CushionMail (talk | contribs) |
CushionMail (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 387: | Line 387: | ||
Your reference #8 must similarly be rejected as a possible source for this article because it claims Sikhism started in 14th century, on page 287, which is before the birth of Guru Nanak. It has numerous other errors, such as wrong year of birth for Nanak (page 288). It is a poorly researched, unreliable source. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
Your reference #8 must similarly be rejected as a possible source for this article because it claims Sikhism started in 14th century, on page 287, which is before the birth of Guru Nanak. It has numerous other errors, such as wrong year of birth for Nanak (page 288). It is a poorly researched, unreliable source. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
: Blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. "What I am saying is correct, what you are saying is false/incorrect representation/OR". This is Sarah Welch mode of operation. |
|||
: I am having a good laugh at some of your above logic, but also sympathize with you, seeing how hard you are trying to refute a mountain of evidence, just to cling on. Also, This is what you told me above "You are interpreting and doing OR on sources. You are also arguing against a direct quote from Singha. This is not okay. We just summarize the sources" And now, I just gave a mountain of direct quotes from numerous references, and you are giving explanations about what a revelation is and not. LOL. |
|||
: Keep Going an and you must refute each and every sentence in each of the references cited above. Once you do that, I will bring in as many more. |
|||
: On a more serious note, I would urge some of the other "neutral" editors to come in. This is nothing but a waste of time, to try convincing someone who is just not willing to learn and is only interested in pushing her own biased POV, even faced with a mountain of evidence. If all this does not prove "revelations" "prophets" conclusively, then clearly, this is not a place for me and any new editors, but just a place for a small coterie of people with their own biased agendas. And if you are neutral without any hidden agendas, please do come in, before the rest of coterie jumps in with their blind approval of Sarah Welch's agenda. [[User:Js82|Js82]] ([[User talk:Js82|talk]]) 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:10, 18 October 2015
Sikhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 17, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chronology
The historical section jumped around in time quite a bit. I've tried to restore chronological order. It was a messy operation, requiring the merger of various texts, and the relevant sections may still need work. hgilbert (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Please add more dates. There is one paragraph that spans the time from 1839 to 1947 with only vague dates such as "later" or "eventually". In particular, the current article says
- After the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839, the Sikh Empire fell into disorder ...
- ... eventually when? fell on the shoulders of his youngest son, Maharaja Duleep Singh.
- Soon after, when? the British began to attack the Sikh Kingdom. ...
- ... The Empire was eventually when? annexed by the United Kingdom, bringing the Punjab under the British Raj.
- A quarter of a century later Please give a year, Sikhs formed the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and the Shiromani Akali Dal to preserve Sikhs' religious and political organization. Of the violence that accompanied the Partition of India That was 1947, right? , historians Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh write: ...
--The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Location of Punjab region
I think it is necessary to identify the location of the Punjab region in the header. I have added the fact that it is a region of the Indian Subcontinent. If some of the editors here are not comfortable with the 'India' aspect of that label, we can change it to South Asia. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit wars
User:Sikh-history and User:Jujhar.pannu have engaged in a little bit of edit warring for some vaguely stated reasons. I would ask that this stop. I have added explicit citations to address that concern. As a general principle stripping out content simply because you have a concern is inappropriate, especially if citations are provided. If you have a concern, please discuss it and/or provide alternative wording.
I request that you restore my edits and engage in more productive editing.
Thanks.
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.252.138 (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not accuse other editors of edit warring when you are doing the same yourself. A clearer and better (more comprehensive) phrasing is already contained in two sentences in the section on Baptism and the Khalsa. Also, User:Jujhar.pannu has made some constructive suggestions for you. I suggest you let the matter drop for a while. It's not an urgent priority. Apuldram (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There should be a section about the relationship with Hinduism
I know some Sikhs dont want to admit they are linked to Hinduism, but weather you agree or not it doesnt matter, becuase SOME PEOPLE (including Sikhs) Believer they were part of Hinduism and weren't meant to be seperate (Kushwant Singh inlcuded). Not try not to fight with me about this. This is a place for people to learn. And I was wondering if I could add that section? Who is the emporer of this page that makes these decisions?
Khalistna people, try to have an open mind to what im saying then.
108.23.228.249 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree
While Sikhism shares some minor aspects with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I believe it is extremely different and should not be presented as a faction or even relative of any other faith. The fact that Sikhism discourages religious franchise, proselytizing, and superiority complexes which makes it hugely different. While Sikhs respect the virtues of all faiths, the vast majority are proud of their own independent faith. The 5th guru very clearly declared it an independent faith. Sikhs were persecuted by Hindus and Muslims, but we have already mentioned their political and military interactions in the article. I believe if one wants to learn about similarities between two faiths they can read to independent articles and draw their own conclusions. Consider Sikhism is also hugely related to Punjab and India does that mean that we need to give excessive detail pertaining to them and their relations. Believe me I am very progressive, and do not support Khalistan at all.
