Talk:Sikh/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Miscellaneous discussions
Poorly written article. I will try to improve it gradually. What meaning does OM and OMkar have to the general reader? Also it is actually incorrect even if it did have meaning to the reader. The bit about Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji's triumph over large Mughal armies seems to come from the feelings Sikhs have about him but is actually exaggeration and not in agreement with general historical accounts from this period. Other superfically thought out comments: For example the statement attributed to Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji as "he was neither Hindu or Muslim" is misleading as well. First the statement is generally accepted in the Sikh community as the Punjabi version of the words "There is no Hindu or Muslim" which reflects his view that religious distinctions or divisions were unimportant. A very different statement. In fact, saying that he was saying "I am of a new religion" misses the main point he was making about the fact that such distinctions are not important. His point is generally taken to be about the oneness of mankind.
The article also lacks any primary teachings. Sikhs actually have an amazing set of teachings and are more than people who are in a hurry to die for some cause. Very very few actually do all the things on the list in the article everyday and yet are still Sikhs because of other more important attributes and beliefs.
Hmm. How neutral and encyclopedic is a page that contains "Why become a Sikh" chapter? I did not notice a "Why become a Christian" in the Christianity article. Watcher 06:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This text needs much editing and revision to give it NPV status. It is quite weak as it stands.
Dear Watcher,
Many thanks for your comments on the Sikh page. I list my reactions to your comments below:
1. Just because you do not have a certain sub-heading on the Christian page does not mean that it should or should not appear on the Sikh page.
2. "Why become a Sikh" chapter? This chapter has been included as there is strong interest in this faith and it is a question that I have been asked many times – How does one become a Sikh?. Should an encyclopaedia not give unbiased information that is required by individuals?
I hope this has thrown some light on this topic. No offence intended!
I do not intend to start a flamewar here, but I too do detect some lack of neutrality in the article. Perhaps the 'ji' after the Gurus' name can be removed since it's a sign of reverence and an article just can not be described as unbiased if it betrays any of such emotions, positive or negative, of the author. Even without that, the article is a wee bit, what one might say, on the 'preachy' side, but I am sure it's nothing a more objective language cannot remedy. That notwithstanding, the article is certainly quite well written and covers Sikhism well. Kudos to you Mr. Hari Singh in case it's you has supplied the original text.
Wait a minute, I guess I spoke a bit too soon about the article being well written. Upon complete and a more careful reading, I find it not greatly more than just an exhortation to convert to Sikhism. Now where are the following:
- Sikh history such as, founding of the Khalsa, Sikhism before the Khalsa, the wars against the Mughals etc.
- A list of sikh Gurus and links (perhaps wikipedia interal links) to articles on each of them
- Sikh art, including, literature, music and painting
- Cultural aspect of Sikhism, such as sikh marriage ceremonies, funeral rituals, baptism rituals and such
- Geographical regions of Sikhism predominance
- Important places of Worship for a Sikh
May be some of the above are partially covered in the article, but still it's majorly been about how to be a be good Sikh. Now I may daresay that this article needs significant work to be encyclopaedia-worthy. I hope some expert can help us out here.
I shall readily agree that this is indeed not a wikpedia-worthy article currently. If you can, please do anything to improve it. I guess all the controversial stuff and bias should be done away with first. --Gurry 04:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
General disposition section?
Surely this is POV. There are famous Sikh intellectuals, writers, architects and dancers who seem to derive ideas from the 'sikh' (to learn) aspect of Sikhism which cherishes education and thought. Not all Sikhs are going to be like the ones you describe in the article.
Guru Nanak...
I am not very knowledgeable about the religion or the community, but it is decidely odd that Guru Nanak isn't mentioned at all on this page...--iFaqeer 01:47, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Ambiguous Link
The Maya link in the article goes to a disambiguation page. Wouldn't it be better to link it straight to the Sikh version of "Maya"? -- Anonymous, Oct 30, 2004
Lack Of Respect
You should know better, Gurry, the word 'Ji' should be left as is. It is a sign of respect and omitting it would be disrespectful to both the Gurus and Sikhs alike!
Biased
This page reads like a Sikh recruitment brochure. What is the source for this page ?
Re: Biased
The Sikh religion does not believe in 'recruiting'. You can only be a Sikh if you are born a Sikh. And if you understood the purpose of the site it is to add your own knowledge and information to it, so the 'sources' for this page are varied and extensive. DUMB ASS!!!
Congratulations, Goebels
This is obviously a very biased entry. You made your point very well, punctuated by profanity.
Anyway, this seems like a piece of propaganda. I may revise it in the future to make it more objective when I have more free time.
Stop Fighting
You all are weird (pardon my American Southernism). I don't think the page is particularly biased. I'm looking for history and definition of Sikhism, and I think I found it in this page.
Me == anti-consumerist American quasi-Buddhist libertarian progressive, with emphasis on the word American (in the best sense).
Tiger or lion?
Just some input/ideas that might be to the benefit of this article:
In this article it says that Singh means 'tiger', whereas in the article about Sikhism it says that Singh means 'lion'. I could research this myself of course but i thought it might be easier just to post this question here where experts are sure to read the question and as to avoid lengthy discussions in advance.
I was also wondering about why Sikhs always (seem to) wear turbans. I was always told that Sikhs wear turbans because their religion prescribes this. Is this true? Again, could research this myself, but it seems to me that other people might be able to answer this already. Some comment on this in this article might be justified.
PS. Please stop calling each other 'dumb ass' and 'Goebbels', it's ridiculous. --Vunzmstr 14:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The confusion comes from the fact that while Western cultures look at the Lion as King of the Jungle, in South Asian cultures, the King of the Jungle (who is called Shair; in Sanskrit Singha) is actually the tiger. (In Urdu, the Lion is "Babbar Shair"; I am not sure about Sanskrit/Hindi.) And the problem has been compounded over the last couple of centuries by writers like Bertrand Russell using the name Sher Khan for his King of the Jungle in The Jungle Book, but then interpreting it as a Lion.
- As for turbans, yes. The idea is that ordained Sikh males (who have taken the Khalsa oath) are all "Sardars", Kings, one and all.
- —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell? How about Rudyard Kipling?
OK - You all have some legitimate gripes about this article. I, for one, agree that it contains too much proselytization and not enough info. But my major gripe is this: "he/she, him/her, his/her" and other such nonsense bugs the hell out of me. It's just so . . . so . . . nineties!
