Talk:Ror/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misconception among younger of ror community

Hello friends I got frustrated when listen every person of ror community says they are maratha but this is wrong and rumors are created by the political parties people of maratha community during the battle of panipat said themselves as ror because to hide there origin and not get killed by mughals after that they return to there land and maharaja surajsurajmal helped them in this and it is given in history but people of our community did not know about this and becoming a maratha without any reason due to this the presence of our community vanishing we should take step to stop this misconception and tell them reality every one should feel proud as a ror — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3293:5007:30F2:5C35:9507:FAE (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I am archiving this thread. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for appeals to the Ror community. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A Brief Story of Rodes

Pronunciation- The correct or move relevant spelling for this community as pronounced in Hindi/Haryanvi should be Rode and not Ror.

Meaning- Meaning of Rode/Ror/Rod in Punjabi is "Aur" which is translated to "Other" in English. As majority of Rodes live in Haryana which was formerly a part of East Punjab state (separated in 1966) on India's independence, and the origin of Rodes are unknown so as they were commonly refereed to as "others" by the people of that area, the meaning of the name is validated.

Religion & State- Rors are Hindus and nationalist at hearts making them Hindu nationalists. (I a survey is done you will find I am correct)

Political Status - Currently Rodes are classified as "General" class in Haryana and "OBC" in Uttar Pradesh. Rodes represent only a small percentage of population in the states of Haryana & Western Uttar Pradesh near the river Yamuna Belt. In reast of India they are very widely spread/sparsely populated. They wield little political significance in these states and on National scenario. Rors are traditionally farmers and land owners in their areas. Some in the previous generations moved to government sector and some of the present generations have moved on to Professional/Private sector recently.

Early/Contented History- Relating to known history, there are stories passed on orally from one generation to other. Rodess were warriors/mercenaries who under threat from a larger group had conceal their identities by hiding in forests for a long period of time. Who this enemy was is not clear, most possibly these were contemporary Muslim rulers who had invaded and settled in India, forcing conversions and destruction of Hindus. This was probably during the time of fall of last Hindu king of Delhi (Prithviraj Chauhan) to an Islamic crusader called Ghori. There are no historical records to this claim in my possession. But to those who question these facts, I would be ask to present records or facts that state otherwise.

Current Scenario/Need for re-evaluation- There is a growing sense of lack of identity among new generation of Rodes who have begun to identify themselves with other Martial classes or some with Jats. Futher to this, there is a new movement who believe Rodes are descendants of Marathas who were left behind and survived after the Third Battle of Panipat. This is due to very little done by the community and govt. to revive the old history and culture of these people. Influential people from ror/international community/Haryana/Indian govt. must to do some background research/documentation into the history of Rodes to settle the matter once and for all.

After all as stated above we represent only a small percentage of population in the states of Haryana & Western Uttar Pradesh near the Yamuna Belt, our presence and contributions to country are neglected and our presence ignored. Rodes wield little political significance in these states and on National scenario (maybe that's why this article is rated as less imporatant), but we should not ignore their contribution to India despite their very very small numbers. These voices should be heard to.

I shall share some facts soon.

Hi, this page is for discussion of improvements to the article and not for discussion of the Ror community itself. You provide no sources above for your comments and so they cannot be used in the article. I'm afraid that makes it a rather pointless exercise. - Sitush (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Dear Colonel Saheb,

I have sent you an email. Lets continue the discussion over there.

Regards, Rorkadian (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotras

I have had a look at the list of Gotras and noticed that the Ror writer has claimed many lineages from known tribes to be a part of the Ror community? How can this be, and can citations be provided for these? If not then they must be removed. I have placed citation tags on the relevant names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanti bhai (talk • contribs) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shanti bhai, it should not come as a surprise to you if you have read Ibbetson's work that the same clan names get repeated in different groups. This has mostly got to do with eponymous ancestors and you must appreciate the fact that first names are similar among all warrior groups. So, it is always possible that a Ror was called Chopar and his descendants get the name Chopra. I hope you see the point. To make you more credulous about these clan names existing among Rors, I have listed the villages of the gotras that you expressed a doubt about. Thanks Rorkadian (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For RorKadian

