Talk:Idolatry in Sikhism

NPOV

I'm concerned that some of the language in this article, particularly in the "Historical Incidences", does not clearly convey to the reader that these are apocryphal stories. I could find no easy way to clarify this in a concise manner, so it may be easiest to just rewrite these sections. Even if their truth can be reasonably verified, it still could use some rewriting to make it more encyclopedic. Thanks, Chris (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Better to give writer like i have added: according to writer of Dabestan Mazheb(Karantsingh (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC))

• • There are many verses in Adi Granth (Primary Scripture of Sikhs), as well as Dasam Granth(Secondary Scripture) as well as Sikh Rehat Maryada; followed by Sikhs which supports that Sikhism have no relation with Idolatry. This is not proven fact that Guru Nanak or any other Guru promoted Idol worship as all of their hymns are critical to it. It is required to add more of their hymns which support this fact that Idolatry have no place in Sikh religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.241.229 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How can this be an accurate reflection when the writings of the primary Sikh Source are not permitted? The following quote is by Guru Nanak and contained within the Guru Granth Sahib, the primary Sikh source. Regardless of how it's interpretated it's clearly talking about idolatry from a Sikh perspective from the founder of the faith. "The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across? (Guru Granth Sahib page 556) Bazg1300 (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch completely ignored inner refrences of Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth

Treating Mcleod as his/her Guru "Ms Sarah Welch" completely ignored sayings of Kabir, Arjan Dev, Gobind Singh, Ram Das and change all text. So following original text for future reference of Seekers:

During the era of the Sikh gurus and bhagats, in Hinduism, a murti (Devanagari: मूर्ति), or murthi, or vigraha or pratima[2] was worshiped, rituals were performed, and Sikhs believed that spiritual wisdom was lacking in Indian society. This was believed to have been a manipulation by the priestly caste to keep the power in their hands. Sikh gurus and bhagats spoke out against this practice and informed people about the perceived spiritual disadvantages of idol worship.

Bhagat Kabir Bhagat Kabir, whose hymns are present in Guru Granth Sahib, was strictly against any form of idol worship. He said Kabeer, someone sets up a stone idol and all the world worships it as the Lord. Those who hold to this belief will be drowned in the river of darkness. ||136|| [3] Guru Nanak Guru Nanak, who strictly condemned the idol worship flourishing in Indian society among Hindus also suggested the same in Shalok: The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across? ||2|[4]

Guru Ram Das Guru Ram Das, the fourth Guru of the Sikhs, also wrote that an idol worshipping is ignorant (Agyani) and a useless effort. In his hymn in Malhar Raga, he narrated, The ignorant and the blind wander deluded by doubt; deluded and confused, they pick flowers to offer to their idols. They worship lifeless stones and serve the tombs of the dead; all their efforts are useless. ||3||[5]

Guru Arjan Dev Guru Arjan Dev also emphasise on finding God within his own self and called Idol worshipper a faithless cynic. In his hymn in Suhi Raga, he narrated, Soohee, Fifth Mehl:Within the home of his own self, he does not even come to see his Lord and Master. And yet, around his neck, he hangs a stone god. ||1|| The faithless cynic wanders around, deluded by doubt. He churns water, and after wasting his life away, he dies. ||1||Pause||.[6] In another hymn he exclaimed, Those who call a stone their god-their service is useless. Those who fall at the feet of a stone god-their work is wasted in vain. ||1||.[7]

Dasam Granth In letter to Aurangzeb called Zafarnamah, Guru Gobind Singh called himself an "idol breaker" (But-Shikan - ਬੁਤਸ਼ਿਕਨ).[8]

In many compositions Guru Gobind Singh called Idol worshipper a Foolish,[9] Lowest intellect as Animals. In 33 Savaiyey, Guru Gobind Singh states in Line 19 and 20: You will not get a place, even very small one in the abode of the Lord; therefore O foolish creature ! you away become careful even now, because by wearing a garb only, you will not be able to realise that Accountless Lord. Why do you worship stones ?, because the Lord-God is not within those stones; you may only worship Him, whose adoration destroys clusters of sins;