Wikipedia : Summary Style WP:SS
There appears to be one editor insistent on adding a overtly long and bloated WP:Lead. My suggestion is familiraise yourself with WP:Lead. Don't engage in edit wars, and WP:AGF. Thanks SH 10:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok the Lead is now divided into a precise and concise summary:
- What and Where? - Sikhism
- Who? - Sikh
- When and What? Sikhism.
- Note superfulous wording and information have been removed and can be incorporated in the main body. Thanks SH 14:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok I will assume good faith since this message is clearly directed at me, the contents of the "Summary Style WP:SS" were untrue directly because of the previous reversion by Sikh-history. This included the incorrect definitions of Manmut and Gurmat and also violated the NPOV because it states "'Sikhism' for the modern world" as if the Sikh world is not a part of the modern world.
In terms of the so called "bloating" most people are unfamiliar with many of the concepts and are reading about them the first time and thus writing them in a way that makes the thing clear without repeating information, and not requiring it to be read again or the reader to stop at certain sentences, is the basis of what every encyclopedia aims for. If you look at articles from an encyclopedia they are written in paragraph form with one idea transacting to the next unlike the weird and awkward form presented that fails to provide insight to the religion itself in the reversion in question therefore that was reverted again.
I don't know what you mean by dividing it into Sikhism and Sikh could you be more more specific and would be happy to accommodate the change. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your approach is wholly wrong. I've made the point aboit your WP:COMPETENCE before, and other editors agree with me. You clearly have not read WP:LEAD. You've tried to rewrite the lead with no WP:Consensus. What you are doing is making the articles even more confusing. If I as a University lecturer cannot understand what you are writing or talking about, the layman has no chance. The problem is not the definitions are incorrect, but your command of the English language is poor. Thanks SH 21:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you aren't a lecturer as you can't be spending enough time with your students if you are constantly on here!
I also think it prudent that as some sort of sikh, or hindu who has a interest on this topic, you're too close i. e. Conflict of interest POV pushing.
Ps I hope your employers don't see your bad spelling, poor grammar and especially poor argument construction as they might not employ you further.
Sakayriaz (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Removal of referenced content in details section.
Sikh-history has removed various key aspects such as in the liberation section the reference to the company of Sadh Sangat, and labeled it as 'superfulous'. The user appears to masquerading as a Sikh and posting various illogical, untrue, personal attacks, or vague general terms to describe his actions. In this latest revision he has removed referenced content and then wrote on my page to warn ME of removing content when I did not remove a single line. He has a history of ridiculous claims. He states he is concerned about the integrity of the page but to me it seems that he just doesn't want anybody adding anything to the pages he is monitoring, such as Diet in Sikhism, Damdami Taksal, Jat people. I advice an administrator to look at his behaviour and violations.
I apologize If I have misinterpreted the situation and I give Sikh-history the chance to explain why any of the lines removed from revision 584723030 made on 14:24, 6 December 2013: can be termed as 'superfulous'. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your WP:Personal attack is our of order. If you persist with this behaviour you will end up permanently blocked. Rather than attack me and engage in WP:Edit War's, state here what you are trying to say and maybe I can write in a manner that is legible. Your written English is pretty poor and past WP:Competence issues have caused me and other editors concerns. Thanks SH 12:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you aren't a lecturer as you can't be spending enough time with your students if you are constantly on here!I also think it prudent that as some sort of sikh, or hindu who has an interest on this topic, you're too close i. e. Conflict of interest / POV pushing.Ps I hope your employers don't see your bad spelling, poor grammar and especially poor argument construction as they might not employ you further.Sakayriaz (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakayriaz (talk • contribs)
Gender roles
There doesn't seem to be much in the article on gender roles. That would be a useful addition. Airborne84 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
THERE ARE NONE
Sikhism states that women and men are completely equal in all aspects. They are capable of holding all the same positions. Among the Sikh (Indian) population their is often issues with this concept. But I believe that is completely a cultural issue, and completely independent from the virtues of the faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.175.166 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Criticism section?
