Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:21, 9 January 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sikhism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sikhism This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Punjab Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Punjab (India) (assessed as Top-importance). This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

	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 Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 17, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 16, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted August 17, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

There is a request, submitted by Sikhism, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "Please make 'Sikhism' an audio recording because it is one of the world's major religions, and making it a recording would allow adherents who are visually impaired the ability to hear about the tenets of their faith and the issues that effect Sikhs".

Revelation again and WP:BRD

@Js82: I have moved diff 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)

@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)

@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, and even when their own single source actually supports the revelation aspect ("Guru Nanak's revelations", "God is in the Guru" "God speaks to humanity through him")). 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 hidden agendas. And if you are indeed a neutral editor, you should 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)

Here's the serious note: "Blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. " is not a serious response. Please stick to the issue, instead of repeatedly attacking Ms Sarah Welch. Your behaviour is typical of POV-pushers who can't stand it that they are contradicted, no matter what religion they are adhering to: the pattern is always the same.

Ms Sarah Welch makes clear that there are different interpretations of both the status of Sikhism and the meaning of a guru. You want to present only one of those meanings as the meaning. It seems to that your pushing a faith-perspective. The fact that there are dozen of (primary) sources which take the same stance, does not alter the fact that there are also other stances.

As fas as I can see, various perspectives have been presented now in the text, which is in line with Wiki-policies. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have been diligently going over the new Js82 list, one by one, assuming good faith. Many sources appear as unreliable sources, because there is not a single review nor has any scholar cited many of @Js82's sources. Two exceptions, so far in my review, are Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh's books mentioned above without page numbers. Here are some notes after completing review of her books...

Nikky Singh cautions that hagiographic primary sources on Nanak such as Janamsakhi are not chronological or geographically accurate. Nanak did not write them, nor did he dictate them to anyone. They are myths written by Nanak's followers.

Quote (Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh, Sikhism: An Introduction, pages 2-3, abridged):

Shortly after he passed away, Guru Nanak's followers wrote accounts of his birth and life. They are called the Janamsakhi. Through the years, they have been passed down in a variety of renditions such as the Bala, Miharban, Adi and Puratan. The dominant motif of the Janamsakhis is not chronological or geographical accuracy. As an eminent Sikh historian explains: "These accounts were written by men of faith. They wrote for the faithful. Straightforward history was not their concern, nor was their description objective and conceptual".

By the time that the Janamsakhis came into circulation, miraculous stories (mu'jizat) about Prophet Muhammad and about Muslim saints had also become widespread in the Punjab through Sufi orders. The Janamsakhi writers were influenced by what was current in their milieu, and they took up the pattern in which great spiritual figures were understood and remembered.

Quote (Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh, Sikhism: An Introduction, page 8, abridged):

Guru Nanak's Revelation

A profoundly simple yet highly nuanced narrative from the Puratan Janamsakhi celebrates Guru Nanak's revelatory experience of the singular divine, configured as Ikk Oan Kar. On a closer analysis it highlights some unique aspects of Sikh origins, as well as the universal structures found in myths across cultures. (... skip Guru Nanak's Sultanpur story... ). During this interval, the Janamsakhi recounts his direct communion with the Divine.

The Janamsakhi literature of Sikhism deserves a mention in this article, and there is already a section on it. But we can't present or restate myths as historical facts, or pick one version of the mythology and reject the other three Janamsakhis. If and where Janamsakhi-drived claim on revelation is made, the mythological source needs to be identified, and a note of Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh's conclusions on their historical inaccuracy needs to be included. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Been following the discussions here for some time; decided to get in. I have added content on Bhakti discussion to make it neutral. I have also removed the content on this topic till some consensus. The included content did not appear to be neutral. Concerns can be discussed here.

A full disclosure first up: This account is not from JS, although IPs are linked. Having read on the sockpuppet and meatpuppet issues, it is certain that one can get this account removed. So if someone wants to get an investigation done, you can just respond here first, so I do not end up wasting everyone's time further. Docxx.

@Docxx: Welcome to wikipedia. You need to offer persuasive answers to questions above. And why is it not neutral, when the article includes summary of the side(s) you don't like but has been published by multiple scholars in peer reviewed scholarly sources? Have you read WP:NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I do not see any consensus on the material you had put in. Next, you are citing the Janamsakhi as a source supporting revelation. That pertains to only the very first quote in the list of quotes provided by JS. What is hundreds of times more crucial to the argument here are the quotes that are coming "directly from the scripture" (GGS (Guru Granth sahib)). Almost all of the quotes that I see above are directly from the scripture, so the Gurus have themselves spoken those words. The Janamsakhi only forms a very small piece. So the arguments for revelation are not founded on stating any myths (even assuming they are myths) as historical facts as you make it seem. On the contrary, they are verbatim from the scripture.

