they are not usually related to Nairs. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect back to Ror

This article has remained unpopulated for a long time. I suggest preparing some names in a sandbox somewhere. If it gains one new name per week, it could be a bit undue. Until then, I suggest redirecting this back to Ror, and removing the {{main}} until it's ready. This is currently a non-article, and wastes the time of those clicking the main from the Ror article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree in principle but give it a week at least. There is at least one contributor champing at the bit and they deserve a chance. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Sitush, please mark your calendar, and drop me a line if you need a hand. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New section

A new section on population genetics has been added by me. Does any editor have any issue with the content and tone?? Rorkadian (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Experience has shown me that genetic studies in caste articles simply do not work. For example:

• the science is relatively new and it is rapidly changing
• the sources generally require expert interpretation or else we rely on the abstracts (which is simply not acceptable)
• there is a tendency to select only sources that support a particular POV, and the aforementioned required expertise makes it difficult to counter
• the samples are usually small and dependent upon self-identification by the subjects, which is extremely tricky because of issues such as sanskritisation and other social mobility movements. If you check out analyses of censuses, for example, then you will find massive inconsistencies because people tried to uplift themselves

I could probably list more reasons but the above should suffice as justification for removal. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur on all of those points. Putting it in Wikipedia terms, population studies are basically always primary sources, which means we can only cover exactly what they say, with zero interpretation, and doing that in this type of article is basically impossible. Now, if an independent researcher did a review of a variety of genetics studies, and made comments that were directly related to this caste, then it may be possible to include. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you are absolutely not reading the references when you say people try to uplift themselves and imply that may be what I did while adding that genetic section. If you read the reference, in fact, if you just read the excerpt that I was quoting in the references below you would have known by now that there were sufficient number of samples considered for this study. If this research was done by people of the stature of Dr. Kivisild, you should better know that the sampling was fair and random. Not a selected sample to show some superior traits. Rorkadian (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you read Professor Luder's work, you will know that Rors moved from Roruka in Sindh to Loulan in Central Asia long back. This Loulan is formed by transformation of both R's in Ror to L, which is what happens when we move away from a Sanskrit environment. You might be thinking why I'm bringing this up. Reason is that I read the article you wrote on the so-called "Lohara Dynasty". Guess what the Lorin and Loran (close to Poonchh) where these people came from are a part of the same series. While the Rors moved from the Sanskrit environment of Sindh or Haryana, they first reached Kashmir, where the first R transformed to L and then when they reached East Turkestan, the second R also transformed. Anyway, thanks for that article. More interesting were some of the references you gave where it is clearly mentioned that when the Rors lost to Arabs in Sindh, the dynasty of Lalitaditya felt the pinch in Kashmir. Thanks a lot, mate. When I write a book on the actual history of India, your work shall be acknowledged by me. Rorkadian (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to address my concerns about sourcing before you can re-add. A first run science source should generally be avoided except in very special circumstances. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not hell bent on adding the genetics section especially since there is so much opposition to it. I'd thought it would be of academic interest to any geneticists looking at this page. No issues. Rorkadian (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Am thinking of starting a new article on lactose tolerance in India or Indian subcontinent using that same paper.Rorkadian (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rorkadian, my apologies but you have misunderstood me. It did not even cross my mind that you were attempting some sort of upliftment exercise. It is nonetheless true that since at least the 1880s there have been millions of people who have done so and their descendants may well have no idea that this happened to their family & that once they were members of a different sect, subdivision or even - yes- caste. There are also some specific problems, one example of which is the Nair/Nambudiri hypergamous relationships.

