User talk:Sikh-history

Sikh Diet

I've looked at that article, and it is clear that it needs a re-write. I've got my doubts about anyone with a name such as yours that reflects a purpose editing articles, but I'll assume good faith, and make some suggestions for improvement.

First, the article needs to have most, if not all the quotes removed, and if kept anywhere, the works they appear in should be cited as references.

Second, the organization of the article needs work. I suggest focusing less on the dissension between the various beliefs and working your way up to that once the basics are stabilized.

And this is probably not important, but all capitalizations in sections are not good.

Mister.Manticore 15:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Suggestions

Hi Mister.Manticore,

The name Sikh-History comes from our site www.sikh-history.com. The site is recognised worldwide as a leading source for historical information. We are at the forefront in ensuring extremist factions eg people like User:Harisingh don't get to just express their pont of view and that other points of view are put foreward. People such as these are motivated by alliegance to a particular Sikh Saint who espouses a fanatical stance on Sikhism. Www.sikh-history.com, has no such point of view and does not espouse the view of any Sikh Saint. Our core principles of Truth, Justice and Equality motivate us.

The suggestion you have made are great. We are very keen to work with you on this and Sikh articles in general. The ammendments initially came to this article because the person who created it made a false supposition that meat eaters did not use Sikh Texts to back up their point of view and only vegetarians did. I think the devil in the detail with anything is interpretation. We had aimed to make a balanced debate about the issue but alas that has come to problems.

With regard to the quotations, it make be difficult to create a debate about the Sikh diet without quotations from Historical texts that show what the actual diet was.

Another point is that our concern is with a chap called User:Harisingh who has a track record of writting biased articles with his opinion and calls them factual. We aim to keep his articles in check on Sikhism, and ensure that historical texts rather than hearsay is used to back up opinion.

What do you think?--Sikh-history 12:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As a fellow Sikh, I first of all like to say hi. With regards to any disagreements you've been having with other Sikh wiki members don't feel bad- you should discuss things with other Sikh Wiki members. For Sikhs, it our ability to discuss things and our unity that has made us into such a great people & massively successful throughout history. King regards--Sikh 1 13:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sikh1, Nice of you to write. As you have gathered Sikh-history is a collection of people with similar goals. Our aims are to counter ignorance and extremism through posting historical fact. Unfortunately HariSingh is an extremist and fanatic that cannot be reasoned with. His work on sikhiwiki is an example of this and an attempt by our memebers to reason with him has resulted in nothing. His views are so fixed and extreme, I fear he is beyond any help. We have tried discussion with him, and his reply was to call our edits "Vandalism" for which he was proved wrong. We are open to criticism and dialogue, but not open to dictatorial impositions. Pease visit our site www.sikh-history.com. Best Wishes --Sikh-history 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Look first it is completely wrong to do personal attacks on Hari Singh, this is not befitting behaviour for a Sikh or a Wikipedian and it is not way you resolve things. In Sikhism the reason why we have been so successful as a people is the bonds that bind us together are stronger than any differences. This is what our ancestor Sikhs had in their mind and thats why they were so successful. Its through talking you resolve things- regards--Sikh 1 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sikh1. The first personal attack came from HariSingh when he accused our memebers of Vandalism, when cleaerly he knew it was not. Maybe you should speak to him before speaking to us. You are right personal attacks will not solve anything, but we are pointing out a fact in the behaviour we have obsereved so dfar in HariSingh. Thanks --Sikh-history 05:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If he did a person attack on you, that's no excuse to do one your self, rise above it and be better than that.--Sikh 1 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all i'm saying is we are Sikhs, we are all brothers & family - all children of Guru Gobind Singh and because of that we must treat each other with respect and honour - to honour our father's history (Guru Gobind Singh). We live in a time when Sikhs have many enemies, we don't want to make it worse by fighting each other- regards--Sikh 1 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WE understand what you are saying, but we do not think there can be compromise with religious fanatics such as HariSingh. We would go as far as to compare him to religious fanatics such as those that follow Al-Qaeeda. Just like Al-Qaeeda has tarnished the name of Islam, we feel people like HariSingh and their fanatical views will compromise the great religion of Sikhism. HariSingh has a very willy and cunning manner, which is very sweet to the face which covers an uncompromising interior. He is a proverbial school ground bully who wishes to push his POV wherever he goes. Our aim is to rebalance that and take on the bully (because invariably bully's are cowards). We suffered under the bullying of the Indian Governemnt in 1984, we suffered under the rioting that followed (many of us lost relatives), and now we are suffering from fanatics bulllying us within our own religion. I am sorry to sound negative, but you sound like a kind person. For the record we are not only concerned about the meat issue, as our front page describes. Best Wishes. --Sikh-history 12:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving talk comments