You also mention that some of the sources are not reliable because of no citations. Now that I looked up, Ref. 2 has 13 citations including authors such as CK Mahmood, Mcleod and Fenech, who have been quoted widely on this article. Ref 3 has 3 citations (Mcleod), Ref 4 has 6 (Mcleod and Fenech), Ref 14 has more than 30 citations (under different links, including Mcleod, Nesbitt, etc). I did not look up the others. However, the one source you are using actually has no citations. Further, it is coming from Hemkunt Press, the same as reference 9 in the list which you consider unreliable ? And finally as had been pointed out before, even that source nowhere questions the divinity of the revealed words but rather only supports it at many places.

Given all of these, the content you put in without any consensus is completely inappropriate and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docxx (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How familiair this sounds... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Docxx: You allege that I "also mention that some of the sources are not reliable because of no citations." Where? My concern is different, it is whether Js82's sources are peer reviewed scholarship (plagiarized books by Gyan Publishing House are not), and that we must avoid websites with unclear / absent editorial oversight. One of the issues with your two edits is that by deleting content and sources, as you did here, you are removing significant and different views in scholarly publications, thus violating WP:NPOV. We cannot interpret GGS here, as it is a primary source. If there is a reliable source that does the interpretation and hasn't been summarized yet, please identify and we can work on it together. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I quote from your own post : "nor has any scholar cited many of @Js82's sources" as a reasoning for "unreliable sources"

You have been mentioning the "working together" aspect. But I am sorry to say your posts and conduct does not inspire much confidence that you would indeed work together. I am a very busy person in real life and would not be interested in spending time here unless there is some evidence of something concrete coming out. As a gesture of good faith I would request you to first undo my two edits. First edit was related to Bhakti movement and in accordance with what you have mentioned yourself, removing that piece removes the "significant and differing view" thus violating NPOV. The second edit had removed the content on revelations which has had no consensus and is absolutely inadequate, as I explained above.

I also do not understand at all what the two theories are. Have you quoted this directly from a source ? Or is this your original research ? Docxx (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits have already been undone. Regarding the "two theories," you can read it in the article:

"There are two competing theories on Guru Nanak's teachings. One, according to Cole and Sambhi, is based on hagiographical Janamsakhis, and states that Nanak's teachings and Sikhism were a revelation from God, and not a social protest movement nor any attempt to reconcile Hinduism and Islam in the 15th century. The other states, Nanak was a Guru. According to Singha, "Sikhism does not subscribe to the theory of incarnation or the concept of prophethood. But it has a pivotal concept of Guru. He is not an incarnation of God, not even a prophet. He is an illumined soul.""

Please refrain from comments like "Or is this your original research ?" They are personal attacks, not tokens of "good faith." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize for the apparent personal attack. That was never my intention. It really was a question to understand if the "two theories"-theory has been taken from some source ? From  ?

Thanks for copying the text here. Now, I am really interested in understanding what the two "competing" theories are ? Is the 2nd theory a contradiction of "Nanak's teachings and Sikhism were a revelation from God, and not a social protest movement nor any attempt to reconcile Hinduism and Islam in the 15th century". If yes, is it a contradiction of all of this ? Or pieces of this ?

And, of course I meant "undo the reverts to my two edits". That request remains based on my arguments above. I hope Ms Sarah Welch would honor it as a gesture of good faith. If not, I am unlikely to pursue this discussion further and would leave it in the good hands of both of you, until I feel there is a genuine need for me to come back and share my views/knowledge. Docxx (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no response to my query on the two-theories, and the disputed content has also not been removed (I only asked for it to be taken off in good faith till some consensus), I am going to make some edits. My intention is not to edit war and I hope others would reciprocate; if this does turn into an edit war, I would not proceed further. I also urge some other editor such as Kautilya3 (who seems to be an experienced and interested editor) to share their perspective.

