Talk:Guru Gobind Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Gobind Singh)
Jump to: navigation, search

List in infobox[edit]

@Apuldram: Are the names and works in the collapsed list of this article's infobox accurate and reliably sourced? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: My contribution of 13 January was just to collapse two over-long pre-existing lists. The items on those lists were contributed by others, so I do not know their sources. However, in response to your request, I have checked in The Sikhs of the Punjab (J S Grewal) and can confirm, in the "Known for" list, Founding the Khalsa, Founding Sikh military power, Creating military brotherhood and Writing Bachittar Nadak. The other writings in the list look plausible and (except for Zafarnama) are sourced in the linked Wikipedia articles.
I haven't found mention of the items in the "Other names" list. That doesn't mean that sources don't exist, only that I haven't seen them. Grewal mentions the name "Tenth master". Apuldram (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Apuldram: Thanks. I have removed this because the IP-user who added it in January 2016 matches the IP used by @Js82, after @Js82 had been repeatedly blocked for WP:SPI violations, incivility and for adding unsourced content. The user @Js82 has been persistent with attempts to portray this article and other Sikhism articles in Islam's shadow/terminology and related WP:TE. Let us keep what looks okay to you and is verifiable, but if you are unable to find sources for anything that is unsourced looks odd to you, I suggest we remove it. We need to get this and other key Sikhism articles to be based on reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Sikhism[edit]

Hello @Apuldram: what is the copyright status of EOS? is it or Guru Gobind Singh article therein in public domain, as this article refers to it in several places? Your input and guidance, as always, is most appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Ms Sarah Welch:, I have stopped editing for a few days because of an injury, but your question is straightforward and I'll do my best.
I see the EoS as a reputable tertiary source compiled by scholars who declare their sources, although not in the detail that we try to achieve in Wikipedia. Its articles are copyright, so any direct quotations must be short and faithfully reproduced and must be attributed. The EoS articles are usually cited to support a statement in the Wikipedia article text, and the usual restrictions apply - the statement must be phrased in the editor's own words - not a direct quotation - supported by an inline citation.
Does this answer your question? Please ask again if I have missed the point? Apuldram (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Apuldram: Indeed and thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mata Sahib Devan[edit]

I have removed the sentence in section Founding the Khalsa that indicates Mata Sahib Kaur was baptised by Guru Gobind Singh at the Vaisakhi festival in 1699. A reliable source shows that the Guru first met Sahib Devan in 1700,[1] so could not have baptised her in 1699. Apuldram (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ashok, Shamsher Singh. "SAHIB DEVAN". Encyclopaedia of Sikhism. Punjabi University Patiala. Retrieved 28 September 2016. 

Using Ji[edit]

Using of Ji is a necessity and not our choice which can be avoided. Please use Ji strictly everywhere. Paramdeeptung (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • If "Ji" is meant to be a religious honorific, then it is the policy of Wikipedia not to use such phrases (except in direct quotes), just like Wikipedia does not use "PBUH" or the like in articles about Muhammad or other important figures of Islam. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The relevant guide is here, and it states quite clearly that "Ji" should not be used unless "absolutely necessary". Clearly, previous editors of this article have not considered it to be a necessity so changing it without a broad consensus seems uncalled for; editors from Project Sikhism would be the people to judge what is "necessary" here. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Date of death[edit]

The lead quotes his date of death as 7 October 1708, confirmed by ref 2, but the Final days section says 18 October 1708, confirmed by ref 79. Is this 11 day difference a question of Old Style and New Style dates? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism (ref 4) gives the date of death as "Kattak sudī 5, 1765 Bk/7 October 1708". The ‘’Encyclopaedia Britannica’’ also gives October 7, so I think that is the date we should use in Wikipedia. I have amended the Final days section, but added a note giving the alternative date. Apuldram (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Beheading, a Sikh tradition?[edit]

@RahulRamchandani: Welcome to wikipedia. Per BRD, let us discuss this. Why is the "According to Sikh tradition" clause needed? It is mainstream scholarship per the sources, and fringe to allege Tegh Bahadur was not beheaded etc. Please see NPOV guidelines, and explain your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It's according to Sikh tradition because, no contemporary sources from the period exist regarding his execution. All accounts come from sources a hundred years later, or even more. Also, the Mughal-Sikh confict rarely had any religious tones, rather political. You can read the article that I had sourced. RahulRamchandani (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@RahulRamchandani: Please do not edit war. One newspaper article and similar source does not determine what the summary should be. Per WP:NPOV guidelines, we must consider what the multiple sources are stating, and summarize the majority/mainstream view. You are free to hold whatever opinions / prejudices / wisdoms you wish, but we must summarize what the published reliable sources are stating. The Guru Tegh Bahadur article and sources therein do summarize the various views on his execution and disputes therein. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The cited article in The Hindu by Satish Chandra is directed at showing that there is no justification for implying that the NCERT textbook Medieval India cast aspersions on the patriotism of Tegh Bahadur. The article does not suggest that the reports of his execution may be incorrect, as implied by the clause "According to Sikh tradition". The clause is POV, and should be removed. Apuldram (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: It isn't in regards to the beheading. If you read on in this article, you'll see that the Sikh claims are disputed by historians. You can't make the statement a fact, as it gives a wrong impression of Mughal kings as well. Most historians are in agreement that such conflicts were politically motivated, rather than religiously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulRamchandani (talkcontribs)
Acknowledging the version(s) by some Muslims is not same as "disputed by historians". Quit these lectures of yours, "Most historians are in agreement that such conflicts were politically motivated, rather than religiously", because they are WP:FORUM-y and based on your personal opinions / prejudices / wisdoms. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)