Smiting of the nose of Durga's idol

As per narration of Dabestan-e Mazaheb, Bhai Bhairo, a Sikh, smote the nose of an idol of Hindu goddess at Naina Devi near Anandpur Sahib. Hindu kings made a complaint to Guru Gobind Singh, who asked Bhairo to clarify his position. Bhairo denied that he had removed the nose from the idol and in turn asked the idol to become witness. When the complainant kings argued that the goddess cannot speak, Bhairo replied that if the goddess (idol) cannot speak and protect her own body then what good you expect from her?[10]

Shaligram desecration by Bhagat Sadhna

Bhagat Sadhana got Shaligram Shilas and used them as weights in his butcher shop. Sadhna annoyed Vaishnav Sadhus and Pundits with this act.[11] On one hand, he was of lower profession and caste, and on the other, he was belittling their idol worship by using the idol while handling the flesh of animals, which is considered a sin by the authorities of this branch of Vaishnavism. Those religious scholars frequently argued and debated with him, and Sadhna always outwitted them. It is recorded that one of Vaishnav saints took the Shaligram Stones with him. Sadhna had no issues with this and did not object. The Vaishnav saint continued worshipping the Shaligram but got no internal pleasure and wisdom, as he had seen in the state, behavior and thoughts of Sadhna. With dashed hopes he returned the Shaligram Stones.[12] Sadhna preached that "Shaligrams Stones" are not god as these are lifeless stones, and can not give any wisdom to a living being.

(115.114.127.158 (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC))

115.114.127.158: Welcome to wikipedia. We can't accept personal interpretation of primary sources and WP:SOAP. Please see WP:NOR and WP:RS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@122.173.196.84: Please don't edit war. It is the mainstream view, of multiple scholars. Please explain your concerns with the lead sentence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruption

Casktopic: This edit was disruptive deletion of sources and sourced content. What are your concerns? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I feel this article does not conform to WP:NPOV and shows editorial bias. The article relies heavily on a book by Harjit Oberoi which has been heavily criticised by mainstream Sikh Scholars (see Mann, Jasbir (1995). Invasion of religious boundaries : a critique of Harjot Oberoi's work. Vancouver B.C., Canada: Canadian Sikh Study & Teaching Society. ISBN 0969409281.) and as such given it undue weight. It also gives no space for the opposing mainstream view nor gives any insight into significant primary sources (Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth) or primary historical sources such as the Dabistan. A lot of work is needed to get this article up to scratch! NarrSingh (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A Cambridge University Press published scholar such as Oberoi is more mainstream than an author published by SPS-style Canadian Sikh Study Society! According to NPOV guidelines, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Oberoi, other scholars and this article are explaining the mainstream and significant sides. These must be summarized. No, we don't interpret Sikh scripture or primary texts etc in wikipedia. Please see RS and OR guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The book I have cited is a collection of the critiques of some 2 dozen Sikh Scholars. These include, but are not limited to : Dr Darshan Singh, Dept of Guru Nanak Sikh Studies, Punjab University; Dr Jodh Singh, Professor & Head Dept of Comparative Religion, Punjabi University, Patiala; Prof. Madanjit Kaur, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar; and the late Prof Noel Q. King, Professor Emeritus of History and Comparative Religions, University of California, USA. The article in its current state is clearly taking the side that Idolatry is permitted whereas the mainstream practice as practiced worldwide by the majority of Sikhs and as stated in the Sikh Rehat Maryada rejects idolatry. One doesn't need to interpret Sikh Scriptures when there are established translations available, and I will make these available for the article. Oberoi's view can be included in the article as a sub section as a historical perspective rather than a description of current mainstream practice. Similarly, the viewpoint of Naamdharis should be included under their own page detailing their beliefs and/or under a subsection, but not in the opening paragraph which gives it undue weight as it is the position of a minority sect and not mainstream Sikhism. NarrSingh (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

NarrSingh: Welcome to wikipedia. Though you are a few weeks old account, I am delighted that you know and are able to quote some of the content guidelines (set aside our disagreement for a moment). No, the lead para opens with "Sikhism has prohibited idol worship...", not "A majority in Sikhism..." etc. Are you suggesting we clarify "the majority of Sikhs and as stated in the Sikh Rehat Maryada rejects idolatry"? Perhaps, the main section should clarify this point. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sarah, thanks for the welcome. I am a new editor and have been reading through the guidelines and getting myself up to speed on how to actually edit pages and the correct formatting needed. Currently, this article is wholly centered around practices and changes during the Singh Sabha movement but completely ignores the well-established practices of the Gurus. It also does not correctly reflect current practices. The article should be based around the statement that "Sikhism prohibits idolatry" - any further discussion on this wrt to the Singh Sabha/Sanatan Sikh era should be a sub-section. Also the article is using quotes out of context, For example : the 'Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies' does state that idols were removed from Harimandir Sahib in 1905, but also refers to idolatry as an anti-sikh practice. In the 'A to Z of Sikhism' it refers to the presence of idols as a 'tolerated' practice, clearly not an accepted practice. NarrSingh (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