At the risk of sounding repetitive once more: Essentially, I do not see any real source that contradicts the fact of Guru Nanak's revelation. The only one source that has been presented above as an apparent contradiction itself uses the words revelations (and also states/quotes that Guru is Godly in spirit, God speaks to humanity through him, God is in the Guru and the Guru is in God, ....). Hence, it is extremely hard to understand what exactly the author implies when he states Sikhism does not believe in Prophethood. Certainly, he is not contesting the revelations aspect (since he himself uses the words "Guru Nanak's revelations", God speaks to humanity through Guru, ....). (And although not essential to the arguments here, if we were to actually interpret the author, the only logical meaning one can derive, which seems justified if one also reads the text surrounding this statement is that, Sikhism does not believe that the Gurus followed in the "chain of Prophets that starts with Abraham and ends with Prophet Mohammed". In other words, it appears that the author is mainly trying to distinguish Sikhism from other religions, but not contesting the revelation standpoint). Further, one may note that this source has zero citations. As to the sources supporting revelations and referring the Gurus as Prophets, all the other sources listed above directly support and many quote verses coming directly from the Gurus to bring home the point.

Regarding the claim that Sikhism does not believe in exclusive revelation, I have no objections to that. Docxx (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I made edits on this topic. I spent good time trying to think through and capture the sources. I hope my efforts would be respected, and you would kindly refrain from edit warring. Please note I did not add the word "revealed" religion in the lead as of yet. If anyone has concerns on that addition, kindly share. In any case, I am open to discussing any and all issues one may have in a civil manner. Thank you. Docxx (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Docxx: Your edits and style remain disruptive and suffer from the same issues as @Js82. Can you explain your relation to @Js82 username, which you hinted at here? Since your have been reverted, per WP:BRD, you need to discuss before restoring your edits. Do not re-delete the same scholarly sources, get consensus. Once again, I repeat my October 25 offer above: "Is there a reliable source that states something different or does the interpretation and hasn't been summarized yet?, please identify and we can work on it together." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been reading the revelation related content in the article and all this discussion and cited sources for last few days. I agree with the comments that no source mentions any 2 theories. This is own research from Sarah welch who is misleading all by showing reference 71 as a supporting source. Many of the statements from sources above need to be included as well. Will someone unlock this article for editing ? And can some experienced person point me to appropriate dispute resolution mechanism ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:428:E1BB:0:49:32B2:3F01 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. In your case it's Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82, which has been re-opened. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have a problem with the wording n the intro where it lists Sikhism as a Indian minor religion. Sikhism was developed hundreds of years before India even come into existence in 1947. Sikhism is one of the major religions of the world and it is not owned by a country. Saying Sikhism is a Indian minor religion sounds dumb as saying Christianity is a major American religion. Do you see my point? I suggest that instead it says Sikhism is one of the major organized world religions. That is how my religious studies textbook in America describes Sikhism. Saying Sikhism is a Indian minor religions sound demeaning because so many Sikhs are not Indians but rather Americans, British, etc. Also, India is not central to the Sikh faith so it does not make sense to put it as a Indian religion. Dr. SanjitKaur (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Please review wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:V and WP:RS. The term Indian religion is a well accepted scholarly classification based on origin of various religions, such as in this Encyclopedia Britannica article wherein Sikhism is listed as an Indian religion. The "Indian religion" classification does not mean that a specific religion is limited to India or any geographical area in the modern era. This wiki article already acknowledges that Sikhism is "spread out around the world" in the lead's first para. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done In scholarly usage, "India" refers to the land of India and its people from the beginning of history. See History of India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dr. Sanjit Kaur. Although I do not contest the term Indian religion per se, geographical origin characterizations for religions hardly carry much value. Further in this scenario, it does tend to confuse the ordinary reader who is far from being a scholar. And even further, the Buddhism page also does not mention the Indian religion term in the lead.

I believe till some time ago the first paragraph concluded as "With over 25 million adherents.....Sikhism is the 5th largest organized religion in the world", and then it was changed to major Indian religion, from where it became minor Indian religion, and now it became Indian religion. I propose to change it to the original stable version. Docxx (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The existing lede is clear and has a neutral pov. The statement "with over 25 million adherents" is already still there (10:00 4 November). I don't like "The 5th largest ..." Why include competition between religions? Apuldram (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

History section

@Apuldram:, @Kautilya3: The last sub-section on Partition in Sikhism history section is unclear and poorly sourced/dead link. The paragraph before that sub-section, about history of Sikhism during the British colonial rule, has the same issue. Would you have the time to improve it, or know good recent reliable sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The deafening silence this request has received so far does not mean it has been ignored, but it reflects the need for source research before the task is undertaken. Apuldram (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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? Apuldram (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

OR and editwarring

@Pinsi281: You are edit warring and re-inserting text that is neither supported by the sources, such as "The development of Sikhism was influenced by the Bhakti movement, which occurred during 14th-17th centuries in India...". Per WP:BRD, please explain and discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Sikhism articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Punjab (India) articles
• Top-importance Punjab (India) articles
• B-Class Punjab (India) articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Punjab (India) articles
• India portal selected articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Low-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests