This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zorawar Singh (Dogra general) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is a complete catastrophy about a brutal conquerer and mass murder. Especially this is completely wrong:
"Unlike so many other conquerors, General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was not despised or hated by the people whose lands he invaded. There is not a single word in any of the histories or traditional accounts about the rapacity or greed that comes naturally to most foreign invaders, and the same goes for his army. These Sikh and Hindu invaders crossed the paths of people belonging to the Buddhist, Muslim, and Animist faiths and yet made no attempt to interfere with their religious practices. There were many monasteries filled with precious articles all through Ladakh and Tibet and yet there was not one instance of robbery or plunder.
Zorawar Singh’s great military endeavors were balanced by a life of modesty and restraint. He was so honest that he would transfer to his master any gifts or tribute that came to him. This honest Rajput did not leave behind either vast properties or deep coffers for his descendants -— only a legacy of military achievement that caused the contemporary Europeans to term him the “little Napoleon of India”."
he executed his opponents in the most brutal way: cutting off ears, nose, tongue, blindig them etc. Forcing Ladakhis and Balties by threatening death to take part in his invasion into Tibet. Robbed the castle of Skardu, transported the wealth of this people to India, distruction of monasteries in ladakh (look at Petech, Ladakh). His first political action in Baltistan was, that everybody who kills a cow should be executed. Religious freedom? Military success mainly by treachery. He received what he deserved, his head was cut off. Is this wikipedia type of history?
I absolutely agree with the above commenter. Every Ladakhi historian tells of Zorawar's plunder of monasteries and torture of local people, the cutting off of hands or face parts, etc. I've deleted that first paragraph, but the whole section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.207.129 ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Sorry. I moved too fast and got sloppy. I have moved the page myself to align with the opening sentence. Srnec ( talk) 04:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
He was a Hindu Dogra- Khushwant Singh writes this [1] It is an authentic source. WP:RS must be followed. Ghatus ( talk) 10:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Same Khushwant Singh writes that Zorawar Singh "took the Khalsa Flag to the heart of Tibet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.237.149 ( talk) 09:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3 ji You have done a good job, if not best. So, its appreciated. Because, allegiance to Gulab Singh is important. Though Gulab Singh and Jammu Principality (State) was a part of the Sikh Empire. So good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.80.75 ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It might not be noticable on first glance but all in all, the article is a eulogy, giving direct praise in several points and indirect hints of it throughout the text. Definitely not NPOV. Also, the details need a more clear presentation. E.g., the introductory paragraph leaves a false impression as if the general had conquered at least significant parts of Tibet if not the whole of it. -- 62.65.236.47 ( talk) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The article states that he was from the state of Kahlur while also calling him a Dogra. The word Dogra has never been used historically for any other states other than the ones in the Jammu region. But Kahlur, as everyone knows, is not one of them. So which one of the two was he and why was the word dogra inserted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.186.101 ( talk) 08:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, 'Dogri' specifically refers to the dialects of lower Jammu Hills, it (Dogri/Duggar/Dogra) has never referred to any other dialect, region or ethnic group. Bilaspuri/Kahluri is a distinct dialect in itself and as per the census of India it has been officially classified as a dialect of Punjabi. The census of India has always clearly mentioned so.