My original objection was based on sound past experience across a wide range of caste articles. I did once ask at our Genetics project to see if anyone would evaluate some of these things ... but there was no interest aside from one individual, who emailed me and basically confirmed what I already knew - they didn't want to say it on-wiki because they knew what trouble it might bring from caste warriors etc (not you, but other people, many of whom are now blocked etc anyway). Since you think that this source is somehow way different from the usual, I will take a look at the thing. But, yes, you would still have to deal with the other points, as summarised by Qwyrxian. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You are hitting the nail on the head, absolutely. The British are actually the manipulators behind these social movements in most cases, if not all. The castes that were seen as helpful in their cause were allowed to uplift themselves. The really obstructive people like the Ror and Ranghar in Haryana were dealt with pretty harshly. You would be surprised to know that they intentionally increased the boundaries of villages belonging to particular castes and in this entire exercise, the people who were dealt the bitter pill were the Rors and Ranghars, who together owned much bigger tracts of land originally. Anyway, we have to live with history and try to impact the future. Rorkadian (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

By the way, who has put up that picture for this article. I went to the wiki page where this picture was posted initially. That page shows that only the Ror article uses this picture and further, when we click on another link given there, it takes you to some site about Indian atheists and their marriage ceremonies. How is that relevant to the subject here? Could I ask both of you to investigate and remove it if I'm found correct.Rorkadian (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out--that picture definitely can't be here. First of all, you're right that we have no good evidence that it's of Rors (the site it came from is a blog, and not an "expert" blog). More importantly, it was being used under fair use rules, but 1) there is no fair use claim for this article and 2) the use isn't transformative (that is, we didn't talk about it in detail in the text)--it was merely decorative. Thus, even if we were certain they were Ror, we couldn't use it for reasons of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I've removed it, and since that means it's an orphaned fair use file, I'll request its deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal.Rorkadian (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 1857

Hi guys, actually biggest problem is that this subject hasn't been covered too well by recent historians. Only one person from proper academia has attempted something and he is Dr. Raj Pal Singh. About him the good thing is that he is not a Ror himself and plus, he is a well-trained historian, who even taught history at post-graduate level. He has other books as well to his credit on different subjects. But by far, the small attempt he made at Ror history may have been one of his best works even though he did not get it published by any big publishing house. In his book on this subject, he says on page number 63 that (translating into English), "As a result of British policies, Rors also jumped into the revolt of 1857, especially as result of news coming from Meerut, Delhi and Ambala that the British were to be overthrown." He goes on further but only point that I wanted to make using this is that the couple of lines about the participation of Rors in the revolt of 1857 should be reinstated. There is support of this from the local villages as well where in several villages they still say that their men returned only after many months once the revolt had been subdued. Perhaps, they had gone into hiding. What is your opinion? I can make the pdf of Dr. Raj Pal's book available if you want to take a look. Rorkadian (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide full publication info? Books don't have to be from a "big" publisher, but they do have be from a reliable one. Also, is Singh working at a mainstream university or other research location? If that checks out, then, yes, having some scanned pages will help (usually more than one, so we can see the context). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Did some research after reading your question above. Actually, Singh's college has a website (http://www.mlncollegeynr.ac.in/) and he is even listed on the faculty page (http://www.mlncollegeynr.ac.in/faculty.php). The name of college is MLN College, Yamunanagar and the college is affiliated to Kurukshetra University. I'll give you publisher info as well shortly. Just give me some time. Rorkadian (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Am back with the publisher's details. This book titled, "Ror Itihaas ki Jhalak", which would translate to "Glimpse/s of Ror history" was published by Pal Publications, Yamunanagar in the year 1987.Rorkadian (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what university affiliation implies in the Indian education system. However, in the UK it certainly is not an indication that the staff are university grade teachers, for example. Some may be, but many will not because there are so many non-degree courses etc also offered.

Your general point is interesting, though. 1857 has always seemed to me to be extremely well covered in English language literature, so I might do some digging. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush! Thanks for the offer to do some digging at your end. That will be great, especially if you could uncover some British Era documents that I've not come across on this subject population. On the other hand, I've some evidence to show that Dr. Singh has been quite consistent with his literary output. Just to elaborate, here is a list of books published by him since 1987 -