Most "isms" generally have various critiques. What about this? JDiala (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- JDiala, you never visited Criticism of Sikhism? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then this article should have a section on that with a summary of the main article. This will adhere to featured article criterion 1.b., where the article "neglect[s] no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Airborne84 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Airborne84, you should give a try then. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- When I get some time perhaps. Airborne84 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Airborne84, you should give a try then. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then this article should have a section on that with a summary of the main article. This will adhere to featured article criterion 1.b., where the article "neglect[s] no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Airborne84 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sikhism and Pantheism
Guru nanak's view of God is often regarded to be Pantheistic. And Sikhism is also regarded as Pantheism as per few following sources. You think Sikhism can be listed on Pantheism? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
English Headings
The sections need English headings to make the article less confusing. The inclusion of Punjabi headings makes the article confusing as well as the religious principles. We certainly don't need this to resemble as essay from "Lovely University" :) Thanks SH 17:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I tried changing some of the titles to English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.196.129 (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I once again gave it a try, but some illiterate keeps changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.196.129 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Remembrance
As the reference states Simran comes under the overal practices of Rememberance of which there are several. Jujhar has a history of WP:Competence in articles and thetrefore may struggle to understand basic issues such as these. Thanks SH 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice and fighting oppression are the same thing. The difference is one is a long winded way of saying the same thing. Thanks SH 18:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please engage with me on this talk page rather than just doing tit for tat edits. Read Pashaura Singh's excellent paper on restorative Justice and divine justice. Thanks SH 10:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
NO
Restorative justice can be a method of fighting oppression. However, fighting oppression can be with violence, pacifism, petitioning, court, riots. Restorative justice on the other hand is a non-legal court where the offender attempts to reconcile with the victim. It is usually used for minors or small offences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.175.166 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
22 may 2014 edit
Can anyone check this edit? I am not sure what is happening here...Super48paul (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Influences
I was taught that Sikhism drew on Hindu and Muslim religious traditions, and formed a syncretic faith. We all know that Christianity blends Judaism, Mithraism and various other traditions, so why no mention of the roots of Sikhism in this article? Abductive (reasoning) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In the Abrahamic family of religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism), the faiths all claim common descendant and share some major religious aspects. Most other faiths share far less characteristics. While Hinduism is nearly 5000 years old, Sikhism is only 500. Sikhism is a much more modern and progressive religion and shares no common descendence with Hinduism nor Islam. The monotheism of Islam and Sikhism is simply a coincidence, and Sikhism is as much like Christianity or Judaism as it is Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.196.129 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
citations reuired
"There were reports that Sikhs in Amritsar had celebrated the independence on the morning of 15 August by rounding up 30 Muslim women and girls, stripping them naked and then forcing them to parade through in circle before a jeering crowd. They had then picked out the most attractive and repeatedly raped them, chopping down the rest with their kirpans. When the news of the outrage reached Lahore, the Muslims there took revenge by attacking the chief gurdwara, the Sikh temple where scores of Sikhs had taken shelter. They burned it to the ground while Sikhs were trapped inside; Muslim police stood by and did nothing to stop them. But this was only beginning of the holocaust that would last another decade."
may the composer of this section please add some citations. This whole section is without any links to the source.
Better articulated lead section
I spent days writing a better articulated lead section, that does justice to this page. Why is Spacemann Spiff and Srikanth reverting my edits ?
The version you guys have written is grossly inadequate, and at some places, inaccurate. You cannot promote your own view of one of the major world religions. It has to be based on sound logic and the true and most important principles of the faith.
What are your issues with my introduction. Let's hear them here and debate. Scare block warnings and messages, where all of you jump together on to me are not a sound tactic. If you want to persist with them, be my guests. I would get out of here and you guys can keep propagating your own hidden agendas on your website.
Js82 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the lead section. I have provided references, and also written in my own words (except where explicitly quoted and referenced), as per Wikipedia policy. If you have any issues, I can discuss them here with you.
Js82 (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
User Savonneux has jumped in with his gospel "Take it to the talk page" and UNDO. Did he bother to read this section that I have started since yesterday actually taking it to the talk page ?
I have already explained above the reasons for the edits ("a better articulated introduction, that presents a holistic view of the principle beliefs and teachings of one of the major world religions"). If you have any issues with what I have written (again, referenced material, in my own words), please mention here, rather than blind UNDO with your high handed messages like "take it to the talk page", which only add to the commotion and disruption.
Js82 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Rsrikanth05 and Savonneux: Do you have comments? --NeilN talk to me 23:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: See my comments above. I reverted due to MOS:TEXT MOS:ACCESS and WP:NPOV issues. It was on recent changes, the last version looked good. Quick glance at the edit war going on showed that consesus was against the change. I reverted and recommended they talk it out.--Savonneux (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
First off, I protest against your autocratic functioning style. I neither have the interest nor the time to file complaints here, but I hope some of the admins would take note of this. On the edit summary, you did your Gospel "Take it to the talk page", which conveys zero information. Then, even after I took the initiative to ask you specifically what your problems are, you gave a vague "readability" response, and then just disappeared. Only after Neil has come in, you have bothered to respond in detail. Who are you ? A superman who would respond only as he wishes ? Advise you to get off your high horse and learn to respect others, if you want to do a good job here.
Now coming to your points:
I have already edited for boldface and better readability issues. It can be checked in the edit I did at 23:24, 25 August 2015.
As to the other issue, concluding that "consensus was against the change" is completely inaccurate. Only 1 user (Mr. Shrikanth) was engaging in edit war, perhaps because the edited article goes against his own POV (his own perceived view of Sikhism). As I said, the current version is completely inadequate, as it does not clearly articulate the foundation, the major principles, and the key attributes of the religion, which is what the lead should focus on. It is perhaps written by a non-Sikh person, who perhaps has limited knowledge of the religion.
Now, maybe you can explicitly state what your issues are with my text, which give you the impression of NPOV.