NarrSingh: The article does cover the various sides from scholarly sources. An encyclopedic article is not current news / soapbox platform. Please re-read WP:NPOV and WP:WWIN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion of sourced content and sources

@Bdss: please do not edit war, and do explain your concerns on this talk page? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence and CushionMail-Js82 incarnations / IP edits

Bdss / Js82 / CushionMail / 122.173.41.69 / 122.173.121.227 / 122.173.54.108 / 122.173.245.18 / etc: The lead sentence has three scholarly sources cited. Please explain your concern. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Quotes from Guru Granth Sahib on Sikh stance

Hi, i added quotes direct from tge Guru Granth Sahib concerning idolatry. Why can they not be jsed when they relate directly to thus topic and are from the primary Sikh source? Bazg1300 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:WWIN guidelines. The GGS is a complex scripture on a non-English language, and we do not translate and interpret WP:Primary sources. We rely on and summarize peer-reviewed scholarship and equivalent WP:RS that interpret/quote/review Sikh texts and history, which is what the cited sources in this article do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring Sikh refernce

This article is supposedly concerning the Sikh stance on idolatry but fails to mention a single quote from the Sikh Guru's concerning the matter? How can this be an accurate reflection when the writings of the primary Sikh Source are not permitted? The following quote is by Guru Nanak and contained within the Guru Granth Sahib, the primary Sikh source. Regardless of how it's interpretated it's clearly talking about idolatry from a Sikh perspective from the founder of the faith and should form part of the article. "The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across? (Guru Granth Sahib page 556) Bazg1300 (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

See above. Do you have a scholarly source that states/discusses this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Which "Naarad" instructed the Hindus to worship idols, and in which Hindu text... if you have a scholarly source for this as well, that too would be helpful here? There are other passages such as GGS 654 and GGS 1264 which mention idols / stones / tombs / burning dead / burying dead.... but those passages do not imply that Guru Granth Sahib condemns burning dead / burying dead / etc. Cremation has been a historic Sikh practice. Let this example suffice why we can't draw new conclusions, do WP:OR, by interpreting primary sources in wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sikh References are not quoted at all or sidelined

Many hymns in Guru Granth suggests that Idol worship is completely banned in Granth but whole article based on what sikh practice once, by making them mainstream. I am not sure why hymns like following are compeletly ignored:

Extended content

ਕਬੀਰ ਪਾਹਨੁ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰੁ ਕੀਆ ਪੂਜੈ ਸਭੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥ ਇਸ ਭਰਵਾਸੇ ਜੋ ਰਹੇ ਬੂਡੇ ਕਾਲੀ ਧਾਰ ॥੧੩੬॥ कबीर पाहनु परमेसुरु कीआ पूजै सभु संसारु ॥ इस भरवासे जो रहे बूडे काली धार ॥१३६॥ Kabeer, someone sets up a stone idol and all the world worships it as the Lord. Those who hold to this belief will be drowned in the river of darkness. ||136|| (1371, Guru Granth Sahib) ਮਃ ੧ ॥ मः १ ॥ Mėhlā 1. First Mehl: ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੂਲੇ ਭੂਲੇ ਅਖੁਟੀ ਜਾਂਹੀ ॥ हिंदू मूले भूले अखुटी जांही ॥ Hinḏū mūle bẖūle akẖutī jāʼnhī. The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. ਨਾਰਦਿ ਕਹਿਆ ਸਿ ਪੂਜ ਕਰਾਂਹੀ ॥ नारदि कहिआ सि पूज करांही ॥ Nāraḏ kahi▫ā sė pūj karāʼnhī. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. ਅੰਧੇ ਗੁੰਗੇ ਅੰਧ ਅੰਧਾਰੁ ॥ अंधे गुंगे अंध अंधारु ॥ Anḏẖe gunge anḏẖ anḏẖār. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. ਪਾਥਰੁ ਲੇ ਪੂਜਹਿ ਮੁਗਧ ਗਵਾਰ ॥ पाथरु ले पूजहि मुगध गवार ॥ Pāthar le pūjėh mugaḏẖ gavār. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. ਓਹਿ ਜਾ ਆਪਿ ਡੁਬੇ ਤੁਮ ਕਹਾ ਤਰਣਹਾਰੁ ॥੨॥ ओहि जा आपि डुबे तुम कहा तरणहारु ॥२॥ Ohi jā āp dube ṯum kahā ṯaraṇhār. ||2|| But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across? ||2|| (556, Guru Granth Sahib) ਪਾਤੀ ਤੋਰੈ ਮਾਲਿਨੀ ਪਾਤੀ ਪਾਤੀ ਜੀਉ ॥ ਜਿਸੁ ਪਾਹਨ ਕਉ ਪਾਤੀ ਤੋਰੈ ਸੋ ਪਾਹਨ ਨਿਰਜੀਉ ॥੧॥ पाती तोरै मालिनी पाती पाती जीउ ॥ जिसु पाहन कउ पाती तोरै सो पाहन निरजीउ ॥१॥ You tear off the leaves, O gardener, but in each and every leaf, there is life. That stone idol, for which you tear off those leaves - that stone idol is lifeless. ||1||(479, Guru Granth Sahib) ਪਾਖਾਨ ਗਢਿ ਕੈ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਕੀਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਦੇ ਕੈ ਛਾਤੀ ਪਾਉ ॥ ਜੇ ਏਹ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਸਾਚੀ ਹੈ ਤਉ ਗੜ੍ਹਣਹਾਰੇ ਖਾਉ ॥੩॥ पाखान गढि कै मूरति कीन्ही दे कै छाती पाउ ॥ जे एह मूरति साची है तउ गड़्हणहारे खाउ ॥३॥ The sculptor carves the stone and fashions it into an idol, placing his feet upon its chest. If this stone god was true, it would devour the sculptor for this! ||3|| (479, Guru Granth Sahib) ਬੁਤ ਪੂਜਿ ਪੂਜਿ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੂਏ ਤੁਰਕ ਮੂਏ ਸਿਰੁ ਨਾਈ ॥ ਓਇ ਲੇ ਜਾਰੇ ਓਇ ਲੇ ਗਾਡੇ ਤੇਰੀ ਗਤਿ ਦੁਹੂ ਨ ਪਾਈ ॥੧॥ बुत पूजि पूजि हिंदू मूए तुरक मूए सिरु नाई ॥ ओइ ले जारे ओइ ले गाडे तेरी गति दुहू न पाई ॥१॥ Worshipping their idols, the Hindus die; the Muslims die bowing their heads. The Hindus cremate their dead, while the Muslims bury theirs; neither finds Your true state, Lord. ||1|| (Page 654, Guru Granth Sahib) ਤੋਰਉ ਨ ਪਾਤੀ ਪੂਜਉ ਨ ਦੇਵਾ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਭਗਤਿ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਿਹਫਲ ਸੇਵਾ ॥੨॥ तोरउ न पाती पूजउ न देवा ॥ राम भगति बिनु निहफल सेवा ॥२॥ I do not pick leaves as offerings, and I do not worship idols. Without devotional worship of the Lord, service is useless. ||2|| (Page 1158, Guru Granth Sahib)) ਏਕੈ ਪਾਥਰ ਕੀਜੈ ਭਾਉ ॥ ਦੂਜੈ ਪਾਥਰ ਧਰੀਐ ਪਾਉ ॥ ਜੇ ਓਹੁ ਦੇਉ ਤ ਓਹੁ ਭੀ ਦੇਵਾ ॥ ਕਹਿ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਹਮ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਸੇਵਾ ॥੪॥੧॥ एकै पाथर कीजै भाउ ॥ दूजै पाथर धरीऐ पाउ ॥ जे ओहु देउ त ओहु भी देवा ॥ कहि नामदेउ हम हरि की सेवा ॥४॥१॥ One stone is lovingly decorated, while another stone is walked upon. If former is a god, then the other must also be a god. Says Naam Dayv, I serve the Lord. ||4||1|| (525, Guru Granth Sahib)

etc. Not sure what kind of neutral this article is that 4 scholars are giving their viewpoint and 36 writers of Guru Granth Sahib have nothing in it. Dasam Granth is totally ignored here which straightly say idol worship as fools, dogs, animals etc. (153.110.241.229 (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