Dear RorKadian, Ror are not a group from Rajput. You said Ror is a part of "Rajput Groups of India ".Prove it. How Ror came under "Rajput group". And Kadian is Jaat Gotra you have to find out first who are you ? Because Jaat Claim for "Kadian" GOtra too. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ror Raja or runk (talk • contribs) 08:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend, You got unnecessarily worked up. I hope your anger has cooled down by now. If you have observed, an independent observer has taken out almost all the names from the recent personalities list. That is the criterion of notability. He saw that the more notable people have separate articles on them and by this definition, he deleted all the names that don't have no articles dedicated separately. Anyway, coming to the other question raised by you. The Kadian gotra among Ror people has nothing to do with the Jat gotra of same name. If you study Ror history, a lot of old Ror kings married daughters of famous Rishis like Chyavan Rishi, Antal Rishi etc. The Ror Kadyan gotra was originally Katyayan, which also the name of a very famous Rishi of old times. Names get spoiled when language gets distorted. So, Sanskrit name Katyayan became Katyan and Katyan became Kadyan in Haryanvi. The original name Katyayan is still used among Brahmins in Uttar Pradesh as a gotra. And the biggest evidence that Ror Kadyan gotra and U.P. Katyayan Brahmin gotra is related is that the Katyayan Brahmins are allowed to eat meat as a special privilege because their ancestors had something to do with Kshatriyas. That should make it clear that we have nothing to do with Jats.

Now, coming to why I put Ror as a Rajput group. Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan has said that Rors belong to the Vedic Rajanya group. Rajanya means aristocracy or the class that provides kings. If you read Panini's works, he gives the order of preference as Raja, then Rajanya, then Rajputra (which became Rajput in time). So, we Rors are actually above Rajput in the ancient order or social scale but at some point of time in middle ages, all these aristocratic groups merged to establish a strong identity under the name "Rajput". So, even if we don't want to marry with other Rajputs, we are a part of that "Sangh" or group. For more discussion, please send a mail to rodes@yahoogroups.com. Regards Rorkadian (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For Ror Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ror Raja or runk (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I glad to see Ror history here. But

1) Sorry to say that The first paragraph stole from

http://www.jatland.com/home/Ror

Answer: Dear friend, you have got your facts wrong. This page had these details in the first half of 2008. The Jatland wiki contributors copied it from here in 2009, I think. If you check the page histories of these two different pages (Ror on wiki and Ror on Jatland wiki), you will be able to confirm what I say. I'm so confident because while creating the content here I had checked the Jatland wiki and it contained only two lines about Ror at that point of time. Whoever created that page on Jatland should have found out first that Ror is a different group and there is no gotra among Jat called Ror (this is a fact).

Research says that we have record 3300 B.C. and Jat has a record 3102 B.C. Answer: Irrelevant line as we are discussing Ror history here and not Jat history.

2) You said about "Ruru"

 Ruru was the Rajput clan.

 Prominent Rajput clans & their main centers
  Suryavanshi 
   a)Kachwaha 
      Shekhawat Rao Shekha Ji, ruler of Amarsar 
      Rajawat 
      Naruka 
      Nathawat 
      Sheobramhpota 
      Kalyanot 
      Khangarot 
      Jamwal (ruling clan of Jammu and kashmir) 
      Minhas or Manhas 
      Jasrotia 
      Baghel 

   b) Bargujar (Birgoojur)also called Raghuv 
      Lawtamia 
      Khadad 
      Madadh 
      Taparia 

   c) Sengar 
      Jagmanpur, Kanar 
      Bhareh 
      Ruru Italic text   Here is Ruru you claim for.
      Datia 
      Lakhnesar, Ballia 

Answer: Don't worry about that. Even Sengar is Suryavanshi but Rors have their own Jagas/Bhaats. So, we need not confuse Ror with Sengar Ruru even though it is possible that some Rors historically joined Sengar at some point of time. For your information, all respectable Kshatriya and Rajput clans have their own Jagas/Bhaats who keep their records separately. Same is the case with Rors.

3) Arab people|Arab]] historians used the words Alor, Al- rur, Al-ruhr and Al Ror to describe Alor. The basic meaning being "The Ror" as its well known that 'Al' is simply the English word 'The' in Arabic. Both Alor and Aror are incorrect renditions of the original name which is more like Ror or Rori, the capital of Rors.

Answer: Rori Shankar was founded by Raja Dhaj, Ror Kumar in the period from 1000 BC to 400 BC. When Arabs attacked Sindh, the name for the capital of Sindh was Ror as well as Rori. Arabic puts 'Al' before many names like Al-Khobar, Al-Kahira etc. They called the king of Rori as the king of Sindh and Hind. So, that shows Rors were rulers of the entire Indian subcontinent at that time or shortly before that. The name Al-Ror came to be known as both Aror and Alor. But both these names follow from Al-Ror, the Arabic translation of the original Ror.