The basic points I make in the article are: Sikhism is based on the spiritual revelations of the Sikh Gurus.Guru Granth Sahib is the scripture, considered by Sikhs (and stated by the Gurus themselves, supported with a reference statement) to be the word of God. Also, the scripture is written and compiled by the Gurus themselves, which is unique compared to other texts (supported with a link to a British Historian.) Next, I go to the core principles of Sikhism. Finally, as per the information provided by SGPC (the de-facto authority on Sikhism = Sikh Vatican), I list the basic attributes of Sikhism, and provide some explanations on them.
What is not neutral here ? Eager to know. Thanks.
Js82 (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I read the NPOV details: Avoid stating opinions as facts : None of what I said above is my opinion. All are facts, supported with appropriate references.
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts : Don't believe anything is contested, let alone seriously contested. Those who are contesting can answer this.
Avoid stating facts as opinions: Facts have been stated as they are. None of it is my personal opinion.
Prefer nonjudgmental language : Again, have not pronounced my judgments on anything. Only stated facts supported with references.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views: Not sure what the opposing viewpoints are. Those who have any should point them out here.
Js82 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And although not related directly to the topic, I do keep getting this same thought time and again about the viability of Wikipedia itself. Now, don't jump the gun again and take this in a negative way. This is more of a philosophical question to anyone who is interested. Taking this page as an example: How can someone who does not even know the basics of Sikhism be given the power to write a complete encyclopedic entry on it, which is precisely what Wikipedia does. You can of course go and read some chapters here and there, and try to put together an (uncoherent) piece based on what you understood, but that actually ends up doing injustice to the topic. A person who actually lives as a Sikh must be the one who describes what Sikhism is. No ? Now, I would generally not care much what you think of Sikhism, but the stakes here seem quite high to let all this go unnoticed. I hate to say, but it is unfortunate that Google returns the Wikipedia entries as the topmost search results most of the time. As a consequence, the Sikhism page here is the default window to the world for information on the Sikh religion. Just as I would not like to poke my nose into articles that I do not know all that much about, it is not unreasonable to expect people who are not fully familiar with the Sikh religion to be more open and accepting, when someone who actually is aware comes in even tries to revamp a page, unless of course it violates a rule.
Again, this is just an example, but these issues keep nagging me about the purpose that Wikipedia serves.
Js82 (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Js82: Your edits to the lead neither summarized the main article nor were based on WP:RS. They also distorted and misrepresented the sources such as Nesbitt's OUP book. I have reverted parts of this article's lead back to the version that existed before your waves of unexplained edits in recent weeks. Per WP:BRD, I ask that you get consensus from other wiki contributors before making such major changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've only recently become interested in this article, and wasn't aware of the wording of the lead prior to the recent edits. Having now seen it after your revert, I concur that it is better written and a better summary of the article than what it subsequently became. However, I do think the opening sentence ("Sikhism is a monistic monotheistic (panentheistic) religion.") would be somewhat off putting and difficult to digest for the average reader. It's packing a lot of complex potentially unfamiliar concepts in too few words and too early. I recommend something simpler, and combining it with the 2nd sentence, such as "...is a monotheistic religion founded in South Asia in the 15th century." DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: Indeed. I too struggled with that opening sentence, either as "panentheistic" or "monistic montheistic", and favor something simpler for this overview wiki article on Sikhism. Your suggestion is well supported by the source and the main article. I will make the change, moving the monistic part elsewhere for the more technical reader. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've only recently become interested in this article, and wasn't aware of the wording of the lead prior to the recent edits. Having now seen it after your revert, I concur that it is better written and a better summary of the article than what it subsequently became. However, I do think the opening sentence ("Sikhism is a monistic monotheistic (panentheistic) religion.") would be somewhat off putting and difficult to digest for the average reader. It's packing a lot of complex potentially unfamiliar concepts in too few words and too early. I recommend something simpler, and combining it with the 2nd sentence, such as "...is a monotheistic religion founded in South Asia in the 15th century." DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
First a friendly suggestion for Sarah Welsh, if you are "struggling", and that too with the very first words of the article , just hold off rather than going ahead and still editing the article (and making it, as you did in this case, almost impossible for anyone to comprehend). This is not someone's personal blog, but a page with more than 2000 daily views. So please act with discretion.
Second, your allegation that my edits "distorted and misrepresented the sources such as Nesbitt's OUP book" is a complete LIE. I did not even bring in the Nesbitt book. So, again, as has been found out on many prior occasions, don't mislead people and please show some civility. Rather, it is you who removed reliably sourced content that did not comply with your own biased views, while you were on your massive blind spree to undo all my edits. For instance, I had quoted directly from Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, that I had referenced when mentioning word of God "The Granth presides over all congregations and represents the word of God in permanent form", which you blindly removed.