• • Sarah kee yeh quotes dekh ke fatt gayi hogi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.50.188 (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Misquote, OR, Synthesis etc allegations

@Sapedder: You deleted a lot of sourced content and sources with your edits to this article, and added questionable sources. I am also concerned with the changes to the "exact quotes from the source", such as page 324 of Harjot Oberoi. I have restored much of the last better version. You allege OR, Synth, etc in edit comments such as this and this. Please explain how what you deleted was OR or Synth, and we can then collaborate and build a better version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

“deleted a lot of sources” this is easily proven incorrect, just looking at the edits. I erased one source (duerkson) which absolutely could not be utilized for the article and was only being used to support a POV; most of the existing info was derived from the existing published sources, and much of the information was simply moved to the appropriate sections. I would say that you deleted a lot more cited information with your reversion to a poorer version of the article, short on actual information, history and details, and instead stuffed with unbalanced opinions clearly pushing a pov, and that your own deletion of sourced material is inadequately explained.

Here are my edit summaries:

“Bibilolatry” discussion moved to its own section to conclude the article.

Mentions of Nanaksar belong in the Sanatan section.

Khalsa, Nirankari, Namdhari opposition to idolatry are ‘’clear-cut’’. If you can condense the long quotes of Deol, Pashaura, Grewal, etc. in Singh Sabha into a few lines, I don’t see why you made this poorly-written summary dominate the Khalsa section to the exclusion of actual useful information; his attempt at an argument is much shorter that those quotes, and the summary clearly contains wp:OR. This is the Khalsa section and should primarily be *neutral* information about the Khalsa, this is not the “why you think they’re wrong” section or the “Khalsa criticism by a poor reproduction of one writer’s feeble argument” section. This quote was converted to a brief mention in the last version of the article (it warranted no more than that, no counter-quote was added for balance, and no other group is dominated by critical opinions aimed at it, I wonder why) and moved to the sanatan section. This weak argument has not even been balanced with any refutation (violating NPOV), and “Murat is same as murti or an "image, statue, idol" [sic]” is your OR, this is not stated even in the sources. Balance will be added.

This “Guru Manyo Granth” passing remark you repeat in every other section throughout this article is very dubious, and will be marked as such. a) the phrase has nothing to do with idolatry, and b) the Namdharis are themselves anti-idolatry, per multiple sources. If the Namdharis object to the phrase, it would be on the grounds of c) their traditions of living gurus after Guru Gobind Singh instead of the Guru Granth Sahib, itself a heterodox belief. “Guru Gobind Singh, or the Khalsa, or someone else, made it up” is not worth addressing. If you had any broad knowledge about Namdharis or this topic in general at all, beyond a dubious passing statement you seized upon and spammed all over the article, this contradiction would have been obvious.

The Zafarnama couplet is backed by multiple sources and a clear reference (Duggal, Fenech etc.). There is no reason to obscure this.

Dabistan: This is precisely why I prefer long direct quotes; your “review” advances OR-driven conclusions and half-quotes that they like, and ignore and obscure the rest. Readers have a right to see the quotes free from personal distortions. The dabistan doesn’t “ridicule,” that is your OR, read the source carefully and do not mischaracterize quotes. Ganda Singh does not attribute the intention of ridicule to the author. Claims of pavan etc. are accounts ‘’relayed by people’’ Fani believed to be Panth followers, not his personal claims. Banerjee addressed this in the quote included in his citation, and in fact says quite the opposite about the author’s intention. Again, this is not the “your personal review” section. We don’t mix in our own personal judgements in our supposedly “cited” statements. Neither source puts reliability or ill-intent in question, this is again your wp:OR. This clumsy scramble to discredit this source was quite brazen, adding your personal spin is unacceptable, and you should know better. Whether this was an accidental misreading or a deliberate misleading, playing around with sources is unhelpful and one should be more careful before disseminating false information.

I’ve rewritten the intro to be given a quick timeline with details, but the old intro will be merged into the Khalsa section. It is fully sourced, relevant, and frankly, no one who supports the previous version of the article can raise concerns about “constructiveness.”

