Talk:Sikhism

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)

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:

1. What and Where? - Sikhism
2. Who? - Sikh
3. 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)

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)

• Approaches to History: Essays in Indian Historiography
• [1]

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)

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.