Coming now to the sentence in the first paragraph on the key beliefs, I had made an edit a few days ago. You again made modifications to them. I suggest you actually go and read the sources well. In any case, I have added another source, and all the beliefs I have included are now present in the three cited sources. Now of course, to make complete sentences and for improved readability, I have to add some of my own words. (e.g., key beliefs are "engaging in" selfless service, "striving for" social justice; rather than selfless service, social justice.) I urge you to exercise extreme restraint and caution from here on, rather than engaging in uncivilized behavior and/or edit-warring. Js82 (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Removal of lengthy SGPC section in lead
I've removed this principally because the language is very unencyclopedic and reads like a rather preachy advocacy of the religion. It is also far too long for the lead. An additional problem is that some parts of it are WP:COPYVIOs of the source, whilst other parts are rather flowery additions to what the source says (i.e. unsourced) although the intro to the section claims it to be what the source says. DeCausa (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please clarify explicitly which policy of Wikipedia has been violated ? Please clarify the "unencyclopedic" language aspect. I am not sure if there are any limitations on the length of the lead section. Are there ? I am sure there exist pages with longer lead Sections. I understand your comments on WP:COPYVIOs, I would try to improve the text on this count. As to the unsourced flowerly additions, I can certainly add sources for each one of them, I just thought for improved readability, Wikipedia typically does not recommend too many source citations in the lead. In any case, I am quite sure that many of those have already been mentioned in the later Sections. Js82 (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- And do note that whether someone may like it or not, all of removed information is factual, and crucial. If you believe the language is "unencyclopedic", please contribute positively by making an effort to improve it, rather than blindly taking the whole thing down. Js82 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- js82, the removed content is too detailed for the lead and is not included in the main body. The lead should summarize content that is include and supported by reliable sources in the body of the article. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- And do note that whether someone may like it or not, all of removed information is factual, and crucial. If you believe the language is "unencyclopedic", please contribute positively by making an effort to improve it, rather than blindly taking the whole thing down. Js82 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Sikhism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sikhism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "SGPC":
- From Guru Granth Sahib: "Sri Guru Granth Sahib". Sgpc.net. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
- From Guru Gobind Singh: "A Biography of Guru Gobind Singh on the website of SGPC". Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- From Gurdwara: "Historical Gurdwaras", Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, Punjab, India, www.SGPC.net, 2005.
- From Guru Nanak: "Guru Nanak Sahib, Guru Nanak Ji, First Sikh Guru, First Guru Of Sikhs, Sahib Shri Guru Nanak Ji, India". Sgpc.net. Retrieved 9 August 2009.
- From Guru Tegh Bahadur: http://sgpc.net/ten-guru-sahibs/guru-tegh-bahadur-sahib/
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleting reliable sources?
@DeludedFan: your contributions and edits to improve the article are welcome, but why delete sources on Sikhism such as those from Oxford University Press and add back unsourced/non-RS sources as your did here? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Bhakti movement
@Js82: What is your concern with including a sentence about Bhakti movement in the lead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- To say anything of the Sikh Gurus taking any inspiration from Bhakti movement is fallacious. Sikh Gurus included the writings of other saints in the Guru Granth Sahib. Implying that as taking inspiration from them is completely false.
- From Parasaraprasna, Kapur Singh, Guru Nanak Dev University Press, Amritsar
- Thus those who see in the origin and contents of the Sikh movement anything of this VaiSlJavism or the historical Bhakti movement of the Middle ages, which was based on this VaiSDavism or cognate propositions, show a complete lack of understanding of the real nature of Sikhism. Beyond the fact that Sikhism is of historical proximity to this Bhakti movement of the Middle ages, and that it somewhat partakes of the atmosphere and temper of VaiSDavist climate, it has not much in common with the latter. Among the principal features of this climate are its anti-Brahmanical attitude, its preference for vernaculars26 over Sanskrit, its total surrender theory, such as Lokacarya's marjara27 doctrine, its stress on devotion through image-worship rather than through knowledge, and its own peculiar forms of ritualism, such as caste-marks. It is easy to demonstrate that similarities of Sikhism with some of these features are not so intimate or fundamental as to suggest any direct or indirect borrowing.
- @Js82: I reworded it and embedded quotes to help verify. The content you added had issues: neither of the two sources you added directly supported what you added, your addition therefore seemed like OR, and one did not have page number(s). We need to rely on peer reviewed sources for this overview wikipedia article on Sikhism, and we must avoid personal opinions that are not peer reviewed, or that are fringe or undue. We must also explain all sides from recent reliable sources, not take a side, for NPOV. Please do not delete summary from recent scholarly references such as those from Oxford University Press. If you have objections, don't edit war, discuss it on this talk page for consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sarah Welch.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Me too. Sourced info versus POV-pushing. It may be hard to swallow for the faithfull that gurus can be inspired by other people, and not only by God, but Wikipedia is a secular medium, not a manual of faith. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Js82: Your source is not contradicting the claim that Sikhism had inspiration from the Bhakti movement. It does in fact say that Sikhism had "historical proximity" and it "partakes" the atmosphere of such movements. That suggests inspiration to me.
