Talk:Sikhism

January 2016 changes to the lead

@Jujhar.pannu: I checked your changes, find it unverifiable on the pages of the sources you cite. The summary in this article must faithfully match the sources. Perhaps we are looking at different editions, so in good faith I ask you recheck. It will help if you embed quotes from the source into the cite. @Apuldram: please check, are you able to verify? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:@Jujhar.pannu: I find nothing in my edition of Grewal's The Sikhs of the Punjab, Revised Edition (published 1990, reprinted 2003) to support the sentence that starts "The purpose of the religion is . . . ". Not on page 31 or anywhere in Chapter 2. To me it looks like unsupported opinion. Jujhar Pannu do you have more information?
I see that the paragraph has been reverted by 172.56.39.126. Apuldram (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: If there is any particular quote or concept you feel is incorrect I can provide evidence based on the Sri Guru Granth Sahib directly as it is written quite clearly and without obscurity and also can delve into a particular topic. I would never use my unsupported opinion and always use references with correct information so please have another look.

There is no justification for removing the other topics and back tracking all the progress due to 'edit warring' including edits of people not involved in the 'edit warring'. The diffs in the revision are quite simple so you can easily pick out the particular 'edit warring' you find wrong. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Neither @Apuldram nor I can verify what you added in the sources. The 14th- to 17th-century claim you inserted in the lead, for Bhakti movement is not supported by the sources, is inconsistent with Bhakti movement history, and your OR. Your offer to "provide evidence based on the Sri Guru Granth Sahib directly", which is in good faith, but we cannot interpret primary sources in wikipedia. Yes, you can quote primary text exactly, and add a scholar's interpretation/translation of it - but you cannot add your own OR to this article. The content or conclusions or interpretation you propose for this article must be WP:RS. Since this is a major edit by you, that two editors are unable to verify, per WP:BRD you should discuss it here and get consensus. Let us start with your, "The purpose of the religion is . . . " - which page number(s) is this from? Or pick whatever you feel is fully supported, identify which page number(s) it is from. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Sources I checked a second time, today, that failed WP:V – Sewa Kalsi's Sikhism, Grewal's The Sikhs of Punjab, Patwant Singh's The Sikhs, and David Lorenzen plus Louis Fenech on Bhakti movement. Please identify the correct page number(s) and we can work together to improve this article. Let us keep in mind that the lead should summarize the key points of the main article and WP:RS sourced. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: That is dangerous editing I would not revert again without justification. I agree with the Bhakti Movement timeline and now no time is included. I will look for more quotes for the '"..to unite the various religious peoples of different backgrounds on a common platform, and to fight social injustice and promote equality and unity of mankind."' I am concerned primarily about the internal Guru you removed and said couldn't verify. The McLeod book referenced includes defining the eternal one and supreme God as the Guru, found in Textual Sources for the Study of Sikhism Page 139. Is there anything else that you were not able to verify? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Did you miss @Apuldram's and my justification above? You are mistaken when you allege, "I am concerned primarily about the internal Guru you removed...". That is the only thing of yours I did not delete. If you study my edit more carefully, you will find I just moved it from lead into a main article section here. Rest of your edits are contested, justification being WP:V. I suggest you respect WP:BRD process. You choices are to either embed quotes inside the cites using "quote=", or provide page numbers on this talk page where your changes can be verified. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sarah Welch: please stop your constant editwarring with multiple editors and the personal allegations and attacks. You have now changed my edit related to proper attribution of source to one of Jujhar Pannu's edits (starting with "Guru Nanak indeed quoted...") multiple times now citing it as unsourced. Did you check the source ? The content is clearly stated on Pg 265 as noted in the citation. Please do not falsely allege and make such personal attacks on multiple editors.