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx
In fact none of the dialects outside the Jammu region are linguistically, ethnically or officially considered as 'Dogri' as is clear from the census. Dogra refers to Dogri speaking people of lower Jammu hills only (roughly between the Chenab and the Ravi. The region between the two rivers is known as Duggar hence the name Dogri/Dogra). Bilaspur itself, located much further away in the Sutlej valley, is not even contiguous and no references to Bilaspuri/Kahluri people referring to themselves as Dogra/Dogri exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.40.250 ( talk) 03:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Zorawar Singh Kahluria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
kindly change the second line of article from "He was subordinate to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8] "
to "He was the general of the army of Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8]"
reason:- the current article creates misconfusion regarding for whom he works as general as per the references in the article given he is general of the army of the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Sinh thats why the word subordinate creates alot of misconfusion among the wikipedia readers as some people thought he was the general of the khalsa army and fight for dogra ruler gulab singh as there is alot of edit history of these kind of the edits in past till now . now the references also provided in article shows what iam saying you can check the reference for your inspection too. he is the miltary head of the army of maharaja gulab singh Loneltrussia ( talk) 16:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. —
Tartan357 (
Talk) 12:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)its already discussed above 2 years ago rest here is my explanation and i dont have power to raise consensus so matter is regarding only the first line of the article where it says "Zorawar Singh Kahluria (1784-1841) was a general of the Sikh Empire in the Indian subcontinent. He was subordinate to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8]" according to the references and citations present in this article .it makes clear that zorawar singh kalhuria is the dogra general of the army of dogra maharaja gulab singh the maharaja gulab singh is the vassal of the sikh empire . so mentioning term he was general of sikh empire is quite misleading .it may be a previous edit by somebody ,so kindly don't associate sikh empire with zorawar singh term if you need more realible references by 19th century british historians books i can provide you here is references
Frederick Drew, The Jummoo & Kashmir territories Alexander Cunningham, Ladak A. H. Francke, Antiquities of Indian Tibet Fisher, Rose, and Huttenback, The Himalayan Battle-ground
first version of the this wikipedia page
i raised this issue due to the fact the i found people got mislead by reading the first line and talking him as a sikh by the reading the first line of article ,i have seen multiple people twitter which got mislead by thinking that he is sikh by his identity although article mentions the his religion in early life and career section but most people don't go further upto that section by reading whole article beacause people nowdays just google the name and it shows the first line on google only ,thats why this is misleading in this way, for further info check talk page of zorawar singh kalhuria where the dispute of his religion is already solved in 2017-2018. so as a wikipedia community member i thought its my duty to raise this issue to respected admins . thanks waiting for your response -- Loneltrussia ( talk) 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zorawar Singh (Dogra general) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is a complete catastrophy about a brutal conquerer and mass murder. Especially this is completely wrong:
"Unlike so many other conquerors, General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was not despised or hated by the people whose lands he invaded. There is not a single word in any of the histories or traditional accounts about the rapacity or greed that comes naturally to most foreign invaders, and the same goes for his army. These Sikh and Hindu invaders crossed the paths of people belonging to the Buddhist, Muslim, and Animist faiths and yet made no attempt to interfere with their religious practices. There were many monasteries filled with precious articles all through Ladakh and Tibet and yet there was not one instance of robbery or plunder.
Zorawar Singh’s great military endeavors were balanced by a life of modesty and restraint. He was so honest that he would transfer to his master any gifts or tribute that came to him. This honest Rajput did not leave behind either vast properties or deep coffers for his descendants -— only a legacy of military achievement that caused the contemporary Europeans to term him the “little Napoleon of India”."
he executed his opponents in the most brutal way: cutting off ears, nose, tongue, blindig them etc. Forcing Ladakhis and Balties by threatening death to take part in his invasion into Tibet. Robbed the castle of Skardu, transported the wealth of this people to India, distruction of monasteries in ladakh (look at Petech, Ladakh). His first political action in Baltistan was, that everybody who kills a cow should be executed. Religious freedom? Military success mainly by treachery. He received what he deserved, his head was cut off. Is this wikipedia type of history?