- I also have doubts about the reliability of your source. Even though you have claimed that the publisher was the "Guru Nanak Dev University Press", the Google Books listing just says "Department of Guru Nanak Studies, Guru Nanak Dev University". The web site of the Press itself says that it was set up to "highlight the achievements" of the University itself. So, it counts as self publication. It is ok to take factual material from such sources when nothing better is available, but you can't use it shoot down books published by the world's leading academic publishers.
- Finally, as per WP:DUE, all scholarly views published in reliable sources should be represented according to their prevalance in the sources. So, your source, if valid, can at best be used to state a contrary view in the article, but it cannot be grounds for suppressing the other scholarly views. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Lol at casting aspersions on an authoritative text, coming from the press (check the book) of one of the most reputed Universities in India and the world, and written by the only professor ever accorded the title of the National Professor of Sikhism.
- Lol also at inferring historical proximity and partaking (=joining-in) as being an inspiration ?? Especially when the author clearly says that doing so shows a complete lack of understanding of Sikhism.
- At least you tried to raise some seemingly logical concerns. The comments from the rest of the mob above are not even worth responding to. Yes, it is a despicable mob, and nothing else. Anyone with an impartial point of view reading this discussion would understand it. The mob can keep writing whatever it wants. No wonder Wikipedia enjoys zero credibility ! Js82 (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding University rankings:
- Guru Nanek Dev University: Ranking Web of Universities: Ranking Web of Universities: 2708 worldwide, Times Higher Education: no mention
- State University of New York: Ranking Web of Universities: 1639 worldwide, Times Higher Education: 351-400
- Oxford University: Ranking Web of Universities: 13 worldwide, Times Higher Education: 2 worldwide
- If you think that everyone who disagrees with you is a "despicable "mob, which can be ignored, then you can better start your own website. The credibility of Wikipedia won't be improved by POV-pushing, but depends on the sources that you want to inore. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding University rankings:
Hey, Mr. @Js82:, fundamentally Sikhism was nothing but Nirguna Bhakti Movement at its birth. Same was the case with Kabir Panth. However, Sikhism later turned into a religion. Guru Nanak said nothing new. All other Nirguna Bhakti Movement Saints/Gurus said the same things.Ghatus (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Lead language
Response to @Js82 reply on 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply 18 September discussion
- @Js82: Please no personal attacks and hostile lectures such as "just hold off rather than going ahead and still editing the article (and making it, as you did in this case, almost impossible for anyone to comprehend)". Also, please include edit diffs when you make suggestions, question edits of other wiki contributors like me. Contrary to your beliefs, you did add here two references which did not support the content you added with those two references. If it did support the content, identify the page numbers in those two references you added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Revelation again and WP:BRD
@Js82: I have moved the revelation-related discussion into the main article, presenting the two theories. Many editors and I have previously disagreed with you on this. You need to get consensus before inserting this back into the lead, per WP:BRD. A discussion of revelation belongs in the article, but it is undue in the lead or the opening sentence. Similarly, I have moved the new theory on what guru means, to some Sikhs, that you just added, into the main article. It is undue in the lead, as many scholars disagree with that interpretation. The lead should only include something that is discussed in the main article, and summarize the main points, per WP:LEAD. If you disagree, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- The first issue here is use of use of the word "revealed" religion, which was completely well sourced, but you have reverted (and again, you have also done some massive modifications without any consensus at all), to show some two theories. Your whole argument is based on one sentence from one source, while I would provide several additional references below (in addition to the reliable sources already include). But, before that, your (one) source does not even contradict it being a revelation !!
- From your own one source:
- Page 78: "...Guru Gobind Singh's work is best understood as the fulfillment of Guru Nanak's revelation. The Sikh organization had taken on the semblance of a State during..."
- So your own source is describing it as "Guru Nanak's revelation". Now, my addition was well-sourced, and I can add here tens of other sources. But, I believe, at this point, there is no need to even share them, since your own source agrees with revelation.
- Next, you keep quoting the sentence on "not being Prophet, but illumined soul". As per your own definition, "Prophet is one who utters divinely inspired revelations, believed to have come from God". In this sense, since your own source says revelations, it is completely fringe and weak to consider the "non-Prophet" aspect as reliable. Especially when there are 10s of other reliable sources (in addition to the reliable sources already include) that also use the words "revelations" and "Prophets". And further, again, even in your own source, when describing "Guru", we have
- "On account of his divine prerogative and attributes the Guru, though human in form, is godly in spirit. God speaks to humanity through him. God enlightens the seekers of truth through him and his word."
- The author also states, "Guru Gobind Singh tells Bhai Nand Lal .... (Guru is) the Light which is eternally God and represents God's Being in pure form. It is because of the consummate perfection, that God is in the Guru and the Guru is in God."
- So, I have not even brought it any of the other 10s of sources (in addition to the ones that are already included), and your own single source is so weak (rather, on the contrary, it actually supports "revelations", "God is in the Guru" "God speaks to humanity through him"). As I had said before, it is you who needs to get consensus before your massive unexplained edits that you keep performing.