1. Ror Itihas kee Ek Jhalak, 1987, Pal Publications, Santpura, Yamuna Nagar. 2. Rise of the Jat Power, 1988, Harman Publishing House, New Delhi. 3. Devi Lal: The Man of the Masses, 1988, Veenu Printers and Publishers, Yamuna Nagar. 4. Green Revolution, 1990, Harman Publishing House, New Delhi. 5. Perspectives on Education, 1996, Harman Publishing House, New Delhi. 6. Banda Bahadur: His Life and Times, 1998, Harman Publishing House, New Delhi. 7. Life and Times of Prof. Tilak Raj Chadha, Harman Publishing House, New Delhi. 8. The Sikhs: Their Journey of Five Hundred Years, 2003, Bhavana Books and Prints, Delhi. 9. Studies in History of the Jats, Volume I: Ballabhgarh, 2008, Harman Publishing House, Delhi. 10. Chaudhary Devi Lal - Jeevan Avam Darshan, 2000, Harman Publishing House, New Delhi. 11. Martyr Raja Nahar Singh, Unsung Hero of 1857, (2008), Abhinav Publishing House, Meerut. 12. Chaudhary Ishwar Singh-His Life and Times, (2009), Harman Publishing House, New Delhi. 13. Eighteen Fifty Seven in Haryana,(accepted for Publication 2012), Harman Publishing House, Delhi.

Hope this regular and consistent output manages to convince you on his scholarly credentials. Rorkadian (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush! I found something interesting on google books. It doesn't explicitly say Ror but still supports the point made by Dr. Raj Pal that the area in general had a great uprising. One line in this book that I've found says thus, "The history of Karnal in Punjab during this period offers the singular instance of a civil revolt breaking out spontaneously and independently of the military rising....". This is from page no. 39 of the book "Theories of the Indian mutiny (1857-59): a study of the views of an eminent historian on the subject", by Sashi Bhusan Chaudhuri, Publisher World Press, 1965, Original from Indiana University, Digitized 1 May 2009. Thanks Rorkadian (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have mentioned Raj Pal Singh again in the section below, which probably is not ideal but is intended to "compare and contrast" two of these native language sources. Something has to give here. As far as my digging around 1857 events is concerned, I haven't yet got round to it and will be away from home over the weekend. If nothing happens early next week then please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Two dubious sources

Please can someone explain why the following two sources meet our requirements:

• Ror Itihaas Ki Jhalak, by Dr. Raj Pal Singh, Pal Publications, Yamunanagar (1987)
• Aryavart evam Ror Vansh ka itihaas, by Shri Ramdas, All-round Printers, Karnal (2000) - All-round Printers?! I cannot help but think this is a vanity publisher.

I would also appreciate an explanation regarding why (according to our very poor & mangled article) Singh appears to think that Dadror rules ca. 489 AD but Ramdas says he was killed ca. 620 AD. That is a pretty big discrepancy, or an extremely long life.

Finally, has anyone who contributes here actually read WP:NOENG? The quality of English prose is poor and thus I do not think that we can rely on accurate translations by those who have contributed to the relevant parts. We would need some alternate source of translation. Assuming that the two works are reliable in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And another to add to the list of dubious sources is Ancient Indian Dynasties by V S Misra, Published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 2007 ISBN 8172764138. Who is Misra? Who is the publisher? I have grave doubts about this source. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern Research

