Talk:Criticism of Sikhism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jsing3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bible

If we go by the scripture, bible pretty much depicts Jesus as God, when they title him as "son of god." So probably the monotheism doesn't lies as much in bible, as much it did in Torah, and others that have been mentioned. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Undue and highly critical tone reverted.

Diff. Dear IP editor, you made a bold edit which was been reverted as per undue and tone. Kindly discuss here as per BRD. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So now i add what i commented on your talk page here: I don't see how my edits regarding the Adi Granth were undue or negative toned. I merely quoted in some more detail that gave a better description of the textual criticism. This is actually a section that could be expanded much more, since every other religious text seems to have extensive criticism. Besides, the person criticising is one of the most important polemical authors against Sikhism, so giving him more weight is not undue in my opinion. So, before my edit the textual section only criticised the general content; however, i added the criticism of the grammar & related criticism on Sikh views on Islam. I don't see how that isn't deserving of inclusion. Also, the heading for this section is very odd i.e. "Undue and highly critical tone reverted". The article under dispute is called Criticism of Sikhism, so naturally one would expect the content to be highly critical.58.106.237.48 (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No that logic does not hold. Also your source is from a blog and a website which tells what Sikhism is not and you have quoted that here giving the exact opposite sense... in Syncretism section. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That logic does not hold?! Of course that would be your argument. But you can't state something is illogical without providing proofs against it. The only proofs you use in your support is that i used blogs and a website regarding the Syncretic section - which isn't even the area under current dispute between us! So 1st please decide which area you really want to oppose before we can continue this discussion.58.106.237.48 (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Syncretic section. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK good so now we know what to focus on & can resolve 1 issue at a time. So you said your concern with this section was the use of a blog & website. So let me list the websites i've used and what info was used: 1) biblestudying.net. I'm not sure what you would categorise this website, however, this site is used to reference the Sikhism-Sufism-Bhakti link claimed in the wiki article. But if you look within the site you will find numerous sources that support the Sikhism-Sufism-Bhakti link claim i.e. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 & Britannica.com. So if you don't what to use this website as a source then i can just use 1 of the other 2 (or even better both) just mentioned. 2) sikhcoalition.org. This website is actually a Sikh site, and even they acknowledge that non-Sikhs claim that Sikhism is a syncretic Sufi-Bhakti mix. They may be defending against this claim but through their defence there is an obvious acknowledgement of this common criticism. & what stronger acknowledgement of existent criticism can there be than from Sikhs themselves?58.106.237.48 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the tone being critical. It is not that the editor has to be critical, but represent the content that falls under criticism category. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

58.106.237.48, you should provide the links to those books, it will be easier to discover. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, which books you referring to?58.106.237.48 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Britannica takes content from other books so it can be easy for you to find. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, so for Columbia see this link that has the relevant content: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Sikhism.aspx#5 . Now for Britanica see: [1]. Enjoy.58.106.237.48 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Pantheism Vs Panentheism

Sikhism has been described as [2] Panentheism as opposed to Pantheism or Monotheism. There appears to be no metion of that?SH 20:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Great deal of fuzziness betwixt these. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Attack Page

Article expresses opinions of very few people and is written in an attacking tone without providing concrete references. Most of the references lead to Sikh holy book scriptures and it's meanings have been personally modified by the author in order to fit the article. Nominator to keep the page during deletion debate already blocked from Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Page requested to be considered for deletion again. Express further opinions if any here.

Wikiexplorer13 12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs)  

I went over the reasons for your removal of content in the article, by reading your edit summaries, and as my edit summary clearly shows all your reasons are totally incorrect. This makes me wonder whether you are just a Sikh responding to criticism of your religion by seeking to silence content through deletion—something that the article, funnily enough, notes Sikhs as trying to pursue in North America. Many, and varied, reliable sources are cited in the article and you would have zero chance of having the article deleted—despite how badly it offends your sensibilities.118.136.38.189 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contribution. Unreliable sources will be gradually removed from this page under Wikipedia's policy. Please do not attack a person citing their religion. Please provide concrete proofs rather than abstractions. Wikiexplorer13 20:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs)

Also reference cited by you Reduced to Ashes (book) is about human right violations in the state of Punjab in India and in no way related to criticism of Sikhism nor does it mention anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, i re-added all that was well cited. You have no right to remove info that has clear sourcing and even links. I did, however, remove the OR section on the Guru Granth. Unless you can show that these sources you seek to remove don't actually say what they claim then you can't simply remove them. 125.192.155.49 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I have already stated, citings have to be from a reliable source. Sources "saying what they claim" does not always mean they are trustworthy and the chances that the editor is trying to manipulate the interpretation of holy scriptures cannot be ruled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from using proxy servers in your future edits as it is against the wikipedia policy. Please refer: Wikipedia:Open_proxies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. As i showed previously, all the sources are clearly reliable; you have not shown in any way that they are unrelible, nor have you proven that they aren't saying what they claim. You said Sources "saying what they claim" does not always mean they are trustworthy and the chances that the editor is trying to manipulate the interpretation of holy scriptures cannot be ruled out. So are you saying we must trust you that these sources don't say the truth or are deliberately manipulative?! That is not how Wiki works and the WP's provided above clearly oppose your view. If you continue to remove reliable content because you "know" it is wrong then i will contact outside editors to definitively deal between us. 186.150.220.210 (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As already stated edits made through proxy servers do not count as reliable and the IP automatically becomes liable to be banned from the system. This article is in the process of being further analyzed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please always provide sources that are translated in english language. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attack an editor subjecting their religion. Wikipedia policy | here [3] Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations on your edit summaries to justify the removal of content that doesn't suit your sikh sectarianism. You have been warned of this before but you appear to be too driven by sectarianism to take heed. If you continue on this path i will report your actions. One such blatant false edit summary says "Please provide source translated in english to support your claim". All references are in english so please do not think you can get away with lies to justify your mass content removal.187.190.164.145 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is a social platform and in no way endorses any religion or culture. All content that does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia policies can be removed without any warning. In no way it means "sectarianism". Secondly, as already discussed, some of your citations do not provide a transcript in english that may be understood by a general reader. They are merely a product of your personal beliefs. Removal of content will continue if policies not properly adhered to. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again you have not addressed the issue with your sectarian mass content removal, nor have you disowned your false, far-fetched statement "citations do not provide a transcript in english that may be understood by a general reader". If you continue to push your pro-Sikh blanketing of criticism and use of lies then i will report your actions to have you blocked. Thanks.123.198.122.98 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello! again. I have addressed "the issue with your sectarian mass content removal" more than three times on this page. It would be an effort in futility to go over those reasons again. Please do not attack a person citing their religion. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiexplorer13 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, neither a contributor's religion nor his technical means of connecting to edit are relevant. Moreover, while sources in English are preferred, sources in other languages may be used when they are significantly better, or no source in English is available.

It is perfectly acceptable to include criticisms of Sikhism that are held by relatively few people, provided that they are significant to the topic and appropriately sourced and attributed.

Please assume good faith of one another. If you cannot agree whether something constitutes a reliable source, the Reliable Source Noticeboard may be able to help.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: The editor Wikiexplorer13 needs to be blocked because his history is one of only mass content removal for this article. Mawlidman (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Idea of monotheism from Islam

I found this point baseless in the article under Syncretism section as there is no reference given for it. If there is any reference it should be given else it will be removed. Bhvintri (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Beware, Attack page by muslim extremist!

Although this article is being edited frequently to remove any false discrepancies, article expresses opinions of very few people including author mawlidman [[4]] and is written in an attacking tone citing "single statement" references from various books. Most of the references lead to Sikh holy book scriptures written in an ancient language and it's meanings have been personally modified by the author in order to fit the article. Also note that this article has history of being edited through sock puppet accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exterminator1313 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sikhism

I have reverted[5], for 2 reasons, one is that the source itself didn't mentioned anything Nanak, thus using it on a Sikhism article becomes irrelevant. Second reason is that it is not a "hindu belief" like you have asserted. It is not found in any List of Hindu scriptures. This theory was first found in The Hindu Pantheon, a book written by Edward Moor a British Indologist in 1810 and after that it was found in 100s of other publications. But there are Sikh legends,[6] that say Guru Nanak had visited Mecca. There are different versions, such as the writer of the current source says "there is no doubt that it is a remnant of pre-Mahometan worship", and then says "This is the spiritual version of the story, but the vulgar legend is, that, which ever way his feet were dragged..."[7] Another source is "There is a legend of Namdev's guru, which is related also, mutatis mutandis, of Nanak at Mecca. When Namdev went to seek his guru's grace he was shocked to find him lying with his feet upon the linga (phallus) of Siva." Capitals00 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't revert cited content. Word "hindu" is necessary as it is the only religion that believes kaaba is a lingam. Note that the sentence stresses about the "debate" between the mohemmedans and Nanak and not about the fact that he visited mecca or not which may have been published in "100's of publications". Please avoid WP:POV and source your "beliefs". Casktopic_say 13:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You clearly didn't understand what I said. I didn't said that Nanak's Mecca trip has been published in 100s of publication, I said that Kaaba having any Hindu origins is published in 100s of publication after the book The Hindu Pantheon (1810), it has to do nothing with Hinduism itself. However, Sikh legends that do mention them, and I have provided you two sources here. Capitals00 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And I have reverted your another recent edit[8] because it has to do nothing with the article. For example, you mentioned [9], which is not even mentioning Sikism. We are not discussing reincarnation origins or prevalence, just to make editors think anything like "Sikhism may have looked upon concepts of other reincarnations". We are only highlighting that "Reincarnation is also often used as proof of the syncretic influence of Hinduism on Sikhism", with sources that actually support this. Capitals00 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is not specifically about hinduism vs Sikhism, but about beliefs regarding reincarnation prior to birth of Sikhism and its criticisms thereof. Also, are you arguing the fact that if a book named "hindu pantheon" is written by some european, it means christians have the same notion? Its about origin of belief. What part of this you don't understand here?Casktopic_say 13:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It means that it was not a Hindu belief, but a theory written by someone who was a British Indologist in 1810. You can't mention any of the sources that are irrelevant to Sikhism, nor you can bring any information that distracts people from Sikhism. Capitals00 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about facts with sources. If you want to make a counter-argument please provide citations and prove that the book that you are mentioning was indeed the first to mention the fact that kaaba is a lingam! Casktopic_say 14:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. I would rather not bother because same argument can be used for asking you if this theory appears anywhere else before this book. Your problematic edits are not just limited with this small bit, but much bigger. Capitals00 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't make any sense. You're citing WP:TRUTH although you don't have verifiable sources to backup your own claims. I will refrain from editing this article for a limited amount of time in case you want to get your facts together. If I see further disruptive editing, I'll treat it as vandalism. Also note that you've reverted other areas of this article which were well cited and well within the relevancy of this article. Help here > WP:POV -Casktopic_say 14:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

So far we have already discussed that you are bringing the sources and information per WP:OR, just to fit your own POV without caring about the subject itself. Also "vandalism" doesn't depend on what you "treat" it to be, see WP:NOTVAND. Capitals00 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Alleging POV without providing citations to backup your own claims and removing cited content by arguing it is not relevant to the article is certainly not tolerated here and won't take our discussion anywhere. -Casktopic_say 14:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have mentioned your inclusion of sources that are unrelated to Sikhism. Your sources about reincarnation, hair, etc. have no mention of Sikhism, that is enough of argument for talking about the irrelevancy. Capitals00 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Sikhism around the world

"I am a stranger to no one; and no one is stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all, (Guru Granth Sahib ji, p:1299). In the world of different religions, Sikh religion is one of the youngest religion among all of them. Like all the religions, Sikhism also has some religious disciplines, some traditions, values and a very strong history as well. According to a report of New York post, about half a million Sikhs have settled in United States over the past 20-30 years[]. But, alas more than 50% of Sikh students have been subjected to ridicule by classmate, workmates etc. Even though Sikh Americans are guaranteed civil liberties by the constitution of the United States of America. Moreover, according a recent research by Mr. Jasjit Singh, almost 75% of Sikh boys are harassed and bullied in American Schools. Many Sikh children in America are the first generation of their family to be born in American soil, and are proud of their American citizenship. Sikh children face special challenges in schools where they stand out because of their distinct appearance. Turban, uncut hair and beard and a sword cause the Sikh to stand out visually. The marital nature of Sikhism is also misunderstood by the onlooker. People unjustly criticize Sikhism due to lack of knowledge leading to misconceptions. People see our facial hair and think or feel uncomfortable, although a Sikh's appearance represents natural purity, being natural and loving one god is basic discipline of Sikhism. People see the kirpan (the sword) and feel unsafe but they don’t know that the sword is not for hurting anyone, it possesses a religious meaning for self-defense and a symbol being a fearless and self-dependent person. In addition to this, when people see our turban, they feel that we belong to a terrorist background like Bin Laden. But, our turban is our crown. If we search about the heritage of turban in google, you will have found that turban enhances the personality of an individual and also it shows purity and humbleness of the person. It is our second skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsing3 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Also in criticism of sikhism wikipedia, so many things are written wrong which is not at all true. Sikh.ekonkar (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ernest Trumpp

While Trumpp's comments on Sikhism may possibly be interesting from a historical perspective, it is anachronistic to say the least to use them as any sort of basis for an article entitled 'criticism of Sikhism'. He was a Christian missionary, working for the British East India Company, and as such in no position to offer any sort of neutral perspective, even by the (highly questionable) standards of the time. Using his works as some sort of source for statements regarding any sort of scholarly outlook on Sikhism as it is now perceived is not only wildly anachronistic but entirely untenable. 86.147.97.63 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Kaaba

Guru nanak ji never said about kaba is lingam why is it even mentioned here. Everying told here is wrong. -- Sikh.ekonkar (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I have removed the reference. It is said to be a "legend", written in a book in 1880.

A cursory glance suggests that the article is in poor shape, with loads of incomplete citations (without author, publisher etc.), WP:PRIMARY sources, and wishy-washy material. I suggest that you tag any problematic content as {{dubious}} and write an explanation here. But, you should not remove it without discussion unless there is a clear policy-based justification. Saying "it is false" or "wrong thing" is not good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Review and cleanup

Others, @Kautilya3: Sorry for the slow, a few weeks late response to the ping. I have started reviewing, cleaning up, and hope to expand this article based on scholarly sources. Comments and feedback welcome. The old version has been in a poor shape indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Undue and non-RS content

49.195.103.221: I have reverted your edits. Please explain how disputes about Dasam Granth is relevant to "Criticism of Sikhism"? Similarly, how is being or not being an "ethnoreligious group" a criticism (or where is the source stating it as a criticism of Sikhism)? You cited pages 138–9 of the J.S. Grewal source. Those pages, and ones preceding them, merely discuss the colonial era statistics, how the population of Sikhs grew from 2 millions in 1881 to 4+ millions in 1931, the diverse population of the Punjab region, etc; Grewal isn't criticizing Sikhism and therefore what you added appears to be OR. With your third edit you restored a paragraph about syncretism, with sources such as biblestudying.net, sikhcoalition.org etc. Such sources are not RS, please do not use such websites or newspapers. Please rely on peer-reviewed scholarship. How is syncretism, or not being one, a criticism? It is the peer-reviewed source that should analyze and reach the conclusions, not wikipedia editors. Please see WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WWIN and other content guidelines. Then explain how the content you are adding is relevant and meets our guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Dasam Granth is clearly criticised by sources. Sikh women in sources are clearly criticising perceived sexual/drug improprieties. Syncretism is clearly a point of criticism by muslim and hindus in these cites. They are claiming that sikhs have simply borrowed their beliefs. This is criticising sikh “inauthenticity”. Tbh I haven’t delved into sikh demographic criticism cites. But if sikhism is heavily skewed in its membership to punjabi indians then I don’t see why this can’t be criticism - much like for jews. I can clean out unscholarly cites. Thanks for input. —49.195.103.221 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You are interpreting or reading the sources incorrectly. A dispute about the authenticity of Dasam Granth – partly or wholly – is not a criticism of Sikhism or Dasam Granth. I do not understand your comments on sexual/drug improprieties. If you carefully read any peer-reviewed relevant scholarly source on Sikhism and primary texts of Sikh Gurus or Sikh historic leaders, they are clearly against abuse of women, against abuse of alcohol, against abuse of intoxicants of any kind. Similarly, syncretism isn't criticism. All religions, particularly sects therein, are syncretic to varying degrees either in their origin or their evolution (1). There is nothing wrong with syncretism, or with monotheism, or with polytheism, or with non-theism, or with atheism (and all these ideas have a long history in Indian religions, centuries before Islam). You write, "I don’t see why this can’t be criticism". Please read the content policies I linked above again. Wikipedia articles are not a summary of "what you see can be criticism". Wikipedia articles are meant to be a summary of published peer-reviewed reliable source(s). It is these scholars/sources that should state that conclusion and provide their context. If we can't verify that, it does not belong here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(ps to T/P watchers) My comments above should in no way be interpreted as accepting the claims of the IP above. For example, subtraditions of Sikhism are well known outside Punjab India, both on the subcontinent as well as the West (see Sikh Dharma brotherhood e.g.) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. You have mass removed critical content that is heavily cited. Your edits and comments imply you are personally invested in minimising the criticism of sikhism. You have removed hard-hitting content and added soft or inconsequential content. You cannot have a level of admiration for sikhism and be seen as a neutral editor and censor of other’s edits. I desire a third opinion. Thanks. —-49.195.103.221 (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself, per WP:CIR. You continue to add websites and newspapers such as thestar.com as sources. This is not okay. A relevant note from an admin, from another wikipedia-article-talk page:

Newspapers can be RS for news, but not RS for history / anthropology / etc

Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. – Nyttend

If you want to read what Dasam Granth is really stating, see Rinehart's peer-reviewed scholarly book. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a problem. If these cites are unworthy for inclusion then they can be removed without incident. However, you have mass removed HEAVILY sourced - reliable - content and replaced it with fuzzy inconsequential mumbo-jumbo that barely registers as criticism. This article is not to be white-washed by apologist. I will removed the cites you disapprove of regarding dasam granth, but I cannot watch idly by while you remove good, amply-sourced content. I still desire 3rd opinion. Thanks. 49.195.103.221 (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"Paris is the capital of France" can be heavily sourced, but it is undue here. Just like the disputes about Dasam Granth etc. Instead of evading my questions above, then projecting / alleging / attacking my potential motives, it would help if you explained which source, on which page, "criticizes Sikhism" in what you allege as "HEAVILY sourced". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Regarding dasam granth: i don’t know what you call this section of the paragraph: "fluid boundaries between polytheism and monotheism." Is this not criticism of claimed sikh monotheism? Or does it require to be prefixed with "criticism of the fluid boundaries between polytheism and monotheism."? I am struggling to understand your reasoning. Also, questioning the auhtorship is as much criticism as questioning the dubious authorship of other holy books like bible, quran etc. 49.195.103.221 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"Fluid boundaries between polytheism and monotheism" is just a statement of fact, on page 60 of Singh and Barrier source. To be more precise, it is a phrase in a long sentence that starts with "Perhaps". To cherrypick it out of its context, and claim it is criticism is strange. Criticism is a value-loaded term, one that implies disapproval or a form of judgment in the context of "faults, mistakes, omissions, demerits" of some kind (and, as discussed by the WP:RS). You merely restored an old version (pre-December 1), one Kautilya3 pinged me last month to review (see above). I have reviewed these sources. The deleted paras you are edit warring over, just combine non-RS and misrepresent the sources that are RS. If instead of questioning/attacking my motives, you were to identify the RS with page numbers, either those previously cited or new ones, I will collaborate with you to incorporate verifiable criticism related to any Sikh text (including Dasam Granth), demographics, syncretism and more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is constructive progress. Then let us agree upon one claim at a time. You mentioned the “fluid boundaries” cite; can I have the quote please?49.195.103.221 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The burden is on the one who adds/restores the content (WP:BURDEN). You should provide the quote(s) and briefly explain the context/reasons in the source as to why it should be included. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sans cooperation. Then i will content myself with the quote in-text. You provided no proof it isn’t legitimate criticism beyond stating the first word of the quoted sentence. That’s deceptive, evasive practice. Either state the whole quoted sentence or don’t remove content. Remember: you removed first.49.195.103.221 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That is neither helpful nor a constructive response. Here is the specific sentence apparently first added by 58.106.228.204, restored and edit warred over by User:Mawlidman and now you 49.195.103.221 have edit-war-restored it (cut-pasted below from your edit):

This has led to the text being denounced as having "fluid boundaries between polytheism and monotheism."

Let us examine these sources. You cherrypicked a phrase from Singh and Barrier, page 60, which I noted above is a long sentence. The sentence is " "Perhaps it is that the Dasam Granth, with its fluid boundaries between polytheism and monotheism, the masculine and feminine, answered the needs [...] which the Hindu pantheon afforded." There is no denouncement in that sentence or the context thereof. The second source is alleged to be Rinehart, pages 8 and 70. I do not see support there either. Page 8 is merely about Dasam Granth's relationship to wider Indic traditions and touches upon the authorship disputes, but again no denouncement. Page 70 of Rinehart is about Chandi Charitra, again no denouncement. Where do you see support for the denouncement or equivalent criticism? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I see the WP:OR quite clearly. IP, you are seeing small snippets on Google Books and making up your own idea of what those snippets mean. Those are your opinions, not those of the sources. Your tendency to edit war over them makes it that much worse. Your argumentation above is also very childish. If you are claiming that the source says something, it is your job to demonstrate it, not our job to demonstrate that you are wrong. I have now given you an ARBIPA alert. Any more of such conduct will be grounds for sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

ENOUGH. Talk about content, not about other editors.

Syncretism issue Hi. We have a recurring issue with a sikh editor who takes particular issue with his religion being criticised as a syncretism of hinduism and islam. I repeat the arguments for inclusion of the content below: “Cites clearly mention syncretism as a negative, critical point raised among pundits. Sikh journal simply acknowledges criticism; it doesn’t endorse.” “the section is very specific about criticism with mention of spontaneous and conscious syncretism by two stated academics. Readers can readily find these through word searches in the citations. There is no attempt to conceal what citations state.” I hope to hear some constructive inputs. --188.94.78.165 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC) I'm talking to the "recurrent issue" right here. You've almost monopolized the entirety of this talk page with your years-long axe-grinding (nearly the entirety of this page's existence, during which you've often pushed constant failed iterations of this very edit), and have been impervious to attempts by many others to teach you not to spin or inject your personal standards and beliefs into what is being said, or project motives onto others. Of course, this page is a perennial magnet for people with personal vendettas to write whatever they want, thinking it won't be verified. The fact that your current "mawlidman" account hasn't been blocked and your sockpuppetry via innumerable IPs hasn't been dealt with by now is confounding. In response to your edit summary (funny how that can be reproduced with ease), I simply redirect you to my own edits summaries, and re:syncretism, revisit the section directly above, among others. Sapedder (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC) @(talk) easy for you to throw around accusations. You are no impartial editor yourself. You, and fellow sikh vigilantes, consistently remove critical information that wounds your thin-skinned sikh heart without an ounce of evidence, beside your textbook claim that sources don’t support what is added. You don’t provide quotes from sources but make sweeping, unfounded claims. You removed very specific detail without bothering to search the citations. Your above response was solely devoted to character assassination. Not once did you address the specifics of the most recent edit-conflict content. Wikipedia is hear to liberate people from slavish devotion using facts. Please tell me where the sources don’t say what you desire to remove? 188.94.75.178 (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Again and forever trying to shift the burden, I see. The simple specifics and conditions have already been set out for you repeatedly, through your exchange of edit summaries with several editors going back several months, so there is no need to repeat myself over and over. You know by now what is required to be presented, but understandably you are clearly going to avoid it, and continue on your way, fight yet more editors, and earn a pretty green header in my absence, I see. (Case in point, you were just asked for proof of consensus, to which you offered this rant. You seem unable to honestly present evidence there either). While we're at it, let me reproduce WP:NOR, WP:POV, and WP:SYNTH yet again, as a span of years apparently isn't enough time to learn. As for your general tone "hear," keep digging. Sapedder (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mass vandalism, efforts to blank and delete large sections of the page, POV article, unsourced claims

This article should be reverted to a more stable version (early 2020) as last talk page discussions were in Dec 2019 and be fully protected for a short period of time Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC).

The last consenus efforts for this article was on Dec 2019, in the last 2 years the page has gone through numerous, numerous efforts to blank the page or delete large sections of the page. For example 1, an edit war like this continued with more than 10 reverts taking place in early to mid 2021 regarding this section. 2. This user removed 20,000 bytes of information 3 and then made numerous more edits removing up to 15,000 bytes of info. This is just a few examples out of many dozens upon dozens of examples.

This article should be restored to an early 2020 version[[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Sikhism&oldid=1057359811]] (my edit restoring article to an early 2020 version), which is far better sourced, has numerous sources to back up claims, is far more comprehensive and is actually relevant to the topic at hand. MehmoodS keeps making bad faith edits and restoring the article.

The current version of the article has numerous issues, the lead paragraph has no sources whatsoever. Sentence from lead paragraph "Guru Nanak rejected ritualistic worshiping and encouraged belief in one true God, Waheguru.". Many sections are quite clearly POV statements such as the one under "Religious Hybridization"- "Sikhism has a universal appeal and speaks equally to Hindus and Muslims, encouraging all to become better human beings". Statement like this "Tiwari has generally been critical of every religion that does not fit the mould of vedic philosophy, from Christianity & Islam to other Indian faiths like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. He was critical of Sanatana dharma as having denigrated from the original vedantic philosophy and even disliked the word Hindu." on the article has no source. " states Myrvold, are no different from idol worship by Hindus and is, therefor, not unique to Sikhism. Such rituals moulds "meanings, values and ideologies" The article has numerous spelling and grammar issues like this. Under the hair cutting section of the article- "With many Caucasian whites, Hispanics, African Americans, and East Asian people embracing the Sikh faith, following the teachings of Guru Granth and keeping long unshorn hair, more people are becoming aware of the principles of Sikhism." has no source once again and is POV edit. Under the "Martiality" section of the current article- it states "The Sikh faith was born out of a rejection of the ritualistic practices of Hinduism, its faith in multiple Gods and demi-gods and a caste-based society that gave no rights to women or lowly born. It traced its root to mystic universalists who tried to transcend Hinduism and Islam alike. But increased persecution by the Mughals, particularly the emperor Jahangir and Aurangzeb, led to the martyrdoms of multiple gurus and leaders. This helped the evolution of Sikhism as not just a spiritual movement, but a clearly defined martial brotherhood that aimed to provide protection to Hindu faith, women and lower castes of the society and gain independence from Mughal oppression in India." yet the source provided only mentions that a martial brotherhood emerged in order to fight the Mughals and gaining independence from Mughal tyranny. This is an example of puffery and pov edits.

Another statement in current article- "However, political alignments since the independence of India have led to political leaders wooing lower caste vote-banks that led to carving out a new sect called Ravidassia religion" which is a bold statement to make and the source provided (a CNN article) makes no mention of this whatsoever.

This paragraph- "A similar conflict in the 1970s between the Sikhs and the Sant Nirankari sect, a 20th-century offshoot of the Nirankari tradition, led to accusations by some Sikhs that the Sant Nirankaris were heretical and sacrilegious.[38] Contrary to mainstream Sikhism, the Sant Nirankari leader had declared himself a guru with his own scripture in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib, and added heretical variations of several Sikh rituals and symbols, including replacing the Sikh institution of the Panj Pyare council with the sat sitare, and replacing amrit, a mixture of mixed sugar and water administered to Khalsa initiates, with charan amrit, water used to wash his feet.[38] They were also accused of unprovoked criticism of the Gurus and Sikh scripture, as the Sant Nirankari leader had written in his own scripture that he alone, of all religions' prophets, had agreed to go back to Earth to spread God's true message, with the understanding that God agreed that anyone who was blessed by him would go to heaven regardless of their deeds, and that analysis of the Guru Granth Sahib had fruitless, using the metaphor of churning butter yielding no cream, and of being funded by the government and economic elites to undermine the community.[38][39]" Sant Nirankaris a post religious/universal brotherhood/humanist sect that do not consider themselves Sikhs, so not sure why this entire paragraph is even in the article.

One of the most egregious examples of issues in the current article- "Pashaura Singh was afforded due opportunity by the Akal Rakhta and other Sikh scholars on his comparative method (borrowed from Trumpp) and his hypothesis of the draft theory was rejected as forcibly injecting undated texts dated much beyond the timeline of the Adi Granth to which he failed to bring a credible response to his academic peers." Trying to discredit an academic and the source provided in the article makes no mention of forcibly injecting undated texts like the article claims. Article makes no commentary on the quality of the academic's work or his methodolgy whatsoever. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reverting the whole article back to old revision of year or two ago, removing all reliable sources and information provided by other contributors of the article just because this user personally has issue with, isn't valid reason. MehmoodS (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Current version of the article sorely lacks sources and many of the sources it does have either contradict or do not even mention what the article is claiming. The 2020 version of the article is much better sourced and far less POV. Admins are free to go through the edit history of the article and see how much vandalism and removing of sourced information has taken place in the past 2-3 yrs. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Also "The concept of Sikh langar (free community kitchen) and liberal donations has helped spread Sikh philosophy into war torn Syria, Iraq and disaster plagued regions where organizations such as Khalsa-Aid have done exemplary voluntary work." no source, POV edit, promotion of org. Yet another issue with the article Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing in the article was salvageable. I am afraid that blanking large sections of the page is the only appropriate action — stub-ed. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Our article on McLeod is written by me and I was stunned to see this section on an article concerning "criticism of Sikhism." TrangaBellam (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3: - Pinging since I came across your name in the t/p history. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers 20:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I just did this to close the edit request. We clearly need further discussion to see where consensus is. Firefangledfeathers 20:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TrangaBellam: well constructive editing. The article is good enough now. Article went through various vandalism and trolls over the year without anyone noticing and much of the content was irrelevant to criticism and more POV. Kudos for the changes. MehmoodS (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Page currently protected. Determining what version to place at.

In response to a WP:ANEW case, I rolled the page back to before the current edit war. Looking at the edits, it appears that there may be a better version than the 23 November one. @Suthasianhistorian8: Is [10] this version acceptable to you? —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that version is much too short and the opening paragraph needs to be trimmed to the original 1 or 2 sentences, so both criticisms of the faith and criticisms of those criticism should be included. Current version is good for now Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8: Thank you for your comment that you oppose moving forward to a different version. I will leave it at the last stable version until discussion produces a new consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: My point of view and of other user TrangaBellam. This version you mentioned is acceptable. [11]. The version you reverted to went through changes that were irrelevant to the article by IPs and others. TrangaBellam who originally created the article noticed the vandalism and removed them. Therefore this version is most reliable and needs to be reverted to this one that you mentioned.. [12] MehmoodS (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a very obvious case of WP: IDL. Removing 90% of the article, many relevant to the topic at hand and backed up by numerous sources and attributed to various academics like the ones in my most recent edit is unjustifiable. The lead paragraph in your request version is completely unsourced and contains many dubious claims. Please explain how my most recent edit were not criticisms and irrelevant? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: TrangaBellam did not create the article. Not sure what MehmoodS means by that. Tranga registered in 2020 and the earliest edit on this page was in 2013 Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I misread Tranga's comment earlier. TrangaBellam created an article on McLeod and the content from his page was plagiarized by some editor over to Criticism of Sikhism. @TrangaBellam: you can clarify it better. Also most of the changes are completely irrelevant and dubious on article criticism of Sikhism. That is why all the dubious changes were removed. MehmoodS (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Mehmood, you keep repeating the claim about irrelevancy over and over again, but have not once explained why. Could you please do so? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

already did but you were too busy submitting baseless reports on forum. Reverts by Tranga explained it well too. MehmoodS (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not explained anything at all. Please feel free to do so on the section below. You could go and ahead and copy and paste your explanation you made earlier to make it easier, but you did not provide any explanation whatsoever quite obviously from looking at the talk page Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam you say created the McLeod article, but https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/TrangaBellam but I couldn't find this on your articles created section on your user page Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

They are not the creator but that are by far the primary author: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/W._H._McLeod Firefangledfeathers 00:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally, "with all due respect". Hopefully you could have taken this route in the first place. I am not sure what explanation you are looking for when its clear from the statements made earlier. I do not have the time and energy to go back and copy and paste the remarks for you. MehmoodS (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

MehmoodS This isn't how consenus is formed. You cant just keep saying "Im not going to give you an explanation on why I feel your proposed changes are bad" every single time and expect anyone to take you seriously. All I'm asking for you is to provide an explanation for why you reverted my edits and why you feel my changes are "irrelevant". So far your remarks have been terse and no supporting evidence was provided. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

When did I say "Im not going to give you an explanation on why I feel your proposed changes are bad"? How can you be taken seriously when you failed to comply in the first place to indulge in civil discussion? And now you are interested in concensus. Whereas Pashaura Singh is concerned. He is a controversial personality who has also apologized for wrong claims made by him. Such as look at this [13] where not only he pleaded guilty but also apologized through a letter. MehmoodS (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

i will get back to rest of the discussion later. Busy and can't multitask right now. Thanks. Other editors are welcome to provide their opinion meanwhile. Most of them have been pinged. MehmoodS (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok but you should just reply to my proposed redraft down below. It doesnt even include Pashura Singh. It just includes academics' claims that the GGS is treated as an idol, which is quite frankly true, I've witnessed the rituals concerning the GGS firsthand though that's besides the point Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Its not true as there is no worship of GGS that takes place, from what I have witnessed. Its due to lack of understanding and misrepresentation of the ritual. Book is revered as the holy book and given respect as such but yes that is besides the point.MehmoodS (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I will get back with rest of discussion. Hopefully others can provide their opinions as well. Sapedder noticed you also contributed. MehmoodS (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

MehmoodS: Excuse the late reply. I agree with the current measures being taken with the page. What some people don't seem to understand is that users themselves can't call something a criticism, the authors themselves have to qualify it as such. On that basis alone, the article needs a look. Unilaterally pushing the page two years back is egregious, so my efforts were limited to the tone of the page and adding accuracy and context. But some like the IP a few months ago (which was why the page already had a level of protection earlier this year), as well as now, simply have other motivations. On top of its poor, stilted English, the Dec 2019 version was filled with personal opinion intertwined with sources, was when this article became a free-for-all, and was the single worst version of the article, clearly unacceptable to all but the most POV-pushing types.

It would be good to have this article as tightly regulated as certain other Criticism articles rightfully are, as they all tend to be troll magnets, good to finally see some rigor being enforced here. btw, I think premodern sectarian opinions like Trumpp's and Tiwari's are questionable in and of themselves for inclusion here without historical context. Sapedder (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redraft of article

Sikhism has often been criticized by non-Sikhs regarding texts, practice, and societal norms, but Sikhs and other scholars find these criticism to be flawed and based on a biased and poor understanding, especially of the multiple languages used in the Sikh scriptures.

Practices

Since early 20th-century, Farquhar and other scholars state that the matha tekna (bowing down and touching one's head to the floor) by Sikhs at the door of Gurdwara or before the Guru Granth Sahib, and other daily rituals such as putting the scripture to bed (sukhasan) in a bedroom (sachkhand), waking it up every morning, carrying it in a procession and re-opening it (prakash) in major Sikh Gurdwaras is a form of idolatry.[1][2] Late 20th-century comments acknowledge that modern Sikh temples lack idols, but the widespread devotional worship of the Guru Granth Sahib in these temples has drawn questions that the Sikh scripture is being ritually treated like an idol.[3][4] According to them, idolatry is any form of bowing or worship of any object, paying homage to any icon, any ritualized direction or house of worship. It is a form of bibliolatry, where the Guru Granth Sahib is the eternal living guru treated with rituals of respect similar to how people of other faiths treat an idol or statue or image.[1] According to Kristina Myrvold, every Sikh scripture copy is treated like a person and venerated with elaborate ceremonies. In major Sikh temples, these rituals are devotional worship and are a daily means of "merit bestowing ministrations".[5] These daily ritual ministrations and paying of homage for the scripture by Sikhs, states Myrvold, is not unique to Sikhism. It moulds "meanings, values and ideologies" and creates a framework for congregational worship, states Myrvold, that is found in all major faiths.[2]

Dayanand Saraswati – the founder of the missionary Arya Samaj movement who interpreted Hinduism as originally a non-idolatrous monotheistic religion, considered Sikhism as one of the cults of Hinduism. Like Hindus who he called as "degenerate, idolatrous", he criticized the Sikhs for worshipping the Guru Granth scripture as an idol like a mithya (false icon).[6] Just like foolish Hindus who visit, bow, sing and make offerings in Hindu temples to symbols of goddess, said Saraswati, foolish Sikhs visit, bow, sing and make gifts in Sikh gurdwaras to the symbolic Sikh scripture. He condemned both the Hindus and the Sikhs as idolators. According to Kenneth Jones, in late 19th-century a few Hindus and Sikhs agreed with Saraswati, but many found his commentary as infuriating.[6]

Scholars such as Eleanor Nesbitt state the Nanaksar Gurdwaras practice of offering food cooked by Sikh devotees to the Guru Granth Sahib, as well as curtaining the scripture during this ritual, as a form of idolatry. Baba Ishar Singh of this international network of Sikh temples has defended this practice because he states that the Sikh scripture is more than paper and ink.

And end the article at that. MehmoodS. Please explain how the above is not criticisms and irrelevant? I find that hard to believe Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is quick and easy solution. Though not convinced with the section but we can revert the changes back to last revision to this one [14] which includes the edits by you and TrangaBellam. If this works for you, we can bring conclusion to consensus.MehmoodS (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Suthasianhistorian8, how do you conclude that Farquhar or Myrvold, or Nesbitt are "criticizing" Sikhism? Criticism is quite a loaded word and please quote the relevant lines. We cannot engage in synthesis: XYZ has criticized Sikhism for idolatry + ABC notes certain Sikh traditions to be idolatrous != ABC criticizes Sikhism.

Dayanand Saraswati's polemics belong at Hinduism and Sikhism where it might be placed in the proper sociopolitical context and anti-Hindu tracts by Sikhs can be mentioned. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that belongs here is the heckling of multiple academics by a group of Indian Sikh scholars who view themselves as guardian angels of Sikhism. But the title of the article will probably need to be changed. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I am in agreement with this change of keeping just the academia section on the article. MehmoodS (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Why do Dayanand's comments not belong here exactly? They are a very explicit and obvious criticism of Sikh practices and are therefore ancillary to this article. In fact, you removed 90% of the article's content yet ironically kept the only section that doesn't belong here (academia) which is not relevant here at all. You even prove this yourself by saying that in order to keep the academia section the title of the article needs to be changed (it needs to become an entirely different article altogether). This is ridiculous! Has anybody changed/removed the "Criticism of Islam/Hinduism/Judaism/Buddhism" articles here on Wikipedia? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC) How are conflicts between academics related to this article, this article like other criticisms of X religion articles are about theology, scriptures and contemporary or historical practices, the moral character of religious figures. Not about some authors! I'm quite honestly baffled at the ridiculousness of your suggestions Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at various article such as "Criticism of Christianity" "Criticism of Islam" "Criticism of Hinduism", this article should follow the general outline of those as well Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Suthasianhistorian8, you need to indent your posts and read what others are writing. I said something about synthesis and the place where Saraswati's polemics belong.

A hundred and one Islamic court-chroniclers/travelogues/preachers have written anti-Hindu tracts from early medieval times to the current century. Why do you find our page on criticism of Hinduism to not mention a single of them? Why is the page so outright shabby mentioning nothing beyond caste and Sati? Because as a longstanding editor remarked, I know that such an article should exist, but I don't know of any Wikipedian capable of writing it. For Sikhism no outright evil in the form of caste or sati is theologically sanctioned, increasing our difficulties.

Jones (p. 135) mentions a very important line at the offset, that you skipped: For Dayanand, Sikhism was one of the innumerable cults of Hinduism, to be noted, refuted, and then forgotten. I urge you to think on that line and read the changing dynamics between Samajis and Sikhs, as the former gained increasing prominence. Context is important.

The academia section was added by Ms Sarah Welch and I agree with her. What is perceived as criticism of Sikhism by a group of influential conservative Sikhs (affiliated with the religious order) and how they respond to it belongs here. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam I mean anyone can add critcisms of Hinduism by those 101 Islamic court chroniclers/preachers as long as it's attributed to those individual academics/chroniclers/preachers/scholar if they wish to. This is the standard for all of Wikipedia and is how the Criticism of Christianity/Islam articles are written as well. The problem with your version of the article is you removed 90% of the actually relevant content and only included the academia section which is beyond ridiculous and seems like a very obvious case of WP: IDL (I dont like it) and amounts to vandalism. The original academic section on this article was also poorly written and full of lies. You are also completely misrepresenting the WP: Synthesis issue. That's not what's going on at all. I will discuss this tomorrow as I'm a bit busy now.

Also if the Criticism of Hinduism article mentions sati and caste (both practices traditonally attributed to hinduism although sati isn't mentioned or enshrined in hindu texts at all as far as my understanding, I'm not sure what hindu texts say about caste), then is that not equivalent to mentioning contemporary practices within sikhism like bibliolatry/excessive veneration of the sikh holy book in this article? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Please try to obtain such a consensus in favor at Talk:Criticism of Hinduism. The extent of enshrinement of Sati in Hindu texts is quite debatable and I fail to see the equivalence with bibliolatry in Sikhism. If scholars comment such bibliolatry to run afoul of Sikhism and/or criticize such practices, please do mention them.

If you need to add Saraswati's content, you need to integrate them in context of contemporary politics in Punjab and without cherry-picking scholars or synthesizing arguments. Same for colonial scholars. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Since you are harping on about removal of 90% content, maybe explain how McLeod is criticizing Sikhism when he applies (a) higher criticism to Sikh texts or (b) critiques Singh Sabha scholars? Except in that they were perceived as "criticism of Sikhism" by a group of influential conservative Sikhs, whose details you are so keen to remove.

What is the relevance of the section on "Hair cutting?" Which of the scholars, cited in the section, criticizes this practice or Sikhism for this practice?

In a similar vein, please elucidate on the relevance of the section on "Martiality" or "Religious hybridisation." Not a single line in these sections has any criticism to offer.

The entire section on "other sects" is aimless blabbering. What am I—a reader interested in criticisms of Sikhism—to do with the daily duties of a Sikh, as enlisted in early rahitnamas? Or sectarian conflicts with the Nirankaris? As I wrote while removing the section, there is a potential section to be drafted on casteism in Sikhism (and Ravidassias) but this is not it.

The section on Ernest Trumpp was at-least tried to be integrated in context. Trilochan Singh fails the rigors of historical scholarship but Ballantyne is all decent. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I support removing the 'Hair cutting' section. I don't see anything in the cited sources to suggest criticism of the religion. The 'Religious hybridisation' section has been a battleground for a long time. The current version is untenable, and the article would be stronger without it. No comment on the rest yet. Firefangledfeathers 05:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, thanks. I will appreciate your views on the McLeod and Martiality sections, in particular. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been working up some at least semi-informed views. It will be some time yet, I imagine. Would it help to post a call for input at any related Wikiprojects? Firefangledfeathers 13:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Updated Redraft of Bibliolatry section with Citations

Sikhism has often been criticized by non-Sikhs regarding texts, practice, and societal norms, but Sikhs and other scholars find these criticism to be flawed and based on a biased and poor understanding, especially of the multiple languages used in the Sikh scriptures.

Bibliolatry

Numerous 20th century Christian academics or scholars have either written polemics or noted the apparent practice of bibliolatry within Sikh traditions.

Dayananda Saraswati, founder of the Arya Samaj, a monotheistic Hindu reform movement that was critical of the idolatrous and polytheistic traditions in contemporary Hinduism criticized certain Sikh elements such as the practice of worshipping the Guru Granth Sahib as an idol. He found the personification of the holy scripture as a living guru to be analogous to idol worship. In his Satyarth Prakash he commented "They (Sikhs) do not worship idols, but they worship the Grantha Saheb which is as good as idolatry. Just as idol worshippers have set up their shop in order to get their livelihood, so have these people. Just as the priests of temples ask their devotees to see the goddess and offer presents to her, similarly the Sikhs worship the book and present gifts to it". Kenneth Boa, a 21th century Christian evangelical preacher has claimed that Sikh religion has produced the "ultimate form of bibliolatry" and noted the apparent contradiction and discordance between the rejection of idolatry in Sikh scriptures and the treatment of the Sikh scripture as a living person. Kristina Mryvold, an assistant professor in Sweden, has stated that "by treating the Guru Granth Sahib as a living guru, the Sikhs have maybe taken the concept of a sacred scripture much further than any other religious community". She noted that Sikhs treat and speak of their holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, "as an agentive entity endued with personhood" and regard it as a "spiritualized person of exalted status", a practice she claims is unique to the Sikh faith.

---

TrangaBellam I think this is a fair version of the article, this redraft is much shorter and succinct and only includes 1 section. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

First of, I do not see criticism. On the other hand, the reference by Jones do not even mention that Saraswati was criticizing. Also TrangaBellam earlier said in regarding Saraswati, which you missed: "Jones (p. 135) mentions a very important line at the offset, that you skipped: For Dayanand, Sikhism was one of the innumerable cults of Hinduism, to be noted, refuted, and then forgotten. I urge you to think on that line and read the changing dynamics between Samajis and Sikhs, as the former gained increasing prominence. Context is important.The academia section was added by Ms Sarah Welch and I agree with her. What is perceived as criticism of Sikhism by a group of influential conservative Sikhs (affiliated with the religious order) and how they respond to it belongs here." Except for Academia section, I do not see any other section of any relevance on this article. MehmoodS (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you copy pasted Tranga's earlier comment. But firstly, why is Dayanand saying Sikhism was a sect/cult of Hinduism relevant in this section in particular? That comment can be added to another new section (such as religious hybridisation) but it doesn't belong in the Bibliolatry section. Take a look at other "Criticism of X religion" articles, none of them have just an academic section where just HOW criticism of religion is perceived and on the personal lives of various academics. This is becoming really ridiculous at this and very frustrating having to address nonsensical points over and over again. And please tell me how saying "Christians should look at how Sikhs are treating/worshipping their book and be warned not to mimic them" or the Anglican Theological Review saying that the Sikh veneration of its book is bibliotrary is fundamentalism and extremism....not criticism? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Point of copying and pasting Tranga's statement was as a reminder about what was said earlier and I stated that it was said by Tranga. So not sure what wasn't clear about it. I just provided my opinion and no where did I mention or intent to state about any inclusion of comment by Dayanand in any section. The overall section isn't needed at all. I do not see any ism in the content above. Others can provide their opinion as well. MehmoodS (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Again not sure why polemics against bibliolatry in the Sikh traditions considered not relevant to an article called "Criticism of Sikhism". By the way bibliolatry in itself has a negative connotation, it literally means book worship or idolatry of a book. But I would like to know how Dayananda's comments are not criticisms, how James Pratt's comments are not criticism, how the Anglican Theological Review's comments are not criticsm, how Kenneth Boa's comments are not criticism like you are claiming. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Criticism is disapproval based on perceived faults or mistakes. So what do you see the comments above perceiving and disapproving? MehmoodS (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Academia section exemplifies criticism. MehmoodS (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Read the quotes in the citations. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this over and over again MehmoodS Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Suthasianhistorian8, you need to read what others are stating and design responses without stating the same things over and over.

Who is Kenneth Boa and why is his polemics due enough to be included? Has his polemics been published by a reputed press or subject to notice by academics? I pose the same question for Leicester Crosby Lewis. John Robson and J. N. Farquhar were colonial missionaries and their oriental commentaries on Sikhism need to be added and contextualized, iff modern academics have taken note of them at all. I see no such evidence. I have little idea about John Clarke Arther but in all probabilities, he did not edit any volume of "The Panjab Past and Present" published by Punjab University in postcolonial India.

You are allowed to add Saraswati but must place his commentaries in the proper sociopolitical context and explain how it will not be a POV-fork of well-drafted Hinduism and Sikhism.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam The John Clarke Arthur issue has been updated, the original was from "The Review of Religions" by Columbia University Press that was later republished by Punjab University. I'm willing to compromise on the removal of Kenneth Boa, the rest can stay with added context of the colonial missionary backgrounds of commentators such as Farqhuar. As for Saraswati, what context do you think is further required? Enough context has already been provided. And I'm sorry but I'm not falling for your fear mongering WP: POV Fork you just said most likely as an attempt to censor information in this article. Saraswati or the Arya Samaj are not even mentioned once in the article you just listed! And even then the information about Saraswati posted here is far more befitting here than it would be at a redirect to that article seeing the current state of that article. You are free to add whatever additional context you think is required for Saraswati. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Dont remove 90% of the article like you did last time until consenus is made Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You are going to end up sanctioned, if you choose to engage with evasive replies. And, it is not very hard to understand our indentation rules, right? You add one colon for each reply; thus, if my post has one colon, your next reply should have two colons, and so on. This creates a pleasing "staircase" which makes it easy to see at a glance where one person's comment stops and another's starts.

Why are comments by Leicester Crosby Lewis, John Robson, James Pratt, and J. N. Farquhar due for inclusion? Which modern academics have noted of these criticisms/polemics/commentaries? As against the ones by Trumpp.

"The Review of Religions" by Columbia University Press? Please cite other bibliographic details. I am quite confident that CUP is yet to publish any such work. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellamOnce again you are sending out useless redirects as you did before with WP: Fork. Firstly JA Clarke was a professor at Yale University. He is a modern academic. Secondly, you do not understand what due for inclusion entails because these christian missionaries comprise the majority viewpoint regarding "Criticism of Sikhism". Your argument for due inclusion would stand if the article at hand was "Sikhism" but not at "Criticism of Sikhism", because due inclusion means that a minority viewpoint should not be given undue weight like if the "Earth" article was full of commentary by flat earth acadmeics/authors, that would not work, but those same authors would have due right at an article like "Support for Flat Earth or Flat Earth theories". Please actually read your redirects before wasting other people's time Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

And please add whatever context you think needs to be added for Saraswati, you keep repeating that context needs to be added but have never specified anything Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we do not source our article on Flat Earth Theory or Intelligent Design from all sorts of fringe blogs - only those aspects of fringe which have been discussed by MSM and academics make it to the article.

Who is this JA Clarke, a professor at Yale University? You are refusing to provide correct citations and are now making random claims without evidence.