Having the right intentions is important. A broad base of knowledge, not bits of faulty “ammunition” presented without context, is helpful to creating an article that actually looks like an article, and not a poorly-disguised hitpiece.Sapedder (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sapedder: I disagree with your allegations and characterization above. I appreciate that you have added sources. I will check them and the sources in the old version, then see what we should do to create a better version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed your changes and gone through the sources (before and after your latest edits). What stands out is that you are selectively reading and combining sources to emphasize the revisionist Khalsa views. This is unacceptable under wikipedia content guidelines. The article needs balance and an NPOV summary from various scholarly sources, which not only includes the Khalsa views, but all sides. Idolatry broadly is the worship of anything physical (image, stone, metal, object in nature, book, person, guru) as God. It is worshiping "someone or something other than God as though it were God", states Encyclopaedia Britannica for example. We need to keep that in mind along with the context in quality sources, and avoid WP:Coatracking. I welcome your suggestions to improve this article further, but I hope you will now stop you mass reversals and edit warring because that is not the best way to collaborate. Let us take on para at a time and work together. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well again that’s demonstrably false, and comparing our favored article versions, is basically projection. I have taken the trouble to embed long quotes directly from the sources, either right in the article or within the citations, specifically to avoid this. There have certainly been distortions, mischaracterizations, half-quotes, and bad English, whether from poor comprehension or POV, but not from my end. “Selectively reading and combining sources” is a bit rich coming from you, given the original poor state of the article under your free reign versus the good sources already present that were poorly utilized. Between half-quotes from the Dabistan and your mangling of Habib’s discussion of it, cherry-picking opinions (while I stick to historical facts), repeated suppression of necessary historical context before temple idols (which your narrative of “but idols, but idols” heavily depends on, these practices did not fall out of the sky, and the history and control of institutions by different sects directly correlates to the institutionalization of these practices; this is not coatracking. Your POV statement “rejecting history” was particularly ironic here), and your source combining/synth in the Bibliolatry section, this is basically all you’ve been doing.

There was no mass reversals, just mass restoration of cited content, along with reinforced sourcing. My additions were simply combined into one large edit, no information was actually deleted by my restoration. The same can’t be said for your actions. There was no edit warring either, your own additions were simply never checked and reviewed, and flew under the radar due the article’s low traffic and neglect. Edit quality combined with your prolific edit rate is a concern that has apparently been raised by others before in the not-too-distant past.

And what needs to be kept in mind is that the primary definition regards physical idols, which is what idolatry etymologically and originally referred to in a religious sense, and that different sources use much more precise definitions, not broadening the term to the point of meaninglessness. Be that as it may, god/hero-worship is a distinct separate phenomenon found in straying phases of the histories of all world religions often before religious renewals, and merits separate discussion.

Banerjee’s commentary regarding the Dabistan is relevant here, as it differentiates between direct observations during Hargobind’s time versus the “enthusiastic legends and exaggerations” being relayed, it does not “make the claim.” And as I expected, there was again blatant misrepresentation of the source. It refers to a Brahmin named Dev addressing the Guru as Parmeshwar, followed by Habib’s own postulation for this, not what you wrote about the guru being called Dev by others, which was wildly incorrect on your part, and not the first careless use of sources. It also clearly states that Nanak himself never claimed to be a god, and that this belief took root much later among the Nanak-panthis, which is not evidence of anything beside deviation from the original belief. As an aside, “dev” and “parmeshwar” are not faith terms but etymological terms for God; Hinduism even today is vaguely defined, let alone the 1600s, and “hindu” in Persian meant “resident of Hind.” This is like saying the Italian word “dio” is the “Catholic” word for God, or that Swedish “gud” is the “Lutheran” word for god, or that Persian “khoda” is the Zoroastrian word for God. This is anachronistic, poor logic, and in any case, irrelevant OR.

Previously you mischaracterized the Dabistan as making “ridiculing” statements, now you pass off your OR (“flawed translation” etc.) as cited content. Habib makes no such statement. Mixing of personal spin into neutral statements will no longer stand, as this article is now being restored from the state of neglect it has clearly been suffering from for the last few years.

Also, I have edited section by section just this time for your benefit, but I reserve the right to go back to my usual form of editing as I see fit. Sapedder (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute

The practice of idolatry in Sikhism is clearly a matter of dispute. Whether the practice existed in the past or exists presently appears to be a matter of interpretation of the various sources. I'm asking for an expert from WP:WikiProject Sikhism to weigh in and evaluate the situation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)