For the other two edits made by Jujhar Pannu, a) striving for social justice for benefit and prosperity of all, with link added to (Sarbat da Bhala) article, I support this edit as there is already a Wikipedia article on the topic of Sarbat da Bhala. Kindly discuss and propose your changes here before editing the article. b) On the Bhagats related sentence I do not clearly understand what your issue is so for the moment I am restoring it to old version. Jujhar Pannu may want to comment further. Pinsi281 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I now have the 2007 edition. The last para reads "Guru Nanak's Guru was God Himself as he received his commission from straightaway. He, therefore, projected himself as His 'Bard' et al. When he blended his Divine Light with Guru Angad...." (exact quote). Is this WP:DUE for the lead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 discussion

I noticed you reverted the recent source addition with a rather strange edit summary. I have no idea what has "we discussed these changes...." got to do with this source addition. I have added sources to strengthen Jujhar Pannu's recent content addition. Mainly to get rid of the "states Surjit Gandhi", that unnecessarily makes the world believe that only one Surjit Gandhi believes so. These added reliable sources unambiguously state that actually "Guru Nanak said so". Please justify your actions. Pinsi281 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: You have been edit warring with this for a while now, in a manner similar to @Js82. See you January edits here and here, for example. You were reverted and the current version reflects the consensus version given the sources. Why now ignore all those sources? It is you who needs to justify the change, given what the various sources state. If you find a new source, it does not mean all other sources must be ignored. The new source, on page 116, states Nanak referred to himself as bard, slave, even a dog of God. Is adding that WP:DUE for lead? We need balance per WP:NPOV, and follow the WP:LEAD guidelines. Your changes to the lead need consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Apuldram: A summary from the new source is now in the main article. Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch I read your most recent edit. I understand where you are coming from but I feel we should strive to make the lead section succinct. Accordingly, I have simplified the paragraph. Now, it does not say anything more than what it said before my first change earlier today. I am hoping this is agreeable. As I stated, more sources were added to get rid of "states Surjit Gandhi" which falsely gives the impression that only Surjit Gandhi believes so. Mr. Apuldram is welcome to comment.

Could you please also just stop with your rather strange assertions and personal attacks. It is evident above that if anyone was edit warring unnecessarily in the past it was you, without even having read the sources. Pinsi281 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: Please don't copy-paste or excessively close phrase the text from copyrighted sources. See WP:Copyvio. You must also not do WP:OR by implying what majority of the sources don't. The belief in reincarnation, for example, has been part of Sikhism. See Eleanor Nesbitt's book published by Oxford University Press. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not copy-paste anything, rather you are not representing the sources correctly. Just stop with your childish mode of operation based only on unending accusations. And it is not human reincarnation we are talking about, it is incarnation of God as a human being, which is rejected by Sikhism, clearly stated in all cited sources which you just removed.

The second paragraph of the lead is too long and can be shortened significantly, as I proposed. Can you please justify why you reverted it ? Pinsi281 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: See WP:LEAD for justification. Your version of the lead is inadvertently emphasizing what @Js82 was trying few months ago (see this talk page's discussions). You are past WP:3RR with this, that too with WP:Copyvio issues. Compare your version with the 2nd paragraph, page 116 of Singh's Hymns of Guru Nanak book. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what my version is inadvertently emphasizing or deemphasizing, and what that has to do with any older versions from other users. If you have any concerns just state them explicitly and openly rather than going around in circles and casting aspersions.

The 2nd paragraph is too long, and can be compressed significantly without altering the content from what it was before this round of debates began. This is my simple version:

Sikhism is based on the teachings of the ten Sikh Gurus (enlightened masters). The first Guru, Guru Nanak had stated that his own Guru was God, the divine preceptor, and had projected himself as God's mouthpiece or God's servant. Before his death in 1708, Guru Gobind Singh, the last Guru in human form, decreed that the holy scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, would be the final and perpetual Guru of the Sikhs.

I would let other editors chime in and comment if they have any issues with it.

You also need to justify your inclusion of "not a reincarnation of God" , "only a teacher", etc etc that you have added to the 2nd paragraph without any discussion.

Pinsi281 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: You just have to read the sources at the end of the sentences, and the Nesbitt source I mentioned above on reincarnation. Or just read Jaap Sahib, found at the start of Dasam Granth, which is a long devotional acceptance and recital of numerous Hindu god avatars (reincarnations) among other things. The names of the "reincarnations of (Hindu) God" are also reverentially included in Guru Granth Sahib. So, your edits violate WP:NPOV. I suggest you self revert, given you are past WP:3RR and your edit has WP:Copyvio issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Number" of Hindu and Muslim Bhagats

I find it unnecessary to mention in the lead section that writings of 13 Hindu and 2 Muslim Bhagats are included in Guru Granth Sahib. If we start doing this numerology, we should also specify the number of Sikh Gurus and also all other people included. Very important then to also specify the percentage contributions respectively. But all this is absolutely impossible given the space constraints.