Vasantrao More, is a well-known historian attached to Kolhapur University, Maharashtra. I think his research is undeniable. I dont know why everyone is bent on denying the connection. Let's be objective, typically like any indian community we are bent on to claim that the Rors were a dominant warrior community & controlled large part of the Indian subcontinent. The evidence provided by the research is quite conclusive. If read with a open mind, things become amply clear about the Rods history. Please read the India today article at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/haryana-rods-trace-their-lineage-to-maratha-soldiers-third-battle-of-panipat/1/168685.html For more details read the book, The History of Rod Marathas of Panipat Battle by Vasantrao More.203.191.35.22 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read the Express piece. Assuming that Rod = Ror (does it?), I don't see how research by an academic and a bureaucrat concerning 500 soldiers at Panipat justifies calling the Rors "a dominant warrior community". That battle is known to attract a lot of fringe theorists and POV pushers even among academics, but our article suggests 45,000-60,000 Maratha combatants & 200,000 hangers-on, so 500 people would be a drop in the ocean. In other words, it is not sufficient for our purposes. Of course, our Third Battle of Panipat article might be wrong in its statistics but I happen to have read some of the sources for that and the scale is certainly thereabouts. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Vasantrao More is a well known historian in Maharashtra. I suggest you to read the book. The evidence he has provided is astonishing. Besides, the research was published by most of the newspapers like Indian express, Times of India and also india Today. These certainly form reliable resources according to Wikipedia. This is an interesting piece of history & the wikipedia readers must not be deprived of this.Parjorim (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of More's credentials and the reportage (which, to me, suggests sensationalism), a theory concerning 500 soldiers does not seem to support that the Rors were "a dominant warrior community". Does More actually say that? Is he himself a Ror or even a fellow Maratha? Has his book been peer reviewed in academic journals rather than the Indian newspapers? Was it reviewed by The Hindu, which is just about the only decent national paper in India? - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you are offended by my reference to "dominant warrior community". Although you might be thinking so but Its not sensationalism & neither its yellow journalism. I know in maharashtra there are quite a few writers\books who are into sensationalism of Marathas history but the octogenarian More is not one of those. I am not trying to force my views upon you but if you read the book & look at the evidence, I am sure you would believe it. More is not a ror but is a Maratha. Yes, from what i read in some marathi newspapers I can certainly say that his research & book has been peer reviewed. I would try to find the references about this aspect. No....The Hindu did not review it. I think it could be so because Hindu is not published in Mumbai yet. I agree, Hindu is the best paper but I would not say that its the only decent newspaper. But I would find out if Hindu has published any news about the research\book.Parjorim (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not offended by anything but I am sorry if it comes across that way. The problem is one of determining reliability and weight. I've not read the book and it is unlikely that I will do so any time soon: I have neither the time nor the money after recent purchases for other articles, and I'm not even sure that it would be available to me without shipping from India. Peer reviews will count for quite a lot but it will also be absolutely vital that we can substantiate that More says whatever it is you want us to show in the article: I mean no offence but it is extremely common in caste articles for people to be selective in their use of a source (sometimes without realising it) and even to completely misrepresent it. The "dominant warrior community" just seems to be quite a leap to make in describing an entire community based on some research concerning 500 of them in a single battle. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You must be wondering why i am so keen on making you believe this research\book. I am not a ror neither a Maratha but I am from Maharashtra from where the Marathas come. Personally I am strongly against the Indian caste system but I do believe the history \past should be portrayed in the encyclopedic manner. I must admit I am in awe of you for your work on Wikipedia especially in the caste arena. I am keen that you read this book. If you do not mind I would love to gift a copy of the book to you. I would obtain another copy of the book & inform you when its with me.Parjorim (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ror maratha

Ror are different from maratha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3293:5007:5061:4607:6C92:111E (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So what? Who cares? Please stop making these comments - they do not aid improvement of the article. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sir,

• The abstract from the research paper on which this article is supposedly based doesn't mention 'Marathas'. It seems that the tribune article made an original research in this case.
• Wasn't there a consensus not to include genetic material in South Asian caste/ethnic pages? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus that including genetic research in caste articles etc is not a great idea. I have no idea whether the news article is the source of the IP's claim. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: I believe the whole section needs to be deleted as per consensus since it is totally based on genetic research and that too an original synthesis of the research. It seems the only purpose of this edit was to both Mention and then Debunk the Maratha origin theory. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed. Sorry, I didn't realise it had been added in my absence, otherwise I would have taken it out ages ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: That's what I was thinking. I typically restore to your version in similar situations if you are not around. Thanks - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

@Ror84here: You've deleted reliably sourced content to add contents from Jatland.com which is a blacklisted site and another source [3]. Secondly, your other contents are unsourced and the writing looks like copypaste from another source with poor English. Don't do that. If you want any specific change to be made, discuss here and bring reliable WP:HISTRS source(s). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: ok you are right that my english is not good but ,information that i mentioned is right and needed to be displayed , i have mention all correct details about rods that you remove you did not mention any population related info of rods ,your information is not providing complete details about rods ,your information did not mention any thing about rod dynasty ,raja dhach , forts built by rods ,ideology of chauhans and rods and also about westeren straps ,i have mentioned it and provide links in my refernces also about raja ror I ,kagarol supported by my links and provided links of archological survey of india about place kagaroll , you have removed this things i have not copy a single word from jatland.com nor have any related info , if some of the info you are thinking unsourced then you can edit them , but why are you remove my whole content , also i had mentioned wikipidia link that are mentioning about rods ,even provide official link of pak govt 's tweet mentioning aror city capital of ror dynasty ,also link of genetic case study . the wikipidia content of other castes contains their religios and poulation info . But you did not mention any thing about rods , Ror never converted to islam you will not mention it however this thing make them different from other martial communities this is the part of their identity ,you are hiding the usefull information and showing that are rors are thakurs and supporters of bains was it really correct you think !!! ,you have not mentioned their ocupation nor their clans . you are providing irrelevant information about ror just by your imagination without research ,you are hiding usefull information that is not good for wikipidia community , what are the benifits of wikipidia if it will not provides correct information. kindly have a look at this complete info -

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ror_dynasty .

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Ror_I.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhainsrorgarh.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behror.

^ https://twitter.com/pid_gov/status/1019582569736822784?lang=en.

^ https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Ror_Dynasty.html.

^ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sindhis.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chashtana.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kagarol.

^ https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/haryanas-rors-brought-western-flavor-to-indus-valley/article25690855.ece.

^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929718303987.

^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281057006_Distribution_of_A1_A2_BO_and_Rh_D_Blood_Groups_in_the_Ror_and_Bishnoi_Caste_Populations_of_Haryana_India.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sur_Sorath.

^ http://www.sindhiadabiboard.org/catalogue/folk_litrature/Book40/Book_page1.html.

^ Page 673, Journal of Indian history, Volumes 48-49, by the University of Kerala. Dept. of History, University of Allahabad. Dept. of Modern Indian History, University of Travancore, University of Kerala, published in 1970

^ Page 211, Report for the year 1871-72, Volume 4 of Archaeological Survey of India, Authors: Alexander Cunningham, J. D. Beglar, A. C. L. Carlleyle, Publisher: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1874

^ Pages 210-212, Archaeological Survey of India, Report for the year 1871-72, Volume IV, Agra circle covered by A.C.L. Carlleyle, Under the supervision of Alexander Cunningham

^- www.sindhiadabiboard.org. Retrieved 3 May 2018.

^-Page 14, "Ror Itihaas ki Jhalak" (Hindi) by Dr. Raj Pal Singh, Pal Publications, Yamunanagar (1987)

^-Pages 102 & 118, Aryavart evam Ror Vansh ka itihaas, by Shri Ramdas, All-round Printers, Karnal (2000)

^-Page 19, "Ror Itihaas ki Jhalak" (Hindi) by Dr. Raj Pal Singh, Pal Publications, Yamunanagar (1987)

^-Ror Itihaas Ki Jhalak, by Dr. Raj Pal Singh, Pal Publications, Yamunanagar (1987)

^-Datta, Amaresh (1987). Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: A-Devo. Sahitya Akademi ISBN 9788126018031.

^- Singh, Kumar Suresh; Ghosh, Tapash Kumar; Nath, Surendra (1996).People of India: Delhi. Anthropological Survey of India. ISBN 9788173040962. Retrieved 8 October 2014. The Arora or Rora is a community of traders of the south-western part of the Punjab. Their origin according to the Bhavishya Purana, can be traced back to the time of Parshuram, who in anger started killing the Kshatriyas. In this process, Parshuram met a Kshatriya who refused to oppose the Brahmans, and winning Parshuram's respect, was asked to go to Sindh to setde there. Later, the place came to be known as Arutkot or Arorkot. His progeny are called Aroras.

^-Malhotra, Anshu (2002). Gender, Caste, and Religious Identities: Restructuring Class in Colonial Punjab. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195656480. Retrieved 8 October 2014. The Aroras were also said to be the Khatris of Arorkot, or Aror, the ancient capital of Sindh.