I have specified the context numerous times but you lack the competence to grasp it. M. Hawley and Pashaura Singh note that Jones examines the religious apologetics of the Arya Samaj in the context of religious polemic with various Sikh sabhas [and] the process of identity formation in late-19th century Punjab. Situated in the context of Sikh, Hindu, and Muslim polemics, the author argues Sikh sabhas and Arya Samajes sought to define and defend themselves, and in the process created new ideological systems that effectively served to distinguished and separate one from the other. Maybe, spend a thought or two on why they did not summarize Jones as a work on Samaji criticism of Sikh traditions and vice-versa? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, can you locate any work titled The Review of Religions by one John Clarke Arthur, who was a professor at Yale University and is a modern academic. The book has been published by Columbia University Press and (apparently) contains criticisms of Sikh traditions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam [15] Farquhar was a professor of comparative religion at University of Manchester. [16] (go to the beginning it will say James B. Pratt PhD Professor of Philospohy)James Pratt was a PhD holder. [17] JC Archer was a professor at Yale University. So please stop these ridiculous comparisons to academics with flat eath blogs. Are you even listening to what you're saying? And the context of the conflict between Arya Samaj and Singh Sabha can be added. Im okay with it Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellamCheck this [18] Lol. Now please stop making bad faith accusations and actually work towards a consensus, the sooner the better so we can move on from this Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Regarding "Crosby" from the Anglican Review, the author of that section was actually "Leonard Hodgson" [19] as you can see the Section on Comparative Religion 45-111 was written by him while Crosby was the editor. [20] Hodgson is a University of Oxford professor. I will update the citation accordingly Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam [21] Read the Judaism, Islam and Hinduism section on those pages. Includes commentary by Vivekananda, Ram Mohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati (same guy), Ram Swarup (Hindu philosopher), Shlomo ibn Aderet ( a 13th century) Jewish rabbi, David Flusser ( a 20th century professor of Christanity and Judaism), Stepehen Wise another 20th century rabbi, muslim scholars. Before throwing out more ridiculous accusations and useless redirects, go and read that article first Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

STOP PINGING ME IN EVERY REPLY.

Farquhar was a Christian missionary, foremost. Even if he was a scholar in the fag end of his life, such old works are not considered as reliable sources per longstanding precedent at WT:INB. Even if we consider such works to be reliable, where is he criticizing Sikhism? That is some leap of logic.

You started with John Clarke Arthur. Then, he became JA Clarke. Now, he is JC Archer. Quite fascinating.

Now, can you finally state what is the exact work of this century-old Indologist, that you propose to use? And other relevant details like page numbers?

Hodgson is a (quite-old) theologian and historian of the early Church. What is his expertise on Sikh traditions? What is the context of his statement; where he is criticizing the Sikh practice of bibliolatry? Don't write articles from GBook snippets. Why will we even use a 110 year old source?

Pratt was indeed an "academic" (as we say it, these days) but even a contemporary review noted it to contain the most powerful missionary apologetic. So, unless Pratt's 106-years old criticisms have been discussed by modern scholars, we cannot just add them.

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. I can point you to the page on Criticism of Hinduism. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam In the meantime, I will be adding Saraswati's comments (with Arya Samaj and Singh Sabha conflict included) like you said, Myrvold's comments, John Clarke Archer's comments (yes I made a typo but I conclusively proved he was a modern day professor of comparative religion in yale university). Also why did you remove information when a consensus wasn't formed TWO TIMES now? I dont agree with you removing McLeod's comments on the janamsakhis so they should be brought back before the page was locked. And yes I will ping up (not every time, but within the same time frame of me replying so that consensus can be achieved quicker) Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

At-least two other editors agree with me. I don't care enough about you and weren't you proposing to restrict the article to the single paragraph? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Consenus can change WP: Consensus. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Other sects" and "Martiality" should go. The rest should stay for now 09:57, Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I need to clarify that my intention thus far has been to update the bibliolatry section of the article, NOT to restrict to the article to one section only. Although I can see why the confusion might have been there Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Tranga, the preview of the cambridge paper you linked does say that the US sent missionaries to India for missionary work but it doesn't say anything about Pratt being the most powerful missionary apologetic. And no I'm not going to pay 25 dollars or whatever to access the full paper. If you're going to make claims, at least link previews that mention what is said without there being a paywall Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

McLeod

How is McLeod's statement that janamsakhis are fake or improbabale/embellished not criticism? This is the equivalent of saying Jesus's crucifixion or virgin birth was fake or Muhammad's journey to the moon was fake or the ramayana was fake Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The academic consensus on MbH is that it was not composed by a single person—as is popularly believed in a majority of Hindu traditions—but underwent gradual development, over the course of centuries. There is also an academic consensus that the events of Ramayana have no correspondence with historical events. Hindutva aligned academics have mounted their usual tirades against these scholars and deemed them to be anti-Hindu - so, shall we mention them in our article on Criticism of Hinduism? JJ, this might be of interest.

You need to show that reliable scholars have interpreted McLeod's application of higher criticism to Sikh texts and critique of Singh Sabha scholars as "criticism of Sikhism." Then and only then, will they belong here. I had already made this point but your replies continue to be evasive. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly dont accuse someone else of being evasive when you're comparing oxford/yale university professors to flat earth fringe blogs, when you refuse to understand how quoting and contexualizting and attributing works, when you falsely accuse someone else of using "gb snippets" while linking a preview hidden behind a 25 dollar paywall, when you mindlessly redirect to random pages that have no bearing whatsoever without even having read them first. Secondly his statements have been interpreted by numerous Sikh scholars to be criticism of the faith and derogoratry thus your burden of proof which you yourself imposed, has been satisfied. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It was you who invoked the Flat Earth argument for the first time to argue why any random figure criticizing Sikhism can be mentioned without more stringent conditions.

WP:PAYWALL allows using paywalled sources, visit a library.

Numerous Sikh Scholars - The equivalent of Hindutva cottage industry in Sikh Studies? Please find me a single peer-reviewed publication out of any reputed academic press holding McLeod's comments to be criticism of the faith. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I only invoked the flat earth analogy because it was obvious you didn't read it. The analogy was there in the original page which is why I used it. You were also thoroughly proven that the citations were from oxford/yale/manchester university professors. And I dont see how perceived criticism of a faith and outrage from the scholars of said faith doesn't belong to an article literally about criticism. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

They might be oxford/yale/manchester university professors but I have noted (multiple times) that they don't criticize Sikhism in the first place. It is you who engage in some form of original research to arrive at such a conclusion.

Just a day back, you were keen to remove the academia section because it did not belong here? So, you are effectively implying that perceived criticisms belong at the article but their BS, as held by multiple academics, cannot be called out? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I was against the fact that you blanked the entire page but only included the academia section which is beyond ridiculous and no other page similar to this has anything like that where they completely leave out criticism of theology, practices, scriptures, morality and only focus on the personal lives of academics!! I've told you this again and again and you refuse to listen Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

After learning more about McLeod, I'm in agreement that the section should be removed or perhaps integrated into the academic section. Either is acceptable Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Disputed sources

If somebody has a paper copy of a book or something they want to cite as evidence, it is easy enough to take an image and share it via an image-sharing site such as imgbb.com. The files can be password-protected or time-limited so that you don't run into copyright violation problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

For the ones, we have full citation of:

Do you think this ($ 418; last line) to be a "criticism of Sikhism"? Can we deem it to be so, if no modern scholar has treated it as a "criticism" (which would be quite peculiar)?

Or this as "criticism of Sikhism." To me, this reads like routine (oriental) commentary.

Or this? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your standards for what should be included in this article is ridiculous. The fact that you included the third source which I already told you was wrriten by Leonard Hodgson (Oxford Uni professor) where he literally states that "this is fundamentalism in extremis" solidifies the fact that you're a bad faith editor. Your standards for what should be included in this article is that a modern day scholar needs to EXPLICILTY comment that another scholar's obvious criticism of a faith was indeed criticism. Read other criticism of x religion article, that's not how this works at all. But you refuse to listen time and time again. You keep pointing to "Criticism of Hinduism" which is an article that you supposedly control or are the main arbitrator of what gets included or not, rather than an outsider article whose content has been decided by other wikipedians Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

[T]his is fundamentalism in extremis translates to [T]his is fundamentalism, taken to the extremes.

Now, about the word "fundamentalism." In 21st c., the word has an obviously pejorative connotation but such was not always the case. The literal definition of fundamentalism is A form of a religion [..] that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture and usage for most of the 20th century was to denote the literal meaning. Hodgson wrote the work at a time when The Fundamentals were being published. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It will be better if you actually start visiting a library and reading the sources, you cite. The paragraph in question is from a book review by Arthur Haire-Forster. Ridiculous. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, "fundamentalism in the extreme" is certainly a criticism. It implies that reason has been abandoned. The first citation (paragraph 418) is also a criticism because it says that no suitable substitute for idolatory has been found (and thereby bibliolatory has been resorted to). This is more than just treating a text with reverence, which I suppose all religions do. For the second citation, which I can't see enough of, I can't offer any opinion. It depends on what is around it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• In such a case, I disagree and will take the RfC way out. To treat Farquahar's comments as criticism, is to impose our editorial judgement on it. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Farquhar

Is the following paragraph sourced to J. N. Farquhar, considerable as criticism of Sikhism ?

