Talk:Zorawar Singh (Dogra general)

message: This article is a complete catastrophy about a brutal conquerer and mass murder. Especially this is completely wrong:
"Unlike so many other conquerors, General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was not despised or hated by the people whose lands he invaded. There is not a single word in any of the histories or traditional accounts about the rapacity or greed that comes naturally to most foreign invaders, and the same goes for his army. These Sikh and Hindu invaders crossed the paths of people belonging to the Buddhist, Muslim, and Animist faiths and yet made no attempt to interfere with their religious practices. There were many monasteries filled with precious articles all through Ladakh and Tibet and yet there was not one instance of robbery or plunder.
Zorawar Singh’s great military endeavors were balanced by a life of modesty and restraint. He was so honest that he would transfer to his master any gifts or tribute that came to him. This honest Rajput did not leave behind either vast properties or deep coffers for his descendants -— only a legacy of military achievement that caused the contemporary Europeans to term him the “little Napoleon of India”."
he executed his opponents in the most brutal way: cutting off ears, nose, tongue, blindig them etc. Forcing Ladakhis and Balties by threatening death to take part in his invasion into Tibet. Robbed the castle of Skardu, transported the wealth of this people to India, distruction of monasteries in ladakh (look at Petech, Ladakh). His first political action in Baltistan was, that everybody who kills a cow should be executed. Religious freedom? Military success mainly by treachery. He received what he deserved, his head was cut off. Is this wikipedia type of history?
----
I absolutely agree with the above commenter. Every Ladakhi historian tells of Zorawar's plunder of monasteries and torture of local people, the cutting off of hands or face parts, etc. I've deleted that first paragraph, but the whole section should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.207.129 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: It might not be noticable on first glance but all in all, the article is a eulogy, giving direct praise in several points and indirect hints of it throughout the text. Definitely not NPOV. Also, the details need a more clear presentation. E.g., the introductory paragraph leaves a false impression as if the general had conquered at least significant parts of Tibet if not the whole of it. --62.65.236.47 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article states that he was from the state of Kahlur while also calling him a Dogra. The word Dogra has never been used historically for any other states other than the ones in the Jammu region. But Kahlur, as everyone knows, is not one of them. So which one of the two was he and why was the word dogra inserted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.186.101 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The word Dogra is used for an ethnicity, Dogri-speaking people. Where they are born doesn't make a difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogra? 

message: kindly change the second line of article from
"He was subordinate to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8] " 
to 
"He was the  general  of the army of  Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh.[4][5] In reference to his legacy of conquests in the Himalaya Mountains including Ladakh, Tibet, Baltistan and Iskardu as General and Vizier, he has been referred to as the "Napoleon of India",[6] and "Conqueror of Ladakh".[7][8]"
reason:- the current article creates misconfusion regarding for whom he works as general as per the references in the article given he is general of the army of  the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Sinh thats why  the word subordinate creates alot of misconfusion  among the wikipedia readers as some people thought he was the general of the khalsa army and fight for dogra ruler gulab singh as there is alot of edit history of these kind of the edits in past till now . now the references also provided in article shows what iam saying you can check the reference for your inspection too. he is the miltary head of the army of maharaja gulab singh Loneltrussia (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Tartan357  (Talk) 12:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Apologies to you, , because I honestly do not understand what can be confusing here, and if there is confusion, I don't see how your edit would fix it. He was a general under the ruler, who was a vassal of a Sikh ruler. Are generals not subordinates of their rulers? In addition, he is already called a general in the first sentence, so to change "subordinate" to "general" in the second sentence sounds redundant to me. I regret to disagree with you, since your request has been placed with great care to be civil and respectful. Forgive me for failing to understand why calling the general a subordinate of his ruler would be confusing. All generals are subordinates of their rulers, unless they are themselves the rulers. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ,thanks for response dear  in  simple and short my aim is to correct the first as he is not general under sikh ruler sir he is general of dogra ruler who is the allies of the sikh ruler and about misleading issue sir people think after reading the line he is general of sikh ruler that he is sikh  by religion being working with sikh allies doesn't mean you are sikh . two rulers of are allies of each other both have own armies own kingdom references in articles say so too ,for example:- U.S.A. is allies of israel nowdays how can a israeli general is general of usa ,this type of things are misleading the people the references in the article says what iam saying so . he is general of dogra army who are allies of sikh army. inshort you i suggest you you can add word dogra before the general word to avoid confusion. thanks dear respected admin. Loneltrussia (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where you lose me, . In your example, you are correct. Just because Israel and the U.S. are allies, an Israeli general would usually be considered Israeli and not American. But you seem to think that "ally" and "vassal" mean the same thing. A "vassal" is a subordinate, which means that General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was a general and subordinate of Maharaja Gulab Singh Jamwal, who, as the Dogra ruler, was at the time a vassal and subordinate of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh. The founder of the royal Dogra dynasty, Gulab Singh, was not an ally of the Sikh emperor, he was the emperor's vassal, his subordinate. So it's not the same thing as saying that Israel and the U.S. are "allies". I still don't see how the lead is confusing. It clearly states that Zorawar Singh is a general, that he is under (subordinate to) Gulab Singh, and that Gulab Singh was a vassal of (subordinate to) the Sikh emperor. What is unclear to you? Nowhere does it say or even imply that either the Dogra or the general are actually Sikh. A christian person does not become jewish just because they work for a jewish person. So sorry, but I really don't see a problem here. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  the lead has been reworded to hopefully dispel any confusion or misleadings. Thank you,  for your help in this. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  thanks buddy  for the improving the quality of the article and it will help future  wikipedia readers to avoid any confusion in the article .Loneltrussia (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my pleasure! Paine  17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2020