^- Handbook of the Punjab, Western Rajputana, Kashmir, and Upper Sindh. John Murray. 1883. p. 293. Retrieved 8 October 2014. Aror.--While at Rorhi, a visit may be paid to the very ancient town of Aor, which is only 5 m. distant to the E. This was the capital of the Hindu Rajas of Sindh and was taken from them by the Muslims, under Muhammad Kasim, about 711 A.D. At that time the Indus washed the city of Aror, but it was diverted from it by an earthquake about 962 A.D., at which the river entered its present channel.

^-Hughes, Albert William (1876). A Gazetteer of the Province of Sind. Retrieved 19 December 2017.

^- Denzil Ibbetson (1970). Panjab Castes, Being a Reprint of the Chapter on "The Races, Castes, and Tribes of the People" in the Report on the Census of the Panjab. Languages Department, Punjab.

^-"Alor or Aror of the Muslims is really Al Ror which is the same as Roruka or Roruva, the name of the ancient Sauvira capital", Page 45, History of the Punjab, Volume 1 by Fauja Singh, Published by the Department of Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, 1977

^-Rose, H. A (1911).A Glossary of The Tribes & Castes of The Punjab & North West Frontier Province. II. Lahore: Samuel T. Weston. p. 17. Retrieved 24 October 2011.

^- Bowden, Rob (2004). Settlements of the Indus River. Heinemann-Raintree Library. ISBN 1403457182. Retrieved 19 December 2017.

^-"Where the city of Aror once stood in glory". Dawn. Retrieved 19 December 2017.

---

• First of all, your edit was just like that in the Jatland.com article, that is without much reliable source(s) and full of glorification of the community, which is considered WP:POV in Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia or similar sites like Wikiwand can't be used as sources as per WP:UGC. This can't also be used
• Social sites like this is not considered reliable, besides it talks about Ror dynasty which is relevant in that article, not here.
• It is an independent article about a caste/community. We should not have unsourced linking to historical dynasties or communities. Combining information relevant to other things like Aror, Raja Dhyach, etc can't be used here as per WP:OR. Aroras and Rors are not same. Neither Alor, etc.
• Raj era sources like that of H A Rose, Denzil Ibbetson, etc are not considered reliable as per WP:CONSENSUS at WP:INB.
• Genetics information, though relevant, can't be used in caste/community articles as per WP:CONSENSUS at WP:INB.

Saying that, if you have Indian government sources or news sources (like Times of India, Hindu, Indian Express) on Ror population and religion, add it. But anything history related should be WP:HISTRS compliant. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

---

@Fylindfotberserk: ok thanks for information ,

can you add this details =

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/society-the-arts/story/20120123-haryana-rods-trace-their-lineage-to-maratha-soldiers-third-battle-of-panipat-756978-2012-01-14

you have mentioned ror history begin and end in haryana please remove it , it is wrong . As it is cleared above i have given links also about ror dynasty not much to do but cleared that ror are rulars and kshatriya ruled so far years ago from sindh and linked with rajputs . add the link - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.63200/page/n231 " Report For The Year 1871-72 Delhi Vol.iv " ,mentioning rora as tribe of rajputs .

I explained to you these historical things like origin or historical migrations requires sources from experts in History, that is WP:HISTRS compliant sources. The Maratha part is from a news agency, so unreliable here. Also the Marath was removed before. The second point, Rora and Ror is same or not, needs to be mentioned explicitly, also Roras can be Aroras . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

An irrelevant source

I found out that Dialogue & Daggers:Notion of Authority and Legitimacy in the Early Delhi Sultanate 1192 C.E.-1316 C.E. p. 167. ISBN 9789384318468, written by Ayan Shome, was added in this page as a reference. However, this book doesn't even mention about the Rors!

Please check the reference. Arnab2305 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions

@Sitush: Sir, the recent additions here, doesn't look OK. It looks WP:OR, besides the source is from the British era. Kindly see. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTRS cited in article (why?)