                     Original Form by "Misaq Rabab"

Alor was the ancient capital of Sindh, now modern Sukkur, Sindh, Pakistan. In 711 Alor was captured by the army of Muslim general Muhammad bin Qasim and in 962. Later it was hit by a massive earthquake that changed the course of the Indus River.

Answer: Question answered in last paragraph.

Arora It was known as Aror and was the original homeland of the Arora community. After the earthquake, the Arora community left Aror and spread to other parts of the Punjab and Sindh.

SO ARORA WAS KNOWN AROR TOO.

Answer: Not at all relevant who the Arora are or were. The Kshatriya Jagas/Bhaats who keep actual history have clearly said that Dhaj, Ror Kumar founded Rori Shankar and all those who came from that city got the name Rora or Rore. But the masters of the city were Ror, who being Kshatriya, never intermarried with these other people because they were not Kshatriya. This is all recorded in the "bahi" (pothi/books) of the Jagas.

historians used the words Alor, Al-rur, Al-ruhr and Al Ror to describe Alor. The basic meaning being "The Ror" as its well known that 'Al' is simply the English word 'The' in Arabic. Both Alor and Aror are incorrect renditions of the original name which is more like Ror or Rori, i.e., the capital of Rors.

4) Aror was the only name of a hill not was a city. Answer: Does not even matter as I said above.

And I 84 men was not ran away from Badli . They ran from somewhere else even today nobody is living in those areas. Answer: Badli in Jhajjar still has Roron ka kuan and Roron ka darwaja. This is recorded by Jat historian Raj Pal Singh. So, you can not challenge the factual accuracy at all. For more detailed discussion, please use mail. Thanks and regards 122.169.2.131 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Aror = Arora

Question  : Why u think Aror A + Ror why not Arora ?

1) As of Indian History If you know Arora was kshatriyas and they are Hindu too and known by Arora from the begining. Never got changes in there name. That's different thing they ran away when PARSHURAM find them and try to kill and they hide thereself. So I am very + Arore or Aror came out from Arora . Like in Hindi we said oye Arodai sound similar to Arore , arorai when we speak.

Answer: That is it, man. You are yourself admitting it that Arora ran away from Parshuram. That is it, with that they lost their Kshatriya status forever. "Izzat" once lost can not be regained. Especially true in the true blooded Kshatriya and Rajput clans of India. Anyway, I would not like to be quoted on this because I don't want to comment on the history of a community to which I don't belong. So, I would like to make a request to you too to refrain from discussing the Aroras or their history here. Thanks 122.169.40.2 (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2) The oldest extent tale of Sindh is the Rai Diyach, with its locale in lower Sindh and Saurashtra. The Samma Rajputs of Sindh had migrated to Saurashtra (``Sorath in Sindhi) after the Arab invasion. In the first decade of the eleventh century, Rai Dewas (or Diyach), belonging to the Chuda tribe of the Sammas, was ruling in Girnar, Junagadh. His sister gave birth to a male child who, the astrologers said, would slay his maternal uncle. The mother asked her maid to dispose of the unlucky child, but the latter was so charmed by the baby's looks that she put him in a box and let it float down the river. The box was picked up by a charan (minstrel) in the territory of King Anirai and the child was named Bijal. Bijal grew up to be a great singer. At this stage, Sorath, the daughter of potter Ratna, in Girnar, was engaged to Anirai. When the marriage procession was on way, Rai Diyach intercepted it, carried away Sorath, and married her.

( The above p.g. Was taken by local community of sindh )

And please don't tell me this time ( Rai was stand for Raja on that time because his name was "Raja Rai Diyach " ) Rai is Japanese origin .

When Your writer wrote his book he have limited sources , but it's global now world has more .Bhaat know only what they listen from others . nobody can write history on words untill you got proof. 

Thanks n Godd luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruru ror (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer for the mixed-up stories

The person responsible for the horrible mix-up is none other than the revered Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai. That man was born in 17th century. By that time, a second abduction had also happened in the history of Rors. The hero of this second abduction was not Rai Dhaj/Diyach. This second abduction done by the king of Junagad refers to Ra Khengar of the Chudasama clan. His name can never be confused with that of Dhaj/Diyach, Ror Kumar.