Please justify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinsi281 (talk • contribs)

@Pinsi281: Indeed. The main article mentions 13 Hindu and 2 Muslim Bhagats, and the lead section need not. But the reason for this addition is to remove the WP:OR-synthesis in the following sentence that @Jujhar.pannu changed and you have been edit warring about, "The development of Sikhism was influenced by the Bhakti movement and the writings of these Bhagats are included in the Guru Granth Sahib." That is not what the sources state, and it is misleading. Bhakti movement started centuries before the birth of Guru Nanak, and its influence was not limited to those Bhagats. We must stick with the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of Wikipedia being anti India

Anybody who knows Sikhism knows that Sikhism came from India. But not here on Wikpiedia. No. They don't like India on wikipedia. So they don't write India they write South Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:2483:af00:544e:d865:b3fa:1454 22:07, 25 January 2016‎

Or perhaps a user did it. Wikipedia is not a person, nor are everybody on Wikipedia of the same mind. Jeppiz (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Guru Nanak was born in present-day Pakistan. Sikhism was born before the partition, so it is more neutral to describe its birthplace as South Asia or the Indian subcontinent or, as in the article, the Punjab region. That doesn't indicate a like or dislike. Apuldram (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going to give you a logical answer to this and I don't expect you to give me a logical answer back, becasue usualy anti India people dont have logic...but here goes.......India is an old ancient country. Paksitan is a new country. So the correct term would be that Sikhism is from India. THere is no debate. Thats the correct term.

Now, lets say you really believe that its not right to put India. Ok, then why is there a wiki page that classifies Sikhism as an Indian religion? And why on Indias page does it say Sikhism came from India? And yet here, it doesnt say India.

This is what I mean. There is no logic from you people here on wiki. People jsut write whatever they want! And they contract themselves. I mean if u want to put India fine. If u dont want to put India then be consistent. You cant claim on one page its an Indian religion and it came from India and then put South Asia instead of India. And now you have Punjab region. Sigh.

By the way, it is anti India. Lots of Sikhs who dont like India, dont want to use the word India. THey dont consider India an old country. They claim, like some Pakistanis do, that India is a made up country that used to just be kings and was never united and that's why on many pages they don't use the word India. They use South Asia sometimes because of that. Some people want to change the term Indian sub-continent to South Asian Sub continent. Some want to change Indian ocean to South Asian Ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:2483:af00:544e:d865:b3fa:1454 (talk • contribs)

@2605:e000:2483:af00:544e:d865:b3fa:1454: Welcome to wikipedia. @Apuldram is correct, and South Asia etc is indeed the right phrasing. This article's lead had "Indian religion" wording before, someone changed it recently, and I have returned it to that phrasing with a source published by Cambridge University Press. On rest of your post, please know that this talk page is not a forum and wikipedia strives to follow certain policies and content guidelines. Please avoid using this talk page for uncivil commentary on @Apuldram, who is a neutral, hard working and a valued contributor to Sikhism-related pages of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Lead change

Reply to Joshua Jonathan:

Yes, I would say it is complicated. What is the need for "but maintained that he was a teacher, was not a reincarnation of God or in any way related to God" ? This comes in very unmotivated, with the simple aim to prove that "See, Guru Nanak is saying he is not God". Nothing in the lead anyway mentions that he claimed to be God, all it said is "his Guru was God", which is the last consensus version.

