User talk:Sikh-history

This is Sikh-history's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4

Archives

Werdnabot is no longer running This page will no longer be automatically archived, learn more. List of all archives

I'm curious as to way you posted told me that I'm "engaged in an edit war" but not Jujhar or The Devil's Advocate? I'm not vandalizing the page. I have a well-substantiated reason for every edit I make. Jujhar is the one editing without any sort of logical reason.

Secondly, I removed "high civilian casualties" because #1 The number of civilian casualties in this battle is not clear. #2 . Civilian casualties and the death of belligerents is ubiquitous in virtually every war/battle. It need not be included in the "results". Take the Battle of Stalingrad, for example. Even though there were 40,000 civilian casualties, it was still not included in the results section. Even the Battle of Saipan, where the ratio of civilian-to-soldier casualties was nearly one(27,000 soldiers dead, 22,000 civilians dead), it was still not included.

Casualties are reported in the "casualties" section. Not the results section. This is the same for *every single military battle* on Wikipedia, and if not, please find an exception.

OK, now let's do this in a civilized manner. I have gave you my argument many times as to why it should be "Sikh militants" instead of "Khalsa", and have now gave you my argument as to why "high civilian casualties" should be removed from the "results" section in the infobox. Do you have any logical objections to these arguments? May I edit the page now without risking getting blocked from it? JDiala (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with you. The operation was poorly executed, and the army mistreated and killed civilians on numerous occasions. That's understandable. But let's be honest now, when a group of individuals have a full military-level weapons cache hidden in a holy place of worship that thousands of people visit daily, what do you expect Indira Gandhi to do? Sit there and eat Biryani? The entire notion that Bhindranwale was some sort of hero or martyr is just a myth. I know this is unrelated, but my grandfather was a Sikh living in Punjab during the 80s, and he was kidnapped by Bhindranwale's goons. I'm not supporting Indira Gandhi or the Congress, but remember, there's two sides to every story. The militants weren't innocent either. Hindus and Nirankaris were relentlessly persecuted by these people.

Concerning the civilian casualties, it's ironic that the example you gave me of the Iranian Embassy siege does NOT have civilian casualties in its "results" section. There's not a single battle on Wikipedia that has it, regardless of how many human rights organizations consider it a major issue. Not a single one. It's unfortunate that so many civilians died, but Operation Blue Star can't be an exception to this. Now, there should be a civilian casualties section on the page itself, but NOT on the infobox's results section.

I suggest you read General Brars book (Operation Blue Star: The True Story). He addresses many of your complaints, including the reason they did the operation on the celebration of the birthday of a Sikh Guru.

I understand you're Sikh and this is a particularly sensitive issue to you, but on Wikipedia, you cannot be biased. JDiala (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not it was an operation is irrelevant. Even if you type in "operation" on the Wikipedia search engine, and individually check every operation, none of them have any mention of casualties in the infobox. That's all that matters. The Iranian embassy siege did not have mention of casualties in the results section of the main infobox. That is what we're discussing. Independent accounts are generally regarded as anecdotes and aren't WP:Reliable sources. The amount of civilian casualties is ultimately unknown. JDiala (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are entering the realms of WP:LAWYER. I suggest WP:MEDIATION. Thanks SH 11:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started discussion on the talk page regarding the use of specific words in the info box. I think we should discuss this case on the one place (talk page of article) rather than talk page(s) of individual editors. Hopefully, we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jattnijj left this on your user page, and presumably meant to put it here. Please note that if you wish to reply, you should do so on the his user talk page, because he is blocked for a month for edit warring and sanctions violations. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I see your from the UK and an academic, are you a professor ?-could we meet up as im interested in jatt and sikh history but dont know how to find or where the body of literature sits.

I'm in the uk next, could call or meet after work?

Your from haryana and ethnicity is English / British same as me.

Also I see you have something about indo scythian and arayans, what does that mean?

Thanks Jatinder

Jattnijj (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sikh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Asia Books | author=Singh, Nirbhai | year=Dec 1990 | location=New Delhi | pages=111–112}}</ref>).<ref>{{cite book|last=Philpott|first=Chris|title=Green Spirituality: One Answer to Global

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see the that you continue have a concern about the article Sikhism though, as yet, you have not really explained what that concern is. Please do not use excuses such as referencing to delete content that you have a concern about. As a general principle, a lack of citations is not a valid reason to delete content. In general the "citation needed" template is the appropriate way to raise a citation concern. Removing content is only appropriate if there is good-faith reason to believe that the content is inaccurate or misplaced or if a reasonable amount of time has passed where the content has lacked referencing.

I have reverted your edit for now. If you continue to have a real concern, please state it (preferably on the Talk page). Regardless, please feel free to adjust the writing or propose changes to address your concerns.

-- MC

I have added the reliable references at Animal sacrifice. OccultZone (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as you mentioned assume good faith and contribute constructively, but in an article related to history has to have facts and it cannot be used to showcase individual views, Mughals were the rulers of India for almost 300 years, they cannot be called as tyrant and no one historian will agree to it, Akbar was called "Akbar the Great", so if I correct this and that is reverted back how do we respond to that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arqum.beg (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edits. There is no need to shorten the page. The more you shorten it at this point the more you lose. See the other religious pages such as Islam or Christianity they are the same length. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:Lead. You need to understand the basic before you start adding long winded phrasioligy. Thanks SH 14:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the edit now I am 80% sure you should be happy with it now? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read WP:Lead? Do you know what WP:Consensus. You've made the article worse. I really do not know whether to laugh or cry. I've never come accross an editor who lacks WP:Competence as much as you. I normally try and WP:AGF, but your edits simply make no sense. SH 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i recently changed the def. of the term "sikh" pointing that it means to learn in literal terms and while sikh as a noun means a student/disciple. How did I arrive at this? I didnot, Giani Sant Singh Maskeen did. Know the name? NO? then find out. Yes? well okay then you must be knowing all that there's needed to know. He himself descirbes it and could be found in one of his kathas if you want me to give a link?