For the sake of clarity, I'm just gonna blockquote our convo on the IP page when you weren't logged in. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from IP page:
Please explain your rationale for full rewrite of the introduction paragraph on the talk page. Thank you! -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend - the History of Patiala is very clear. A History of Sikh Misals by Bhagat Singh (Patiala University), concisely and clearly outlines this. I thought I would add it. Is there a problem?

Please add your rationale to Talk:Patiala so we can go from there. Thanks! -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done --Sikh-history 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately...

Per our policies, accounts used by multiple people are not allowed. -Amark moo! 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one using it now, because it was seen as dodgy before. I sometimes edit from work, so if you need any help I am at your service. Thanks--Sikh-history 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. -Amark moo! 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what can I do about these constant abusive attacks by some fanatical "Sikhs" on this site? --Sikh-history 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your report, and that's pretty much what you do with the kind of attacks you're getting. It should be acted upon within a day. -Amark moo! 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my friend. My concern is that there are people coming on this site on various topics such as Jat History, Sikh History and are posting inaccurate and even discredited sources to back up their articles. This worries me as readers will get the wrong impression, and from a Neutral Point of View, it does not do service to wikipedia and what it stands for. --Sikh-history 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

come speak to me on my talk page

lets sort this out in a normal way, if you don't want to that ok as well because I can carry on until the end of time--Sikh 1 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

carry on till the end of time?, So you are are admitting you are spamming the site?

Please reconcile the Sikh Code of Conduct which states meat eating is not banned in Sikhism with the view that Meat eating is strictly banned in Sikhism. Then lets move on. Regards --Sikh-history 10:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sikh 1

I've blocked this user for 24 hours to put a stop to Sikh 1's constant warnings, ANI reports, and so on. I do want to take a momemt to warn you, as well (in the interests of evenness) about two things. First of all, on Wikipedia edit disputes are supposed to be solved via civil discussion, and we should assume good faith on behalf of other contributors. Therefore, it is inappropriate to call someone else's edits "vandalism" if they are likely acting in good faith: true vandalism is obviously done in bad faith, and a content disagreement is very different. Second, you are doing the right thing in your dispute: finding sources to back up your claims. Sikh 1 should be doing the same thing, but bear in mind that sources are not always accurate or neutral, so disucssion may still be needed. Anyway, that's a minor point. Mango juice^talk 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. I guess I got annoyed as I spent hours going through books to find verifiable source for the Prohibitions in Sikhism article, only to have Sikh 1 constantly delete them

Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi
Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar
A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi
Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar
A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England
Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi

I take on board your warning, but I am only begining to realise the procedures in wiki. Please be patient with me as I am a novice to Wiki and please guide and steer me in the correct direction. I look forward to some constructive input from yourself and me. Many Thanks --Sikh-history 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors

I'm a bit confused after looking at your user page. How many editors make up the user Sikh-history? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it was swveral, but it was pointed out that several people usingh the same account was dodgy, so therefore it is only one. The site www.sikh-history.com does have several contributors. So issues are debated on www.sikh-history.com, and then one person adds results of that debate here at wiki with citations. I feel this ensure's that sources for wiki are looked at from many different view points. Is there a problem? If there is I will endeavour to correct my friend. --Sikh-history 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it would probably be a good idea to change the way User:Sikh-history is written as it gives the impression of several people. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will get on it straight away.--Sikh-history 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets talk

First of all you are Sikh so you are my brother so I have to talk to you. Ok agree we need to talk. I am a vegatarian Sikh. Ok put on the meat section that there are two different views and respect must be given to both sides.--Sikh 1 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a vegetarian too.As Sikhs we should really obey the Rehit Marayada. What we should put is that there are various Vegetarian Sikh groups who disagree with the Rehat Maryada on Meat Eating and therfore advocate a vegetarian lifestyle. Regards --Sikh-history 14:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all reply on my talk page when replying. Secondly Rehit Marayada does not say eating meat allowable--Sikh 1 14:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if we cannot agree on a simple fact like the Rehit Maryada then there is no point discussing. It is written in black and white. I suggest mediation. Regards --Sikh-history 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I and many totally don't agree with your interpretation it is completely non-Sikh and alien. Only a non-sikh mind would say things like this. What you are saying is completely against what it says in the Shri Guru Granth Sahib. Final when replying reply on my talk page as I will only reply to questions and request on my talk page--Sikh 1 14:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less of the abuse please. I am a Sikh and not an Alien. You are mistaken if you think the issue about meat is an issue at all in Sikhism. It does not matter what your interpretation is, wikipedia is only concerned with the facts. To push your point of view is against the policy of wikipedia. The Rehit Marayada is clear and concise on this. If you do not wish to obey the Sikh Code of Conduct then that is your perogative, but the Rehit Maryada is very clear on this issue. You cannot force other people to follow your way. I learned that many years ago. Here is the Rehit Maryada:

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law."

Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law."

Template:Quoter

I think you need to get less emotional and stick to facts. As for going against Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, that is another issue, and again you are completely wrong, but that is another debate--Sikh-history 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibitions in Sikhism

I'm removing that point altogether right now and I'm not going to make any further changes to the article at this time because if I add/remove anything from the article, it will just be the wrong version. Please discuss the changes on the talk page. This is obviously an issue where there is disagreement about whether or not eating meat is acceptable and really the most WP:NPOV way to deal with this would be to present both sides of the argument or leave that point out all together. If you want an informal mediation on the talk page I can help out with that, but if you want a more formal mediation, I'd suggest opening a formal request for mediation.--Isotope23 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Isotope23. It is great to see that fanatics like Sikh 1 and Sikh Historian to not have a monoply on Sikh History here at wikipedia. Could you give some pointers to opening up mediation. I will be gratefull. Thanks--Sikh-history 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with Sikh 1

I have a couple of comments. First of all, you cannot complain about User:Sikh 1's civility and level of discourse when you continue to misbehave in the same way yourself. See your comment above: calling other users "fanatics" is a personal attack. Make the first step, be civil and reasonable at all times. Read up on the core Wikipedia content policies: it's by referring to those policies that edit disputes are best resolved. The core policies are verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. Also, if you have been editing from an IP address, it would be better if you logged in and claimed responsibility for all your edits.

Specifically in this dispute, I will be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about the subject, and am speaking from ignorance. Ironically, this puts me in a good position to judge, because the right kinds of arguments to use are the ones that would convince me, even someone who knows nothing about the subject. It seems to me that you have largely based your argument directly on certain important texts in Sikhism (based on what you have on your user page). You analyze the text, including its translation, and come to conclusions about whether or not meat-eating is forbidden. While I think you have been scholarly in your approach, this is not a good argument on Wikipedia, because it is original work. For all I can tell, this is something you alone have come up with, that is rejected by the Sikh community at large.

What would convince me more (but still not enough) would be to see the same claims you are making reflected in published sources independent of yourself. If books about Sikhism reflect that the prohibition against meat is not absolute, then at least I'll know that it's an opinion that has some level of support. (Note, though, that the core religious/law texts of Sikhism don't count as this kind of published source themselves: the verifiability policy expects information to come from secondary, not primary sources. What I'm talking about here is analysis of the texts that others have done and published.) However, it wouldn't really be good enough to only show scholarly support for the idea that meat-eating is not forbidden, what's more important is to understand if many Sikhs actually live their lives this way or embrace that idea.

Note that sources supporting your view have to be reliable ones. Ideally, we're talking about books or magazine articles (preferably printed ones, and preferably, in English). Less ideal would be online sources with some special authority -- if, say, there were an official website of Sikhism, or something. Sources that really can't be considered enough on their own are sources like websites with no special authority, blog or webforum posts, et cetera.

Even then, it is important to present the view in the proper context: is it a majority of Sikhs that are prohibited from eating meat? Virtually all? Roughly half? This context must be presented correctly, because of the neutral point of view policy, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which makes the point that it may be appropriate to not cover insignificant points of view on a subject. I'm going to leave Sikh 1 a similar message. Hopefully you can work this out in the proper way and stop calling each other names. Mango juice^talk 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mango, point noted. There is no excuse for me to can people fanatics. I will delete that remark. I should not stoop down to other peoples levels. I pride myself on sound scholary and research and therefore insults have no place there. I don't think I have edited from IP addresses for months now. That was probably when I did not realise I could make an account. I always edit from this, unless I forget to login, but I have changed settings to auto log in now.

You are right the essay is probably an original piece of work (it contains many people's work and was edited by my colleague Randip Singh),in that it sums up all the arguments about meat vs vegetarianism in Sikhism, but these ideas are nothing new. There are quotes from verifiables sources, thatback up the fact that meat eating and vegetarianism in Sikhism is a personal choice.

In the article I try and use souces that have ISBN numbers and are also written in English. I have made refrences to the Sikh Holy book too, but that was just to illustrate how the metaphorical language used in there is twisted to mean something it does not. Classic trciks being to remove a few sentences from a paragraph, or to mistranslate.

There are some 25 million Sikhs worldwide, of that say 2 million are vegetarian. They are a vocal and vociforous minority. Many of these 2 million are followers of "Sants", or sects of Sikhism. Most of these sects have started in places abroad. Exampls are 3HO, Guru Nanak Nishkaam Sewak Jatha (GnSSJ) etc. There are other smaller groups such as the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ), and Damdamai Takhsal.

I look forward to any further guidance you can provide. I hope I can be a valued member of this Wiki project. My aim is the same, to provide neutral point of view policy. I can sometimes be a little overzealous. Thanks--Sikh-history 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Jat

I've posted something to WP:RFPP, lets see where it takes us. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think editing or presenting NPOV has been an ongoiing problem with this page.--Sikh-history 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File Page Protection. WP:RFPP. This is content dispute. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuthaa

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Kuthaa, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CobaltBlueTony I haven't had time of late to expand this article. Its more than a dictionary term but refers to Sikh Culture and custom pertaining to meat. Much like Halaal or Kosher for Muslims and Jews respectively.--Sikh-history 12:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIKH

Are you a member? If not, you should join. Thanks for the help on Bhai Gurdas.Baka man 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

I have replied to your comment at User talk:Zsero#Sikhism Prohibitions. Let's keep the discussion in one place so it isn't confusing. If you have a reply, please make it at my page and then delete this note. Or move the whole discussion here and leave me a note on my page that I should reply here. Zsero 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt and Bhatti

I have seen you have taken some criticism for your work in differentiating Jatt from Sikhism in all fairness.

There are some writers on here that are hell bent on promotion POV.

Can you help with these two articles? I will do my best and hope you will help me also.--Mein hoon don 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]