Further, this is very detailed topic. And if we are to go into all this detail, we must state Sikhism rejects theory of incarnation of God outright (several sources cited here). But the lead can only say so much. So please justify. Pinsi281 (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

2nd source of confusion/complication:

First it says: "the word Guru also refers to God, and God and Guru are often synonymous in Gurbani", and next sentence says Guru Nanak is not reincarnation of God or in any way related to God, which sounds contradictory to the common reader (as I said, it is a complicated topic). What I proposed is much simpler, restricting to "Guru Nanak had stated that his own Guru was God". Another alternative, which I had also put forth earlier was "In Sikh religious philosophy and in Gurbani (the sacred writings of the Sikh Gurus), the word "Guru" is also used for God, the divine preceptor, who was Guru to the first human Guru, Guru Nanak. [11] [12]" This also is at least clear that when "Guru is used for God", it is implying the Guru of Guru Nanak. Pinsi281 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: I concur with @Joshua Jonathan that your version of lead, for which you have been edit-warring, is less informative and a poor summary than this version restored by @JJ. The restored version acknowledges the role of Guru Nanak, the ten Gurus, and the importance of Guru Granth Sahib. If we mention "God's mouthpiece", we must mention "but maintained that he was a teacher, was not a reincarnation of God or in any way related to God" for WP:NPOV and because that is what the source states. Your version does not remove "alleged confusion / complication", it implies Nanak to be "related to God/prophet", which Nanak clarified he was not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how it implies Nanak to be God. As I said, it just states "Nanak's Guru is God" (LAST CONSENSUS VERSION, without "states Surjit Gandhi"). By the way, for you, Prophet = God ? Pinsi281 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: You are misrepresenting your edit, because the latest version of the lead as you reverted @Joshua Jonathan, is not the "last consensus version". On your prophet question, this talk page is not a forum. See WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What ? I never summarized it as "last consensus version". Please stop lying. Pinsi281 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: See. I have reverted the copyvio issues you introduced in the main article and the significant changes you made to the lead. Both @Joshua Jonathan and I have reverted your edits. Per WP:BRD, you need to persuade and reach a new consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Temporary protection

I read through the talk page comments and it looks like this is not going to be resolved easily. Pinsi281, I suggest you outline your proposed changes here and get consensus for them. The page is locked for a week, that should give everyone enough time to hammer out appropriate wording and to evaluate sources. Please note that this is not a comment on which version is right or wrong and that the page will be automatically unprotected after a week.--regentspark (comment) 18:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

regentspark Okay. Although it is not me who added new content, but fine, here are my thoughts.

The issue is with the 2nd paragraph of lead section. But before I suggest anything, I would like to draw attention to two examples of the kind of changes I have issues with, which are continuously inserted by Sarah Welch to "denigrate" (for lack of a better word) the status of Sikh Gurus.

1. "Guru Nanak considered God as his Guru" : Note the choice of the word "consider" by Sarah Welch. Guru Nanak did not "consider" (implying, in a way, some doubt), he clearly and unambiguously "stated" that his Guru is God and the divine word. One must read between the words that Sarah Welch uses to really understand their motivation and implied meanings.

2. Previously, Sarah Welch had written, "Guru Nanak's Guru was God, states Surjit Gandhi", again as if this is Surjit Gandhi's personal belief. Do we routinely attribute statements to authors on Wikipedia ? Why in this case then ? Precisely to remove this "states Surjit Gandhi", I added more sources that state the same thing.

---

But what happened after my addition of sources? Sarah Welch again went on a tangent and started inserting other material "not reincarnation of God, teacher, not related to God", etc etc. So it is Sarah Welch who should be arguing her case and trying to garner consensus to whether this new addition deserves to go in the lead.

In my opinion, which I have already stated above multiple times, this makes the paragraph unnecessarily complicated. Nowhere in the lead is it mentioned that Guru Nanak called himself called God, which would require this "not incarnation" counter-clarification to be inserted. In the Islam article, do we go on unnecessarily stating that Prophet Muhammad does not claim himself to be God ? Why then in Sikhism ?

If at all she can argue for this to be included, THEN, it is very important to also state that "Guru Nanak and Sikhism reject the entire theory of incarnation of God". (So Guru Nanak is not just saying he is not God, but saying that God does not take any human form at all. This is supported by various sources already presented here.)

My proposal:

1a. Sikhism is based on the teachings of the ten Sikh Gurus (enlightened masters). The first Guru, Guru Nanak had stated that his own Guru was God, the divine preceptor, and had projected himself as God's mouthpiece or God's servant. [10][11] [12][13] Before his death in 1708, Guru Gobind Singh, the last Guru in human form, decreed that the holy scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, would be the final and perpetual Guru of the Sikhs. [14]

(This does away with "Sikhism originated with the birth of Guru Nanak....", just to save space. That part anyway is not contentious. So focus second sentence onwards.