The heroine of this second abduction was also different, it was Ranik Devi, daughter of Raja Ror II of Rori, who was ruling over all the Parmar Rajputs in Sindh in 1000 AD. Don't think I don't know history, my friend. I've dated Raja Dhaj/Diyach only after careful evaluation of all available evidence. Bhittai was not an original Indian and that is why he never knew the difference between Khengar and Dhaj. He makes Rai Diyach-Sorath to be a tragedy whereas in actual history, it was a great moment of happiness. The tragedy part that Bhittai copied and pasted onto the successful romance of Dhaj and Sorath was stolen from the great tragedy of Khengar and Ranik Devi, who both died as a result of the second great abduction in Ror history. 122.169.40.2 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2 Different stories about Raja Rai Diyach

                         Sorath - Rai Dyach

Once there ruled a Raja called Rai Diyach at Jhunagarh in Kathiawar.

   He had a sister who was childless. Once she visited a saintly man
   and asked him to pray for her to have a son.  He told her that she
   would have a son, who would kill his uncle Rai Diyach.  She was
   disturbed and told the saintly man that she would prefer to remain
   childless than to have a son like the one he had predicted.

After some time, a boy was born to her. Thinking about the saint's

   prediction she became worried.  So she put the boy in a wooden box
   [seems like a solution of choice in those days :-)] and threw him
   in the river.  The box reached the neighboring kingdom of Raja Ani
   Rai.  A bard and his wife who came to the river bank to fetch
   water from the river saw the box and took it from the waves.  They
   were very pleased to find a baby boy in the box.  They adopted him
   as their own son and named him Bijal.

They taught him to sing and play an instrument called the

   chang.  One day while he was passing through a
   forest, he heard melodious music coming from one of the trees.  He
   saw birds and wild animals surrounding the tree to listen to the
   sweet music.  When he looked up, he saw that the music was coming
   from the dried intestines of a deer.

Bijal took these magical intestines with him and fitted them to his

   chang as strings.  Thereafter when he played music he attracted
   animals and birds towards him.  Thus he became very popular for
   his music.

Just about the time that Bijal was born, Raja Ani Rai's wife had given

   birth to her eighth daughter.  They had put their daughter in a
   box too and thrown her in the river.  By chance this box floated
   to Raja Rai Diyach's kingdom, where a pottery maker, Ratna, had
   found it.  As he didn't have a child of his own, he was pleased to
   have a beautiful girl, and adopted her as his child, calling her
   Sorath.  She grew up to be a most beautiful girl.

When Raja Ani Rai heard about the girl's beauty, being unaware that

   she was his own daughter, he asked Ratna for her hand in
   marriage.  Ratna willingly accepted the proposal.  When Raja Rai
   Diyach heard this, he confronted Ratna for not letting his
   daughter be his queen.  Ratna had never expected this proposal, so
   when he heard that his own king was interested, he changed his mind,
   and agreed to marry Sorath to Raja Rai Diyach.

When Raja Ani Rai heard this, he became jealous and he attacked the

   fort of Jhunagarh, laying seige to it for one full year without
   success.  Being defeated he announced that anyone who brought him
   the head of Raja Rai Diyach would be rewarded with a full plate of
   gold coins.

The wife of Bijal who was fully confident in her husband's abilities,

   took the plate of gold, and told the bearer that Bijal would
   fulfil Raja Ani Rai's wish very soon.  When she told Bijal about
   it, he was unwilling at first, then agreed to it.

Bijal took his chang and left Jhunagarh. When he arrived near the

   palace of Rai Diyach he started playing a tune which pierced the
   heart of Raja Rai Diyach.  He told Bijal to ask for any reward he
   wanted.  He offered him gold, precious stones, property, even his
   kingdom.  But Bijal told him that he was no ordinary minstrel who
   yearned for material goods.  He needed something which the Raja
   might refuse and for which he might be blamed for not being
   generous.

Raja became impatient, but the tune played by the minstrel had such a

   magical effect on him that he was ready to sacrifice anything in
   the world.  He promised Bijal that he would give him anything.  At
   that time, Bijal asked the Raja for his head.  Raja smiled at his
   simple request, and told him that a head was a mere bundle of
   bones, from which he would not profit.  Therefore he should ask
   for something valuable, but Bijal insisted on his head.

So, Raja Rai Diyach took out his sword and cut off his own head to

   present as a mere gift to this great musician.  Taking the head,
   Bijal rushed to Raja Ani Rai to receive his reward.  When he
   reached the Raja, the latter cursed him for killing such a
   generous Raja.  He told Bijal to leave his kingdom.