• The tragedy in the history of these sects which, under the influence of Islam, gave up Hindu worship, is that they have been unable to find a satisfactory substitute for it. The mere reading of pieces of vernacular poetry and the singing of hymns does not grip the common people. Those sects which restrict themselves to that tend to lose their hold on the laity, while the rest revert to Hindu guru-worship, as the Kabirpanthis have done, or fall to bibliolatry, as is the case with the Sikhs and the Dadupanthis.
  — Farquhar, John Nicol (1920). An outline of the religious literature of India. Oxford university Press. p. 346.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No - Routine (oriental) commentary and analysis, these are. Multiple scholars note Sikh traditions to feature bibliolatry and give their own reasons about the development of the practice - it is inaccurate to claim that any of them are criticizing Sikhism, which is a very grave charge.

• I emphasize that no scholar—in the hundred years since publication of the work—has accused Farquhar of any such charges and we cannot impose our editorial judgements. On Farquhar's modes of scholarship, consult Fischer-Tiné, Harald (August 2020). "Third-Stream Orientalism: J. N. Farquhar, the Indian YMCA's Literature Department, and the Representation of South Asian Cultures and Religions (ca. 1910–1940)". The Journal of Asian Studies. 79 (3): 659–683. doi:10.1017/S0021911819001876. ISSN 0021-9118. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes --Quote above needs to be taken into context, I wrote "Numerous 20th century Christian academics, scholars, missionaries have either written polemics or noted the apparent practice of bibliolatry within Sikh traditions" and used this as a source. I dont see why the above isn't a good source for that, JN Farquhar was indeed a 20th century Christian academic who finished his studies at Oxford and a missionary and he did note the apparent practice of bibliolatry in his works Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that Farquhar noted the apparent (?) practice of bibliolatry within Sikh traditions but such bland noting is meaningless for our article. It needs to be criticism - explicit. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• No - (Summoned by bot), it isn't clear that this is criticism, rather than passing observation. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• No -- Analysation leads to inaccuracy and irrelevancy to criticism. MehmoodS (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, as it's not explicitly a criticism of Sikhism. Firefangledfeathers 03:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe, but... The word "tragedy" and the phrase "unable to find a satisfactory substitute for it" do imply criticism to my ear. But this is not explicit criticism of Sikhism specifically, it's the incidental condescension that's common in English-language writing about other cultures from this era. I don't really think it merits coverage in this article, unless there are secondary sources commenting on it as criticism. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  In agreement. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Robson

Are the following paragraphs sourced to John Robson, considerable as criticism of Sikhism and more particularly, Sikh practice of biblolatry?

Govind Singh at his death did not appoint any guru to succeed him, but told them to look to the Granth, to which he had added a supplement, as their guru. This has led to what is the most marked feature of the Sikh religion — Bibliolatry. Sri Granth, the honourable Book, is the object of worship in all Sikh temples. It is dressed in expensive cloth, laid carefully in its bed at night, like one of the Hindu idols, and when brought out, receives divine worship before it is read. Next to the Granth the Guru or master is honoured, and he has great power over his disciples. In doctrine they are not very different from the Vaishnavas; in morality, except in soldierly virtues, they are said to be even below the average Hindus. They are divided into twelve sects, some of which are relapsing into image worship, and in process of time it is not unlikely that they will all take their place in the ranks of all-absorbing Hinduism.

Meanwhile Sikhism may fairly claim to be a distinct religion; and it is remarkable as being the only eclectic creed which has ever become the religion of a large body of disciples, and welded them into a nation. Even it proves the rule. It is not its eclectic creed which gives Sikhism its power over its followers, but the sectarian and patriotic dogmas inculcated by Govind. These gave it power so long as the power of fighting and of conquest remained. But now that it is lost, and it has only its eclecticism and bibliolatry to fall back on, it seems to have lost its expansiveness, and is increasing only with the increase of the population.
— Robson, John (1905). Hinduism and Christianity. Oxford University. p. 158-159.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No - Yet another routine oriental commentary on Sikhism. We cannot impose our own value-judgements on 116-year old texts without support from recent scholars

• I emphasize that no scholar—since publication of the work—has accused Robson of any such charges, either. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes -- Quote above needs to be taken into context, I wrote "Numerous 20th century Christian academics, scholars, missionaries have either written polemics or noted the apparent practice of bibliolatry within Sikh traditions" and used this as a source to back it up. I'd argue that this quote is a polemic but at the very least it is noting the practice of bibliolatry Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Please avoid weasel words like "numerous" or source such descriptors to reliable sources. They might have noted the apparent practice of bibliolatry within Sikh traditions but such noting is meaningless for our article. It needs to be criticism - explicit. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• No - (Summoned by bot), the MOST that this could support is an historical view of Sikhism and even then it isn't clear that this is criticism. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• No -- Unrelated to criticism of Sikhism. MehmoodS (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, as it's not explicitly a criticism of Sikhism. Firefangledfeathers 03:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, the quoted passage is not criticism, though it uses the usual othering language that was common in English-language writing about other cultures at the time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

A book review

Is the following paragraph sourced to a book review, considerable as criticism of Sikhism and more particularly, Sikh practice of biblolatry?

At the central shrine of the Sikhs at Amritsar, their sacred book the Granth is dressed every morning in rich brocade and placed on a throne, at night it is placed in a golden bed. This is Bibliolatry literal and supreme, it is fundamentalism in extremis. At the other end of the scale, the sacred books of Confucianism are not ‘sacred’ in the usual meaning of the term at all; they are more strictly ‘Classics.’ Between these two positions, that of the Sikh and that of the Confucianist, there are many degrees illustrated by the attitude to their sacred books of Modernists, Hindus, Parsees, Mohammedans, Tennesseeans, etc. Revaluing Scripture is an account of these various attitudes and also a comparison of the world’s Bibles. It opens what is almost a new field of research and a very important one in view of the wide and well endowed fundamentalist movement in America today.
— Forster, A. Haire (July 1928). "Book Review of "Revaluing Scripture" by Frank Eakin. Newyork: Macmillan, 1928, pp. 249. $ 2.25". Anglican Theological Review. 11: 86.

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No - This is the first paragraph of a book review and needs to be read in context of the reviewed book! This is written about 90 years back when Christian Fundamentalism was developing and the adjective of fundamentalist was used in a literal fashion. It was yet to become the pejorative, that it is today. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes -- Quote above needs to be taken into context, I wrote "Numerous 20th century Christian academics, scholars, missionaries have either written polemics or noted the apparent practice of bibliolatry within Sikh traditions" and used the above as a source, and it is indeed a 20th century Christian polemic. Also where did you get this from " — Forster, A. Haire (July 1928). "Book Review of "Revaluing Scripture" by Frank Eakin. Newyork: Macmillan, 1928, pp. 249. $ 2.25". " ? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have the issue in front of me? Relying on Google Snippets has its perils; you can check here but do not expect IA to save a visit to library, every time. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• No - (Summoned by bot), passing comment in a very old review of a book largely unrelated to Sikhism, it isn't even clear that this is criticism IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• No -- Irrelevant to criticism of Sikhism. MehmoodS (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, as it's not explicitly a criticism of Sikhism. Firefangledfeathers 03:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, does not look like criticism to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Academia section only relevant

I have removed other irrelevant sections which have nothing to do with criticism per say. TrangaBellam Please take a look and let me know if you agree. MehmoodS (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I request that you stop editing the article and participate in the above three RfCs. After a week, we will have a consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ok. well its been reverted by C.Fred. C.Fred, it was based on discussion early on this page where Martiality, Other Sects and Ernest Trumpp sections were considered irrelevant to the criticism of the faith. But it can wait till concensus is confirmed. MehmoodS (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Following up on consensus.MehmoodS (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

MehmoodS, consensus will be evaluated only after the RFC ends. Still, 15 days to go. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hair cutting section

I propose that we exclude the 'Hair cutting' section, which does not include any criticism of the religion. This was discussed previously, and TrangaBellam agreed at the time. She removed the section from the article, and it has stayed out for a couple of weeks. It was recently restored by an IP editor. Rather than revert, I would like to know whether others feel the section is appropriate. Firefangledfeathers 04:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Other sects

How does this belong at Criticism of Sikhism? Are Protestant-Catholic feuds covered at Criticism of Christianity or Shia-Sunni feuds at Criticism of Islam? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)