I absolutely agree with the above commenter. Every Ladakhi historian tells of Zorawar's plunder of monasteries and torture of local people, the cutting off of hands or face parts, etc. I've deleted that first paragraph, but the whole section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.207.129 ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Sorry. I moved too fast and got sloppy. I have moved the page myself to align with the opening sentence. Srnec ( talk) 04:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
He was a Hindu Dogra- Khushwant Singh writes this [1] It is an authentic source. WP:RS must be followed. Ghatus ( talk) 10:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Same Khushwant Singh writes that Zorawar Singh "took the Khalsa Flag to the heart of Tibet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.237.149 ( talk) 09:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3 ji You have done a good job, if not best. So, its appreciated. Because, allegiance to Gulab Singh is important. Though Gulab Singh and Jammu Principality (State) was a part of the Sikh Empire. So good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.80.75 ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It might not be noticable on first glance but all in all, the article is a eulogy, giving direct praise in several points and indirect hints of it throughout the text. Definitely not NPOV. Also, the details need a more clear presentation. E.g., the introductory paragraph leaves a false impression as if the general had conquered at least significant parts of Tibet if not the whole of it. -- 62.65.236.47 ( talk) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The article states that he was from the state of Kahlur while also calling him a Dogra. The word Dogra has never been used historically for any other states other than the ones in the Jammu region. But Kahlur, as everyone knows, is not one of them. So which one of the two was he and why was the word dogra inserted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.186.101 ( talk) 08:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, 'Dogri' specifically refers to the dialects of lower Jammu Hills, it (Dogri/Duggar/Dogra) has never referred to any other dialect, region or ethnic group. Bilaspuri/Kahluri is a distinct dialect in itself and as per the census of India it has been officially classified as a dialect of Punjabi. The census of India has always clearly mentioned so.
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx
In fact none of the dialects outside the Jammu region are linguistically, ethnically or officially considered as 'Dogri' as is clear from the census. Dogra refers to Dogri speaking people of lower Jammu hills only (roughly between the Chenab and the Ravi. The region between the two rivers is known as Duggar hence the name Dogri/Dogra). Bilaspur itself, located much further away in the Sutlej valley, is not even contiguous and no references to Bilaspuri/Kahluri people referring to themselves as Dogra/Dogri exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.40.250 ( talk) 03:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Zorawar Singh Kahluria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
kindly change the second line of article from "He was subordinate to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8] "
to "He was the general of the army of Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8]"
reason:- the current article creates misconfusion regarding for whom he works as general as per the references in the article given he is general of the army of the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Sinh thats why the word subordinate creates alot of misconfusion among the wikipedia readers as some people thought he was the general of the khalsa army and fight for dogra ruler gulab singh as there is alot of edit history of these kind of the edits in past till now . now the references also provided in article shows what iam saying you can check the reference for your inspection too. he is the miltary head of the army of maharaja gulab singh Loneltrussia ( talk) 16:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. —
Tartan357 (
Talk) 12:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)its already discussed above 2 years ago rest here is my explanation and i dont have power to raise consensus so matter is regarding only the first line of the article where it says "Zorawar Singh Kahluria (1784-1841) was a general of the Sikh Empire in the Indian subcontinent. He was subordinate to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8]" according to the references and citations present in this article .it makes clear that zorawar singh kalhuria is the dogra general of the army of dogra maharaja gulab singh the maharaja gulab singh is the vassal of the sikh empire . so mentioning term he was general of sikh empire is quite misleading .it may be a previous edit by somebody ,so kindly don't associate sikh empire with zorawar singh term if you need more realible references by 19th century british historians books i can provide you here is references
Frederick Drew, The Jummoo & Kashmir territories Alexander Cunningham, Ladak A. H. Francke, Antiquities of Indian Tibet Fisher, Rose, and Huttenback, The Himalayan Battle-ground
first version of the this wikipedia page
i raised this issue due to the fact the i found people got mislead by reading the first line and talking him as a sikh by the reading the first line of article ,i have seen multiple people twitter which got mislead by thinking that he is sikh by his identity although article mentions the his religion in early life and career section but most people don't go further upto that section by reading whole article beacause people nowdays just google the name and it shows the first line on google only ,thats why this is misleading in this way, for further info check talk page of zorawar singh kalhuria where the dispute of his religion is already solved in 2017-2018. so as a wikipedia community member i thought its my duty to raise this issue to respected admins . thanks waiting for your response -- Loneltrussia ( talk) 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)