Bijal rushed back to Jhunagarh, where he saw the funeral pyre where

   Sorath was performing her 'Sati' tradition.  Bijal could not stand
   his conscience any more, so he jumped into the fire and ended his
   own life too.

1) The Above story conduct from the local people of Rohri and there books.

2) You took Rai Diyach Story from bookAryavrat Ror vansh ka Itihaas by Ramdas Ror. in that book story is something else It's happen in Sindh and there is no "Ganga River" in which the boxes were floating. Gangotri came from "GOMUKH" in UTTARANCHAL TO BAY OF BANGAL.

Kathiawar or Kathiawad is a Peninsula in western India.Called Sindh on that time. (By Wiki.)

NOTE: Please don't say now Sindhu was in UTTARANCHAL on that time. Only

1) saraswati river was there got dry.

after that a) Indus River b) Jhelum River c) Chenab River d) Ravi River e) Satluj River was there

I know you know all rivers.just for explaning.

And if you took the contents from that kind of book where writer don't know where is Sindh and where is Ganga then how you can claim a true story here.

3) In that book Brija or Bijal Got arrested by Rai Diaych Forces but local people and there books said as you read above.

4)Book said about "Dhopia" put some Jadoo on Bijal or Brija "Let me tell you very clearly there was/is/will no jadoo in this world" . It's only Kalpanik.

I know your answer of these question you don't care about that because you are not the writer of that book. May be you say yourself Your job was only to write down "ROR" Ency. and you did it.

But You write here something depend on that book.So you are committed from there. But how we can trust a book where Jadooee things working and boxes floating on Ganga I don't have that much power or any human don't have that much power threw a box from Sindh and it's fly in the sky and get landed on Ganga.Don't say now a SANIK on the horse take it and threw in Ganga.

And I don't want to talk in a Private room (means your yahoo group ). It's Public things let us talk in the public so later who visit this site can read our Discussion.

Thanks Ruru ROR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruru ror (talk • contribs) 11:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer to this copy paste job carried out by you

My friend, you need not copy and paste such huge amounts to make a point. You can refer and I would have already read all those references. Because on this matter, I'm an expert. As I told you in the last para in the previous section, the person who is responsible for horribly mixing up two different and equally great abductions of Ror history is none other than Shah Abdul Bhittai.

For your kind information, the author's account in "Aryavart evam Ror Vansh ka itihaas" is not based on limited sources. His sources are much more solid than the stupid poems of Bhittai, who was not even a historian. And as I've pointed out, he was stupid enough to mix up two different tales of different eras. At least the Jaagas and Bhaats keep original records from the time when the event happened. Not just that, before the British came they were the official as well as the unofficial historians of all Kshatriyas/Rajputs and in effect the whole of India.

Second, the actual story of Raja Dhaj and Sorath can also be found in a Rajasthani language publication of the 18th century. Nobody knows who the author of that work was but that book has many accounts including the account of Sorath's abduction. The author has titled it "Bija aur Sorath ki baat". In that the author clearly mentions the hero as Dhaj, Ror Kumar. The story more or less matches the story of Jaagas as well which has been included in "Aryavart evam Ror Vansh ka itihaas".

So, that is it man. If you are smart enough you will understand the difference between the two happenings. A Ror was the abductor in the first case whereas in the second a Ror was the father of Ranik Devi. This Raja Ror II was told by a Brahmin very correctly that the husband of Ranik Devi will meet with destruction and that actually happened to Ra Khengar later.

Whereas in the case of Dhaj and Sorath, the father of Sorath actually tried to marry her but Sorath stopped him by letting him know she was his daughter. Later Dhaj abducted her when she was going to be married to an unsuitable groom. Regarding the geographical locations, don't worry at all. As I have told you before, Ror kings were masters of the entire Indian subcontinent. So, Dhaj really brought Sorath back from the locations mentioned in "Aryavart evam Ror Vansh ka itihaas". Historical validity is also ascertained when we find the Jaagas talking of the same locations.122.169.40.2 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ra Khengar

Dear friend, you have asked questions above that are, of course, relevant. But now let me give you additional information that should clear up your mind. The only great abduction of the Chudasama clan was done by Ra Khengar and Ra Khengar lived in 10th and 11th century AD. These are historical facts that have been much better recorded than the abduction of Sorath by Raja Dhaj. So, we can not confuse the names of the hero and heroine of this second abduction. Very clearly, you will find this in many historical books that the hero was called Ra Khengar and heroine was named Ranik Devi, who was also desired by Siddhraj Jai Singh of the Solanki clan from Anhilwara. These are all well-recorded historical people from recent history compared to the times of Raja Dhaj/Diyach. No fool in the world will call Ra Khengar as Dhaj/Diyach by any sort of language distortion. In the same manner, no illiterate man will either call Ranik Devi as Sorath as her name is very well known as Ranik Devi.