Hello! Yesterday, I had removed some sources and the content cited from them in 3 edits. Please have a look at the reasons provided here — [4], [5], [6]. I believe that it is absolutely clear that we do not consider sources from or before India's British period as WP:HISTRS.

Xpardeep has manually reverted my edits, and the reason given by him is — "Revert back of approved content on 13:27, 9 September 2020‎ Fylindfotberserk talk contribs‎ 6,335 bytes".

Pinging @Fylindfotberserk: and requesting comments from him on this situation, and requesting @Xpardeep: to clarify his views (where is the consensus for citing British period sources in this article? and, also why did you reverted this (I hadn't removed a single word)?). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Мастер Шторм: Obviously the British era sources are unreliable. Those were removed multiple times from the article in the past, but seem to get back. That's why most of the time I do cleanup/copyedit/citation fixes and minor WP:OR checks here. The primary reason I visit this article is to not let blatant POV pushes like that "Ror-Maratha" thing. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the request, Fylindfotberserk. Xpardeep seems to have developed some kind of misunderstanding here (as indicated by his comments in the edit summary), and your answer shall clear it. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Мастер Шторм: You are welcome. I have asked Xpardeep multiple times in the past to discuss it here, but they do not show up. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, if that's the case, then we should revert back without any delay. I am restoring back the page to how it was before his recent edits (reverts). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Мастер Шторм: Yeah, go ahead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Done! Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi bro hope you are doing great. Whats the problem in sources of british periods? Before that periods people was uneducated and rare reaources can be found. Maximum wikipedia content is also of british periods. You need to remove all content feom other pages also.ay be you also need deletion of wiki pages. However antherpronolgy of afganistan book i think is not from british period and book kne other refrences also not the time of british periods. Whats wrong with you with british periods? Xpardeep (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Sorry for delay the reply. I did not get your talk message before. Xpardeep (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Hi. Below is your lines and may i know how these sources are unreliable? "@Мастер Шторм: Obviously the British era sources are unreliable. " Xpardeep (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC) ______ Regarding 4th refrences just open the url and search the bais word and you need to read the content. There is line about ror thakur supporter of bais thakur. Xpardeep (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC) _________ What tge reason to remove this book content also. Dialogue & Daggers:Notion of Authority and Legitimacy in the Early Delhi Sultanate 1192 C.E.-1316 C.E. p. 167. ISBN 9789384318468, written by Ayan Shome Xpardeep (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetics Copyvio

Copyright violation copy and paste into article visibility removed. Canterbury Tail talk 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Notable Personalities of Ror Community - Ritu Khokher (IPS Officer) Diksha Singra (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

. Diksha Singra (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, Not notable. A notable person would require an article in Wikipedia as per WP:GNG. Second, a WP:Independent source will be required (like The Hindu, Times of India, etc) with an interview in which the person (Ritu Khokher) should mention that they belong to the Ror caste. It is as per consensuses and guidelines in WP:INB. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

@Fylindfotberserk: hey !! , edit this man , i think this would like to be displayed on page and make page editable also , update the privacy pollicy man.

book - Dialogue & Daggers: Notion of Authority and Legitimacy in the Early Delhi .. (page - 167 ) : https://books.google.co.in/books?id=6Q2qCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA184&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=ror&f=false

add - >------------------------

Ror historicaly connected with chauhans .

---

Book : Dialogue & Daggers: Notion of Authority and Legitimacy in the Early Delhi .. (page - 167 ) -> https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/_/6Q2qCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA167

add -> ------------------------------ Aror was the ancient capital of Sindh, originally ruled by Ror Dynasty. ---------------------------------------------

official tweet of pak govt : https://twitter.com/GovtofPakistan/status/1019582569736822784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1019582569736822784%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FWho-is-ror-in-Haryana

-> add line :----------------------------------------------------

The Ror has its roots in an area extending across the Gujarat-Rajasthan border and historically it was concentrated in and around Ror in Sindh. link : The study, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

---

study : https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/haryanas-rors-brought-western-flavor-to-indus-valley/article25690855.ece

study : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929718303987

- >add line :-------------------------

They are fine stalwart men, of very much the same type as the Jats,

But almost all the Rors alike seem to point to Badli in the Jhajjar tahsil of Rohtak as their immediate place of origin, though some of them say they caime from Rajputana. Their social status is identical with that of Jats ;

---

book : Panjab caste pg(178) : https://archive.org/details/panjabcastes00ibbe/page/178/mode/2up?q=178

hey add this source and informative data .