So what do you think, Even in everyday living sikh (as a noun means ) desiciple BUT as a word it means " (to) Learn" Please correct this or put your point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.248.32.26 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at Criticism of Banda Singh Bahadur please. I'm concerned that it may be a hit piece. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) To be honest, I'm rather following a few vandal contribution logs so any further editing of mine beyond what I have done so far will have to wait on other items on my to-do list. In any case, I've added Sikh Confederacy and the rise of the Khalsa to it. Dracontes (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Islam-Sikhism article on Wiki is total Messed Up . its biased , absured ,low standard. needs to be clean up .

First of All Sikhism is not an 'Indian religion' ,its Universal having root in Dharma ,having Panenthiestic theology ,and introduction needs to be abstact and short .

thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpartaap11 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this, I've redirected and deleted the content, too much was copyvio and as you said, we have the article already. I think we have a problem with the article creator. But thanks for your AfD. I redirected just seconds after you added it and didn't even notice it! Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, with something so obvious you could have made the redirect. I've just undone a page move by the editor who changed (without discussion) Tarkhan to Tarkhan turkey, which I think is best roasted. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahah Thanks for the heads up SH 17:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've raised an AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubhi. Maybe you can find sources to make an article out of it, but I couldn't. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert multiple edits, could you mention in the edit summary what version you are reverting to. Bgwhite (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

respected Sikh-History ji ,

To me as a Sikh it appears that in its present form "Islam and Sikhism" article is of very low scholarly value .The main aim of this article should be to compare the Philosophy of our Guru Sahib with that of Islamic Philosophy , there is no need to mention in very first para how many Victoria cross Sikhs have won or how many sikhs served under British ,Muslims also claimed that "Islam is against forced conversion and Mughals do not represent Islam " .

in short our main focus should be on comparing Guru Granth Sahib ji with Quran and here lies the strength of Sikhi .

kindly cooperate and we need to discuss more .

blessings

Gurpartaap singh . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpartaap11 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Diannaa (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a page move but this needs tidying up and work, can you fix it? I started an SPI as this is of course a sock. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. Thanks SH 13:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sat sri akaal bai ji,

as i already said your article has number of issues ,

1) very first line "Islam is a Abrahamic religion, believed to descend from Abraham, whereas Sikhism is a Indian religion founded in the Indian subcontinent"

if Sikhi is Indian religion then Islam should be an Arabic religion , "believed to " is also inappropriate .

2)"Sikhism is sometimes classified as a dharmic religion"

its absurd to use word "Sometimes" ,it shows sikhs have no clear cut stance, its like Sometime this ,sometimes that ......

2)"the Sikhs made up to 25% of the soldiers in World War I and World War II. The Sikhs were awarded 14 Victoria Crosses for their bravery and over 27 battle honours (a record)"

do you feel its Ok to mention in very first para how many Sikhs served under british ,or won battle honors ? if yes we need mention musilm conquest also .their achievements are much bigger than us in this regard .

3)"Sikhism is opposed to the concept of forced conversions "

Muslim also claims the same , i think there is a verse in quran related to it "there is no compulsion in religion ..."

4)"These included teachings of saints of the Hindu and Muslim faith also. Jahangir, the fourth Mughal Emperor, was angered by the number of Muslims who converted to Sikhism, so he had Guru Arjan Dev imprisoned in Gwalior fort,[2] and then later boiled alive"

Shaheedi of Guru Arjan dev is again mentioned in below sections

now come to next section

"The Sikh Gurus and Muslim contemporaries"

"Then he lifted his eyes seeing the Kaaba standing in the direction of the Guru's feet" just read this line , how shallow and childish it sounds .

let me tell you Muslims donot believe that "GOD is inside Kaaba " and over emphasis on this sakhi of Guru Nanak in Mecca indirectly strengthen the nonsence claim that "Guru Nanak was a Muslim".

"While many historians and theologians argue that his philosophy was influenced by other faiths" anyone can claim whatever he/she wanna claim ,its far from truth .

"The Sikh rebellion against Mughal rule" title of this section portray Sikh Guru Sahiban as rebels ,that why i combined above two sections .

next "Differences between Islam and Sikhism" here you are comparing 5 pillars of Islam with 5 Ks of Khalsa , its beyond logic .

i also feel there is no need to mention complete the sakhi of Bhikhan shah ji ,just link is sufficient , Bhai Mardana might have born as Muslim but he Was NOT MUSLIM ,as in Same way Guru Nanak was not a Hindu and how Ahmadiyas who themselves are considered as non muslims in islamic countries can clain claim Guru Nanak was muslim .

i can provide you any type of "refereces" ,this is not a big issue .

and nowhwere in the article you mention the basic Philosophy/theological difference bw Islam and Sikhi ,which to me is atmost important and very much required .

let the admins judge ,Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.34.2 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steroid use in Bollywood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dangal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sikh-history, I have read and admired some of your contributions to Sikhism and other related articles in the past. I recently got back on WP and would like to try improve these articles. Would be great to collaborate if you have some time. I just added some content today on the "Liberation" section in the Sikhism article. Would you mind doing a quick review and sharing any feedback when you get a chance ? Thank you. Js82 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Js82 I will try my best. At the moment I'm busy preparing course work for my students, but keep me posted. SH 10:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]