These facts are enough to prove that Bhittai was knowingly or unknowingly mixing up two different stories. Number one, Rai Diyach/Dhaj was hero of the Sorath abduction whereas Ra Khengar, king of Junagad was hero of Ranik Devi's abduction. Number two, Anirai was nowhere in picture in story of Ra Khengar and Ranik Devi as the other guy who wanted Ranik Devi was Siddhraj Jai Singh, whose name can/should never be confused or distorted into Anirai.

Now, coming to the oldest extant tale of Sindh. The date could never be 11th century AD, when the king of Junagad Ra Khengar made a famous abduction. It has to be much older than 11th century AD because if Rai Diyach-Sorath has to be called the oldest tale, it should precede the story of Sassi-Pannu etc. These other competing tales for the oldest tag are all placed in the BC or early CE times. Which means, the people who have said that Rai Dhaj-Sorath is the oldest extant tale are actually smart people, who know the antiquity of the happening very well. This is something that is sure to have happened between 1000 BC to 450 BC, depending on how much time we allocate to each king of the Ror Dynasty. 42 kings ended with Dadror, according to the Rajput historians and Dadror was a contemporary of Dewaji, whose rule started in 490 AD nearly. Dhaj/Diyach was the first of these 42. Now, a British historian like James Tod will say can not be more than 22-23 years per generation. So, Dhaj was in ~500 BC era. At the same time, a smarter guy will say that as recently as the Mughals, established Indian dynasties lasted 30 years per generation. This was when the Mughals lasted just 6 generations. For a 42 generation dynasty, the average reign figure could be well-nigh 36 years per king. That will place Dhaj/Diyach, Ror Kumar in 1000 BC.

A timeline like that will definitely qualify Dhaj-Sorath to be oldest extant tale of Sindh and that kind of an antiquity especially behoves the Indian subcontinent where things like Mahabharat war are remembered even after 4000 years and all. Thanks and regards 122.169.40.2 (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aror + a = ARORA

I think You took our Discussion on ur heart.You look like angry. Cool down man.

Now come to the point.

1) You didn't came to the point . Yes You are right IZAAT is very important and Arora ran away from there but it's not mean like that they can't establish any location may be they were smarter than Ror skip fighting that time and later establish Aror+A=Arora sound look like make a sense. You can see today Arora achievements.So you can see that who was/is more smarter. And if you check history Ror got defeated by Aibak . But still after that Ror establish a lot of places like you know Karnal and area. So that's don't prove that Arora can't create Alor or Aror.

2) We want to know that when Alor was establish first time.year and date please.

3) You claim Ror belongs from "First Ruru" before Raja Ram .

And tht's it man because YOu just said to me in my last question "Aryavrat avam Ror Vansh Ka Ithihaas" is written by Ramdas Ror with full of proof and 100% accurate.

 a ) So Ramdas Ror claim Ror roots came out from SArdaar MAhabhau .Ruru was the son. page (29)

b)  page 16 said by different writers "Rod" came out from "Rude" with proof.So we have to trust on you or  the past writers and not one lot of them said that.
 

c) According to you you trust on Jaga & Bhaat "So according to them they have 48 Kings straight belongs from Dushyant kingdom . page 48 by Ramdas Ror.

 d) Ramdas Ror claim that Ruru from SArdaar Mahabhau was first rod . because  
     Traitayug 1296000
     Duvaperyug 864000
     kalyug  5000
         _______________
           2165000 years and Ramdas Ror claim that we don't have any history of that period page 19. and that's why we can't cliam Ruru from Devaneek was first rod like you write it down in your article.

4) Ramdas Ror claim Ruru born after Kuru.So how you claim Devaneek son Ruru was first one missing 57 kings in list no record so that can be mix-up too.

5) You write down in your article "Rori" captital but you didn't tell it was first "Rohri"

  and came out from Rohri hills. 

You working like that read carefully following example :
 
 Kaheen ki Innt , Kaheen Ka Roda , Bhanumati Nai Kunbaa Jooda. 

wow may b Ror came out from that Roda (Rod + a) so rod is caste "A" stand for "one".one ror.