- And finally, as a general advice, the fact that Sikhs consider the Gurus to be direct messengers sent by God, and the Guru Granth Sahib to be the word of God, is one of the most basic and fundamental beliefs in Sikhism. I am surprised you are not aware of such a basic and fundamental aspect. Js82 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Js82: You are interpreting and doing OR on sources. You are also arguing against a direct quote from Singha. This is not okay. We just summarize the sources. You used a "dictionary" as source. Dictionaries are a good source to understand the various contextual meanings of a word, nothing more. For this article, we need to rely on scholarly discussions, consider multiple reliable sources, and summarize the different sides with balance. If you have additional scholarly / reliable published sources that have not been summarized, please identify them with page numbers. We can then build a consensus version together. My other edits are primarily clean up, deletion of unreliable blogs/websites with unclear editorial oversight (WP:QUESTIONABLE), and removal of text for which citation needed request has been pending for a while. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop preaching the OR mantra repeatedly to me. I understand it well. It is you who is inserting your own OR by concocting up your own two-theories. I was just directly quoting material from your own one source, to tear apart your own fake arguments. As always, you continue to make massive OR based changes to the article, acting in such a haphazard manner without getting any resemblance of a consensus, and messing up the entire article.
- And while we are at it, here are numerous more references that should leave no one in doubt regarding the revelations and prophecy aspects (many directly from the Guru Granth Sahib):
- From "The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices By William Owen Cole, Piara Singh Sambhi", page 10-11
Explaining what had happened he said that he was taken to the court of God and escorted into the divine presence. There a cup was filled with amrit (nectar) and was given to him with the command, This is the cup of the adoration of God's name. Drink it. I am with you. I bless you and raise you up. Whoever remembers you will enjoy my favour. Go, rejoice in my name and teach others to do so. I have bestowed the gift of my name upon you. Let this be your calling.' It is said that his first poetic utterance after this experience was the Mul Mantra (see p. 70) in which the concept of the divinity which he had experienced is encapsulated.
- A passage in the Guru Granth Sahib is said to be another description of his experience:
I was once a worthless minstrel then the Divine One gave me work; I received the primal injunction: Sing divine glory night and day! The sovereign called the minstrel to the True Mansion: I was given the robe of honouring and exalting; I tasted the food of the true ambrosial Name. Those who, through the Guru feast on the Divine food win eternal joy and peace. Your minstrel spreads your glory by singing your Word. Nanak says, by exalting the Truth we attain the Absolute One. (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 150)
The Gurbani is God and it is through it that humans attain union with God" (Page 39, GGS) " [1]
The revealed word in the Guru Granth Sahib is called Bani or Gurbani ... Sikhism is not a product of history. It is based on its prophets' spiritual experiences .." [2]
No Catholic ascetic has ever been more absorbed in the contemplation of the Deity than was the prophet Nanak when giving utterance to his rhapsodies." [3]
...Significantly, in Sikhism, the claim of revelation has repeatedly been made by the Gurus themselves, and it stands authenticated in the Scripture compiled by the Fifth Guru. ...Their revelations formed the basis of Sikhism, and the Sikh Gurus became its founders .... The Guru is a messenger of God sent to enlighten mankind. .... Guru Nanak says, “O Lalo, I say what the Lord commands me to convey. .... Therefore, as a prophet of a new religion, he (Guru Nanak) once and for all made it plain that .... Spiritual Experience Of The Gurus : Every prophet builds the structure of his religious system on the foundations of his spiritual experience of the Basic Reality or God. It is these perceptions of the prophet that govern his understanding of the world and approach to it. Guru Nanak’s spiritual experience highlights...Guru Nanak says, “O Lalo, I express what the Lord conveys to me to speak.” The other Gurus also emphasise the same truth, “Nanak says the word of Truth. He expresses only the Truth; it is time to convey the Truth.” “I have recited Thy Name only when You made me say it.” “I have no voice of my own; all that I have said, is His Command.” “Guru’s words are divine nectar; these quench all spiritual thirst.”56 “Consider the bani of the satguru the words of Truth. O Sikhs, it is the Lord who makes me convey them.” “The Word is the Guru; my consciousness is the follower and listening to the ineffable account of the Lord, I remain untainted by maya." .. [4]
Sikh means disciple and the Prophets are called Gurus'" [5]
Guru refers to one of the ten Sikh Prophets..." [6]
Wisdom of the Prophet Nanak and the Sikhs" [7]
It is said that..He (Guru Nanak) received a vision of God, who gave him instructions for his mission'"..[8]
In Sikh religion the word 'Guru' does not denote a teacher, or an expert or a guide in human body. When God manifested his attributes in person, that person was called 'Guru Nanak' [9]
The Divine Word in Guru Granth Sahib came to the Gurus direct from God. [9]
Shabde upje amrit baani Gurmukh aakh Sunavnia From God springs ambrosial Gurbani. The exalted Guru narrates and preaches the same to the world. (Majh Mohalla 3. GGS: Page 125) Ek akhar tin nakhia, Jin Jagat sabh upaaia This Word come from Him, Who hath created the World (Mohalla 4. GGS: Page 306) [9]
Jeh bid sur updeshia so sunre bhaai Whatever the Lord hath instructed me, Hear, O my brother (Tilang Mohalla 9. GGS: Page 727). So Guru is also used for Gurbani, the Divine Word. Since Gurbani came direct from God, Gurbani is Guru too. [9]
Like Baisakhi 1699, Guru Nanak's revelatlon in the river is remembered by generations Of Sikhs as an irrefutable fact, and carries a profound significance. [10]
Guru Naak has authenticated his Revelation in his own words when he speaks to Bhai Lalo and thus communicates what God makes him see as the trance-inducing charm of the Cosmic Drama created and sustained by Him.[11]
As the Guru Granth itself proclaims: 'Know the Book as the site of the ultimate One —- pothi parmesur ka than' (GG: 1226). The revelation of the Gurus connects the Sikhs with the Divine.[12]
- 'More coming :-)
References
- ^ William Owen Cole, Piara Singh Sambhi. The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Sussex Academic Press.