Ror84here (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 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. Additionally, some of your requested additions appear to violate the neutral point of view policy. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Add line -> Ror are historically connected with Chauhans to introduction page . Do not remove any thing just add this line at top .

Source :: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/_/6Q2qCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA167 Ror84here (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The source only mentions Rors as another community whose "migration history began and ended in Haryana". It doesn't explicitly establish a connection between them and the Chauhans. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned not only tomars who historically connected with Chauhan's but other groups had a migration history and another group is Ror also have quite modest in culture and migrated , it's ror only . Ror84here (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Check this link mentioned here also as Ror ecsaped and hide themselves in dhak jungles consisting 84 villages . And migrated from Badli , a place in delhi first then got merged in panjab with time and now in Haryana .

As Badli is located on delhi border and in 12 th century Delhi is not like of today's delhi but contain half Haryana as it's part and parts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya pardesh too .

Ror migrated from Badli is clearly visible here

https://archive.org/details/panjabcastes00ibbe/page/178/mode/2up?q=178 Ror84here (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this extensively in this talk page and WP:INB that British era sources like this one are not considered reliable in Wikipedia, nor we use genetic researches in caste articles or infer something based on it. Also government sources are not reliable. Do not add them again. Use WP:HISTRS complaint sources post 1947 by scholars. As for Chauhan, the source doesn't explicitly mention relations of Chauhan to the Rors, but it can be reworded. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

But before British era there is no proper documentation of any community and land records as there is massive attacks all over the india for almost 800 years .many scriptures and temples are destroyed and burnt by Invanders . As Britishers were the first only one who did the surveys across the Indian continent, the india is only divided into provinces states with least documented record before that and those documented records are always modified by Invanders . Ror84here (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not in my hands. British era sources have been deprecated in Wikipedia for being biased and unreliable. This is the reason why most good articles lack British sources as references. It is better if we write content based on scholarly sources WP:HISTRS, instead of using sources that are considered unreliable. Any experienced user will remove them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Steppe Ancestry

Forgive my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes, I stumbled upon something that might be worth including in the article. From the page "Yamnaya culture" there is a reference and direct link to this page based on genetic study which shows a high representation of early steppe ancestry in Ror people.

"The Rors stand out in South Asia as the population with the highest proportion of Steppe ancestry".

Pathak AK, Kadian A, Kushniarevich A, Montinaro F, Mondal M, Ongaro L, et al. (6 December 2018). "The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley Populations from Northwest India". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 103 (6): 918–929. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.10.022. PMC 6288199. PMID 30526867.

2600:1700:2AB1:8540:645F:D816:29CD:73B5 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

History section full of unsourced propaganda

@Kautilya3: - There is repeated vandalism/propaganda on history section. There is no source for "Ror Dynasty" being liked to Rors of Haryana. It says Arora Dynasty in second source, not Ror.

First source has NO mention of Ror Dynasty at all! and second source mentions Arora Dynasty. Nothing in sources links anything to Rors of Haryana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ror#History

Please look into it and remove this vandalism/propaganda.117.198.113.124 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: - I looked through the page history and it was added by banned user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anuragtaya - Their propaganda edits were not removed from history section, please look into it. 117.198.113.124 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

NitinMlk, can you help? It looks like the problematic edits are in this diff, but there are also good edits in there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thank you, the problem is entirely history section, Sindh Arora Dynasty being passed off as Ror Haryana/UP here. No problem with Infobox though. 117.198.113.124 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Katilya3: "Aror Dynaty" page name was changed to "Ror Dynasty" by this User recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ror84here Please take note. 117.198.113.124 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)