2nd Bhanumati we all know today it's a name but if you got a chance you write down something like that.

 Bhanumati may be  was Bhanu + Mati because Bhanu could be a guy name and mati called Bhudi.

SO after 1000 years our generations will read like that

in that time Bhanu was the king with Bhudi . means "A wise King" [Budhi stand for wisdom] and they will never ever find out Bhanumati was a name of a woman. and it's change history.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruru ror (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Relation between Ror and Rore

Dear friend,

I requested you yesterday that refrain from mentioning Aroras here because this page is about Ror history. But since you don't seem to heed requests, I'm now being forced to open my mouth regarding the truth. Regarding the origin of Rors and their history, there are enough bards / bhaats / jaagas / chaarans etc. who can testify that Dhaj, Ror Kumar established Rori Shankar, which got corrupted as a name into Rohri Sukkur after Arab invasion of Sindh.

Ibbetson and Rose said that there can be no connection between Rors and Aroras because Rors on one hand are stalwart and honest, Arora on the other are cunning and secretive.

I really did not want to say all this because I'm a religious man and always refrain from telling harsh truths about someone else but you forced me to open my mouth, dear friend.

Coming to Ramdas Ror and his work, he is fine till the time he sticks to what the Bhaats say in his work. But everytime he tries to apply his own intuition, he goes wrong. He took the king list from Bhaats but then tried to pass it off as Chandravanshi because he could not understand how Ruru came to be a contemporary of Parshuram and Kuru at the same time. But we have to remember that regarding Parshuram this is a very famous fact that he lived for a very long time. So much so that many people call him Chiranjeevi. I'll now provide facts to prove that the Ruru of Rors was Suryavanshi. You remember Ramdas says Ruru was contemporary of Sahasrarjun as well. In fact, he even says that Ruru was the main Senapati of Sahasrarjun. Who is this Sahasrarjun? He is nobody else but Kartaveerya Arjun, also called Sahas-Bahu and Sahasrarjun because he is said to have a boon that made him live 85000 years and also gave him a 1000 arms. This same Sahasrarjun was a contemporary of Rawan and Sri Ram as well.

Why I say that is because in Sunder Kaand of Ramayan, Sri Hanuman clearly tells Rawan, while making fun of him that, I know of one Rawan who was caught by Sahas-Bahu and put in the stable :) But obviously even Parshuram was alive at the time of Sri Ram when he made an entry at the time of Sita Mata's swayam-var. So, all these incidents establish that both Sahasrarjun and Parshuram were contemporaries of Sri Ram but both these people were extremely long-living. Because as I told you Puranas say Sri Ram ruled for 10,000 years, Parshuram was of course Chiranjeevi and Sahas-Bahu or Sahasrarjun lived for 85,000 years. That should give you the reason why eight generations after Sri Ram, during the time of Aneeh (King of Ayodhya) and his brothers Roop and Ruru, these two gentlemen were still around.

Now, me being an English educated man and all, I don't take these Puranic time lines for a given and absolute truth. I have derived my own dates of Mahabharat and Ramayan based solely on the king list of the bards. Because, this is known in the entire subcontinent that bards are excellent keepers of genealogy even though the history they tell may not always be 100% correct. According to my calculations, Ruru and Kuru were circa 2500 BC and the war (Mahabharat) happened around 2100-2000 BC. Sri Ram was alive in 3000 BC and Parshuram and Sahasrarjun lived for at least 600 years each if not more. This is all absolutely believable if you consider the fact that several Yogis in AD times also have been known to have lived for extremely long periods. One example is that of Chang Dev, who had an age of 800 years when he met Gyan Dev, the famous saint from the present-day Maharashtra area. This is also established when we look at Sumerian king lists of before 2000 BC era. They claim many kings ruled for 100 years and plus. Must be some truth in that no when the same thing is being said by Puranas as well as neighboring old civilizations.

Anyway, I can't educate you on my entire thought process in a medium that needs to be written down on the net like this and that was the reason I was asking you to send me an email, where I could reply when I felt like after composing my reply. That is it for now, my friend. No offence meant to any person or community because I have only written what is recorded and am not expressing personal opinions about Aroras here. Thanks and regards 122.169.1.37 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ror

My dear I know you are little upset, but thats the part of this article. I know you don't want to talk about Arora or some one else. And I understand Your story from Dhaj Ror to Rori shanker , but I am just saying that may be it's possible aror came out from Arora too because me and you was not there on that time . Yea I agree with you for Jaga and bhaat but what happen if bhaat was die or lets say some of them was die during that period So you don't think so we miss history from that period because what we listen from our fatehr and grand father bhaat listen that too.