- ^ Jasbir Singh Mann, Surinder Singh Sodhi, Gurbaksh Singh Gill (1 July 1996). Invasion of Religious Boundaries (PDF). Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society. p. 394.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Lepel Griffin. Sikhism and the Sikhs, North American Review. University of Northern Iowa.
- ^ Daljeet Singh and Kharak Singh. Sikhism: Its Philosophy and History (PDF). Institute of Sikh Studies.
- ^ Kala Singh. The Sikh spiritual model of counseling. Wiley, New York.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help) - ^ Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion, Volume 2. Wiley, New York.
- ^ Marilynn Hughes. The Voice of the Prophets: Wisdom of the Ages, Sikhism, Jainism,.
- ^ Selwyn Gurney Champion, Dorothy Shor. The World's Great Religions: An Anthology of Sacred Texts. Dover Publications, New York.
- ^ a b c d Bhagat Singh & G.P. Singh. Japji. Hemkunt Press. p. 9-12. Cite error: The named reference "Japji" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh. Birth of the Khalsa, The: A Feminist Re-Memory of Sikh Identity. SUNY Press.
- ^ S. S. Bhatti. Guru Nanak's Bani : Revelation, Mysticism, Creativity. Eastern Book Corporation. ISBN 8186622810.
- ^ Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh. Sikhism: An Introduction. I.B. Tauris, New York.
@Js82: You are misrepresenting some sources, and misreading many others. The reference #1 is merely summarizing a hagiographic account. Such unverifiable stories cannot be the basis for suppressing scholarship by other scholars, and the same scholars, who state a different view. FWIW, we have already summarized Cole and Sambhi in this article.
You allege reference 6 is Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion, Volume 2 is published by Wiley, New York. It is not. It has been published by Gyan Publishing House, a publisher that has been demonstrated by wikipedia admin @Utcursch to be plagiarizing from wikipedia. What is troubling is that you are misrepresenting the publisher to be Wiley. Why?
Your reference 3 by Lepel Griffin is from 1901, too old. Even Griffin and other sources, use "reveal" not in the sense you have been wiki-linking and using. When someone opens a gift box by tearing open a wrapper, they thus "reveal" the gift inside that box. The word reveal then means, and most of your sources, "divulge, show, make known". Such usage is not about "hearing voices from God". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Your reference #8 must similarly be rejected as a possible source for this article because it claims Sikhism started in 14th century, on page 287, which is before the birth of Guru Nanak. It has numerous other errors, such as wrong year of birth for Nanak (page 288). It is a poorly researched, unreliable source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. "What I am saying is correct, what you are saying is false/incorrect representation/OR". This is Sarah Welch mode of operation.
- I am having a good laugh at some of your above logic, but also sympathize with you, seeing how hard you are trying to refute a mountain of evidence, just to cling on. Also, This is what you told me above "You are interpreting and doing OR on sources. You are also arguing against a direct quote from Singha. This is not okay. We just summarize the sources" And now, I just gave a mountain of direct quotes from numerous references, and you are giving explanations about what a revelation is and not. LOL.
- Keep Going an and you must refute each and every sentence in each of the references cited above. Once you do that, I will bring in as many more.
- On a more serious note, I would urge some of the other "neutral" editors to come in. This is nothing but a waste of time, to try convincing someone who is just not willing to learn and is only interested in pushing her own biased POV, even faced with a mountain of evidence. If all this does not prove "revelations" "prophets" conclusively, then clearly, this is not a place for me and any new editors, but just a place for a small coterie of people with their own biased agendas. And if you are neutral without any hidden agendas, please do come in, before the rest of coterie jumps in with their blind approval of Sarah Welch's agenda. Js82 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)