1b. Go back to something similar to pre-dispute version, but get rid of "states Surjit Gandhi", as below. For other changes compared to pre-dispute version, see explanation below ("You would note that ..")

Sikhism originated with the birth of Guru Nanak in 1469, and the ten Sikh Gurus established and advanced the religion over the centuries. Before his death in 1708, Guru Gobind Singh, the last Guru in human form, decreed that the holy scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, would be the final and perpetual Guru of the Sikhs.[10] In Sikh religious philosophy and in Gurbani (the sacred writings of the Sikh Gurus), the word "Guru" is also used for God, the divine preceptor, who was Guru to the first human Guru, Guru Nanak. [11] [12] Admitting no other Guru for himself save God, Nanak claimed that God spoke through him, and referred to himself as the bard of God, or the servant of God. [13] [14]

2. Sikhism originated with the birth of Guru Nanak in 1469, and the ten Sikh Gurus established and advanced the religion over the centuries. Before his death in 1708, Guru Gobind Singh, the last Guru in human form, decreed that the holy scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, would be the final and perpetual Guru of the Sikhs.[10] In Sikh religious philosophy and in Gurbani (the sacred writings of the Sikh Gurus), the word "Guru" is also used for God, the divine preceptor, who was Guru to the first human Guru, Guru Nanak. [11] [12] Admitting no other Guru for himself save God, Nanak stated that God spoke through him, but rejected the theory of incarnation of God [13] [14] [15] and referred to himself as God's mouthpiece or God's servant. [16] [17]

(We can also have a slightly simplified version of 2, by taking out the first sentence, similar to what has been proposed in 1a.)

The pre-dispute consensus version was: Sikhism originated with the birth of Guru Nanak in 1469, and the ten Sikh Gurus established and advanced the religion over the centuries. Before his death in 1708, Guru Gobind Singh, the last Guru in human form, decreed that the holy scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, would be the final and perpetual Guru of the Sikhs.[10] In Sikh religious philosophy, the word Guru also refers to God, and God and Guru are often synonymous in Gurbani (the sacred writings of the Sikh Gurus).[11] Guru Nanak's Guru was God, states Surjit Gandhi, and he projected himself as God's "Bard".[12]

You would note that, in the sentence "the word Guru is also used for God..." I added "the divine preceptor, who was Guru to the first human Guru, Guru Nanak". This is taken directly from the source, and is needed to clarify why the word Guru is used for God.

---

These are my thoughts. On an unrelated final note, I want to state that I am just sick and tired of the manner in which this whole place operates. I do not know about you all, but I have a job to do, a young family to feed, a house to build, etc etc etc. (I am sure you all also have many responsibilities). So there is only a limited amount of time to devote. When that limited amount of time is spent trying to just respond to ridiculous dishonest allegations (coupled with a barrage of WP:xxx, WP:yyy, WP:zzz) thrown at you left right and center from a bunch of pre-established editors just keen on ensuring their own pre-conceived notions and beliefs are protected, it becomes mighty hard to remain engaged and not just lose it. I can only hope better sense prevails, otherwise I would likely just take the exit route here. I would still stick around perhaps, to offer my support to any new editors who come in future so they don't have to bear such hardships. (I must still appreciate Regents Park's close involvement here, as it calmed things down and gave me an opportunity to express my views thoroughly). Pinsi281 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: I saw your note to @RegentsPark after this temp protection, and now read the above. In both places, you have been selective in presenting the truth and your claims, on "what was added" since February 17th. This diff gives a more complete picture, which also includes parts of what you added. Here is early January version lead before your first wikipedia edit few weeks ago. In January, you insisted adding Surjit Singh Gandhi. Now, like @Js82, you are attacking "a bunch of pre-established editors just keen on ensuring their own pre-conceived notions and beliefs are protected", and you are using this talk as a WP:FORUM with "a house to build...", which you should avoid in future, after reading WP:TPNO. If you want others to assume good faith about your edits, you should respectfully assume the same for others.