I am a simple person try to understand the history and you helping me I really apriciate for that.

So, I don't understand your words One time you told me Ramdas Ror book from where you took references is 100% right and all data was acurate i it but second time you told me some time he had personal opinion in it. I am confused should I have to trust on his book or ignore him because he do lot of research and you add his reference so it's mean somewhere this Ror article is wrong too.

And you saying that Arora people look like Greek or europe people. So my dear friend I travel around the world and meet all kinda people and it's nice to know that most of Ror people known as an Italian and greek and I personally stay in those people and meet greek and italian women and men most of them look like nothern India people even there eye color is also brown.only you can find out when they open there mouth and speak different language. So, we can't say like that that's only Kalpanik thoughts. Even some latin people look like Indian too.

Well I want to know that for how many B.C. you claim for Ror finally 3000 B.C. So, Alor or Aror find out in which year ? I think 1200 when aibak attack on it.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruru ror (talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend,

I've said very clearly that Ramdas is right when he bases his writing on bards records but he goes wrong when he tries to introduce things from his own intuition, especially true in the case of claiming Chandravanshi lineage for Rors. Same is true for other authors like Dr Raj Pal Singh too, who claims that Rors ruled around Agra for most of their history when it is absolutely clear that Rors ruled Sindh for a long time in history.

But this article is as close to truth as anyone can be on this subject. We have neither based it totally on Ramdas Ror's work nor completely on Raj Pal Singh's work. We have included parts of Ramdas Ror's work, parts of Raj Pal Singh's work and parts of British authors' works. Even these British authors were not always correct but we have tried to form the most correct version of Ror history in this article. Thanks and regards 122.169.1.37 (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims

Article as it stands smacks of POV pushing by the author. I have added request for citations. Please help in improving this article by giving proper references that others can check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ror Prince (talk • contribs) 11:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear user, I've reported some of your edits as vandalism because your objections were of a very flimsy nature. Either you have not gone through the references properly or else you are questioning the source of the references, which is not acceptable.

Rorkadian (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ror kadian,

I have gone through each one of your sources. Please provide a valid reference for all the citation requests as they stand on the page. If you remove them without citing sources it will be against the policy of wikipedia. Ror Prince (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to stop vandalism

Dear user, I've observed that you opened a wikipedia account only recently and the only contributions you have made have been to the Ror page. Anyway, coming to your questions, let us look at them one by one. i) The first question is about Rors being present in Sindh. Kindly refer to the citation given from Chachnama in the list of references. There is a reference to a "prince from among the thakurs called Dahiraud". Further, if you look at the peer group from Haryana, even the Jats were present in Sindh before the Arab invasion. Rors are mostly found wherever Jats are even though in a lesser number. So, should not come as a surprise at all to anybody that Rors were Sindh as well. ii) The warrior whose statue has been found at Kagarol. We have both primary confirmation from the ASI report as well as secondary confirmation from Dr. Raj Pal Singh's work. Mind it, Dr. Singh is the only peer-reviewed historian to have touched this subject. So, we have to respect his opinion till the time another peer-reviewed historian presents a different opinion. iii) Coming to Rudra Dama and his Ror affiliations. You know that he was a descendant of Swami Chastana. Swami Chastana is known by historians to have very clear Ror affiliations. I shall supply the exact reference later and request you to give me a couple of days for that. But for the moment, please bear in mind that Chastana was helped in a major way by the King of Sindh, who sent a big nobleman or possibly a prince himself at the head of an Army to help Chastana. This is confirmed by Bombay Presidency literature on history.

I think these points cover most of your objections but look forward to having a more detailed discussion on this page soon. Kindly don't put citation needed tags if the issue can be discussed on the talk page first.

Kind regards, Rorkadian (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article include discrimination

Question : - Last year I add some name from foriegn country. And the author of this article said "Only we include the ROR who are residing in India." Well

 This article section :
      1) Research
      2) Corporate
      3) Enterpreneur

Has some name from foreign countries. I think they are close to Author Family or known by them. well, Be fare with your job.And doesn't matter from where they are, but still they are ROR and last time you delete there name to giving me the above reason.Please don't mind as a Ror this is my job to find out things. Because I'm in this article too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorkumar (talk • contribs) 07:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

gotra

baliyan is also ror gotra found in uttrakhand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.152.145 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)