I have reviewed your proposal, what is in the main article, and what is in the sources. Your proposals have NPOV issues. The pre-dispute version is from early January 2016 version. Here is an alternate proposal

3a. Keep the summary from new sources since your first edit in the main article;

3b. Return the disputed part of lead to the following early January 2016 version,

Sikhism is based on the spiritual teachings of Guru Nanak, the first Guru,[9] and the ten successive Sikh gurus. After the death of the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, the Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib became the literal embodiment of the eternal, impersonal Guru, where the scripture's word serves as the spiritual guide for Sikhs.[10][11]

That will help the lead remain NPOV, short and an overview summary of the main article, as suggested by WP:LEAD guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-dispute version is NOT January anything. Pre-dispute version is Feb 17. So STOP LYING. I did not add/insist on adding Surjit Gandhi Reference. Jujhar Pannu did, see [[1]]. So STOP LYING. And STOP QUOTING WP:xxx, WP:yyy, I know them.

I disagree with all your proposals on going back to anything in January. And I do not want to fight with you any more.

I request regentspark to make these two simple changes in the 2nd paragraph of the lead (I justified them above in detail, but here I summarize the justifications again.)

1. Replace "considered" with "stated" in "Guru Nanak considered God as his Guru". He did not consider but unambiguously stated. No source paints this in any doubt.

2a. Either take out "...but maintained that he was a teacher, was not a reincarnation of God or in any way related to God". As I said, this is unnecessary, as nowhere it says Guru Nanak claimed to be God. Islam article's lead, as an example, also does not go to length in trying to explain that Prophet Muhammad emphasized he is not God, but still mentions that Islam was revealed by God to Prophet. We should use the same standard.

2b. If at all any of the stuff in 2a is needed (please ask Sarah Welch to make a convincing argument for its inclusion, in light of the justification I have given for its removal. She does not respond to my requests for justifying such inclusion), please make sure it also says that "Sikhism and Guru Nanak rejects the theory of incarnation of God completely". Here are the sources for that:

"Sikhism rejects out of hand the theory of incarnation of God". "..it must be explicitly stated that the Gurus strongly repudiated the theory of incarnation". "Sikhism does not subscribe to the theory of incarnation". Pinsi281 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

References

@Pinsi281: I suggest you read the @Js82 discussion in this talk page's archive. @Js82 was pushing the same one sided "prophet-revelation-god's mouthpiece" POV. You now mention Islam article, and suggest "We should use the same (Islam) standard." Why? Presenting Guru Nanak and Sikhism in Islam's image is not appropriate, nor should it be presented in Hinduism's image or Buddhism's image. Sikhism needs to be presented in its own beautiful form, based on the consideration of multiple reliable sources.

I have already given my justification for why early January version is better: WP:NPOV presentation of the sources and WP:LEAD. Sikhism had 10 Gurus, all revered, all of whom shaped Sikhism. You allege that the Sikh Gurus repudiated the theory of incarnation. Not true, as sources assert Guru Nanak accepted reincarnation. Avatars (re-incarnations) of Hindu gods and Hindu goddesses are extensively mentioned, with reverence, in the Guru Granth Sahib and other Sikh texts. We can't imply Sikhism "rejects out of hand" or "strongly repudiated" parts of Guru Granth Sahib or other Sikh texts where Vishnu/Krishna/Rama/etc or Durga/Chandi/Devi/etc are celebrated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no debate about any January version, so I repeat (hopefully for one last time), please STOP with that. The only points of debate, with respect to the current version, are the two I have listed above, in my request to RegentsPark. For the second one (incarnation of God), please do not do original research. You need to provide directly quoted sentences from the sources where it says, without any measure of doubt, that the Sikh Gurus/Sikhism accept INCARNATION OF GOD (not, reincarnation of human beings, which is different, so STOP bringing that in again and again). The three sources I presented above make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that Sikhism rejects completely the notion of incarnation of God. None of your sources say otherwise.

Any why we cannot cite the Islam page. It is a perfectly valid analogy, and citing that as an example does not mean we are presenting Sikhism in light of Islam. It is an identical situation: nowhere does it emphasize on Islam Lead that Prophet Mohammed is not God. Why then keep arguing to have it included on Sikhism page, when it is not even implied anywhere that Guru Nanak called himself God.

I have made my case, and would let Regents Park decide further. I will not respond any further to you, unless I see a real need. I have many other issues to address.

Pinsi281 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)