Talk:Hinduism and Sikhism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Very Misleading article[edit]

This article is alarmingly misleading. The last two lines of the introduction manipulate information to convey what is incorrect. For example, the footnote for "intermarriage between Hindus and Sikhs has been considered acceptable" cites the quote "A Sikh's daughter must be married to a Sikh." Also, the last line's reference sources are not valid! The 2nd source for it, a page about a Hindu shrine, mentions one important Sikh visitor. Nothing on the sources even imply that Hindus and Sikhs both visit each site proportionally. I will clarify the inaccuracies here; if you have a reason to change then respond first please. Mar de Sin Speak up! 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

I have restored this version all the way now because the recent expansion done by the 2 of the users,[1][2] completely ignores WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If there is some information like "Hinduism opposes XYZ" and "Sikhism supports XYZ" then the comparison of these 2 views should be made by the cited reliable source, not Wikipedia editors per WP:OR. I am seeing the recent edits[3][4] to be clearly violating that norm. Finally the WP:QUOTEFARM and dependence on unreliable sources (douban.com/group/, hindujagruti.org) and primary sources (Guru granth sahib) has been also very heavy. For these reasons, the last stable version has been restored by me. Azuredivay (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)1[reply]

On what basis are you are saying that the edits of additional differences ignores WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Majority of the content has been copied from different articles of Wikipedia like Svarga, Naraka (Hinduism), Pilgrimage, Culture and menstruation, Fasting etc. and majority of sources in these articles are reliable. Proper attribution has even been provided in the edit comment. So, your point regarding WP:OR doesn't holds any weight. Regarding WP:SYNTH, please read what WP:SYNTH says again. It says you can't draw a conclusion C if a source says conclusion A and another source says conclusion B. My question to you is where are we drawing the conclusion C? For eg: Hinduism source says what Hinduism says Heaven & Hell and Sikh source says what Sikhism says about Heaven & Hell. So, where did you see the conclusion being drawn from these two points? If you think a source is unreliable like douban.com/group/, hindujagruti.org or there is over dependence on primary source, you can remove those particular problematic lines but please don't show such irresponsible behaviour of removing such a large content like this without a proper consensus on Talk page. Please see WP:RVW. So, I am reverting your change for now. --Jasksingh (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from reverting your changes, I have addressed 3 points raised by you. Firstly, removed the section of Childbirth Rituals because it was citing unreliable sources as pointed out by you. Secondly, I have removed 5 quotes as per WP:QUOTEFARM pointed out by you. Thirdly, removing the quotes has also reduced dependence on primary source of Guru Granth Sahib. If you think there is still some problem with any section, we can discuss further but please don't remove large number of sections without reaching any consensus. Jasksingh (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your claims of improving the article your edits show that you are still using primary and unreliable sources like srigurugranth.org, fateh.sikhnet.com, thesikhencyclopedia.com, srigranth.org, Guru Nanak Foundation and other sources which seem reliable but makes no comparison of "Sikhism" and "Hinduism".[5][6] This is how your version is still violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but it seems that I have already clarified this in my previous message. Azuredivay (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the line which was citing unreliable source of fateh.sikhnet.com & thesikhencyclopedia.com. Regarding Guru Nanak Foundation, that is the name of publisher of the book. So, I couldn't understand how you found the book source to be "unreliable". Regarding using primary source of Guru Granth Sahib, I have removed two more quotes of Guru Granth Sahib from the article. As per WP:USEPRIMARY, primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. But in any case, after my changes, Guru Granth Sahib is being used as a source only 8 times out of total 102 sources which should not be unacceptable by any stretch of imagination. If you think there is still some unreliable source left, we can discuss further. Jasksingh (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:USEPRIMARY endorses your use of primary sources? Your addition of your own understanding about the verses is violation of WP:OR. 102 sources? There are hundreds of scholarly sources available who have compared these religions but your additions seldom compares two religion with each other. Azuredivay (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#%22Primary%22_does_not_mean_%22bad%22 . It clearly says and I am quoting "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." By 102, I meant to say total number of references used in the article out of which primary source of Guru Granth Sahib has been used as a reference only 8 times. Using a primary source only 8 times out of total 102 references can't be called overuse of primary source. But, in any case, we can discuss and reduce it even further. I have added 8 sections of Hell and Heaven, Pilgrimage, Menstruation, Fasting, Śrāddha, Auspicious days, Slavery and Veil and in all of these 8 sections, no verse of Guru Granth Sahib has been quoted in the current version of the article. Guru Granth Sahib has been used as a source only 3 times in these 8 sections and that too it is supported by secondary sources. So, I couldn't understand which verse are you referring to now. Jasksingh (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sign your comments with four ~~~~ You can't use primary sources for making a comparison of two subjects as a part of your own analysis which is WP:OR. Your sections don't involve sources that are comparing the two religions with each other on a specific subject. They are only individually offering details about position of one religion at one time. You should have already shown by now that how any of your sources in those "8 sections" are comparing both religions with each other. Azuredivay (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed primary source of Guru Granth Sahib completely in the sections that I had added. I hope you are satisfied now. Regarding your claim that sources referenced by me are not comparing both the religions then I would say it goes the same with the version of the article that you called as "last good version". For eg.: in that version if you see the section "Monotheism versus pluralism", different references have been used to explain concept of God in Sikhism and Hinduism respectively. It is not a single source comparing concept of God in both the religions. Same goes for majority of other sections in that version. So, it seems like your line of reasoning is not consistent. You are calling that version as "good" and when I have used same process of referencing in adding some sections then you are calling it wrong. So, it should not be the case that a logic works for a section and the same logic doesn't works for another section. Jasksingh (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the recent edits made by Otinflewer seems to be wrong in the following ways:

1. He has mentioned that Hinduism has prehistoric origins and has replaced the actual date with this text. Similar kind of belief is held by many orthodox Hindus that their religion is eternal and has "always" been there which is not worth accepting from an encyclopedia point of view. Secondly the source given by him doesn't say the same. Please see p544 of the book that he has been used as a reference: https://archive.org/details/surveyofhinduism00klos/page/544/mode/2up . It doesn't say anything like that. It is WP:FICTREF

2. He has rewritten the Idol Worship section by giving reference of Idolatry in Sikhism article. He writes: "Prior to 1905, idols were a part of Sikh gurdwaras, including the Harimandir Sahib (Golden Temple, Amritsar)." which indirectly suggests that idol worship was there in Sikhism even at the time of Sikh Gurus. This is not the Idolatry in Sikhism article says. If one reads the entire article, it outlines three phases in Sikhism wrt Idol Worship i.e. first phase is when as per teachings of Sikh Gurus, idol worship was not present in Sikh institutions. Second phase came when mahants, who gained control of Gurudwaras after Mughal persecution forced Khalsa Sikhs to relinquish the control of Gurudwaras, institutionalized idol worship. Third phase is when Khalsa Sikhs re-established institutional control over Gurudwaras and removed the idols installed during the preceding period. But, he has picked between the lines and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, two of the sources cited by him for these lines have citation error.

3. He has removed some sections under Differences citing WP:OR but discussion on this has already taken place on this talk page under Original Research subject where Azuredivay failed to prove how sections removed by him violate WP:OR and sections left in the version (which he was referred to as good version) doesn't violate WP:OR. Just to reiterate WP:OR says that you can't draw a conclusion C if a source says conclusion A and another source says conclusion B. My question is where are we drawing the conclusion C? For eg: Hinduism source says what Hinduism says Heaven & Hell and Sikh source says what Sikhism says about Heaven & Hell. So, where is the conclusion drawn from these two points?

So, I am reverting his changes for now. We can discuss further on this talk page if there is disagreement with my analysis. Jasksingh (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "Some of the recent edits made by this user seems to be wrong" then why you are making a blanket revert? You don't WP:OWN this page.
You are wrong about #1 since the source supports the content, "p.544" wasn't the only page cited, but also "p.1", which clearly say "also the oldest living major tradition on earth with roots reaching back into prehistoric times". I would now like to now why you ignored "p.1" and tried to cherry-pick from p.544 to discard a constructive edit.
You are also wrong about #2 because position of Sikhism isn't that clear cut over idolatry. The source is clear.
As for #3, stop misrepresenting my unwillingness to entertain your WP:IDHT as failure "to prove how sections removed.... violate WP:OR". Unless the comparison has been made by the source it does not belong to this article. This is billionth time I am saying this same thing. Azuredivay (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I accept #1 as I somehow missed p1 but can you explain if p544 doesn't say anything like that so why was it cited?
Regarding #2, you claimed that I am cherry picking p1 in #1 but Otinflewer has done the same in the lines copied from Idolatry in Sikhism as only part of some lines has been copied rather than copying those entire lines. Also, the context of the article has been completely missed as explained by me above. Also you are claiming that "The source is clear" but two of the sources cited for these lines are having citation error. So, which sources are clear?
Regarding #3, I am willing to address your concern regarding sections added by me violating WP:OP. I have done that in the past by removing primary source and unreliable sources. Now also, I would not add any new sections in future without source comparing both the religions. But isn't it your responsibility to address my concerns regarding the version of the article that you are claiming as "last good version". For eg: in the above lines added by Otinflewer, can you give my any single source which compares idol worship in both Sikhism and Hinduism? If that's not the case then why are you defending his edit by calling it "constructive"? You still haven't replied regarding how sections, present in your "last good version" are worth keeping as even those sections don't have common source comparing both the religions. Jasksingh (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can modify about Idolatory in Sikhism if you want since that appears to be your leading concern now, although the current version of that section isn't really bad. Azuredivay (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The edit made by Otinflewer in Idol Worship section was in violation of WP:FICTREF and WP:OR guideline as he has inserted "contemporary interpretations" by himself which changes the entire meaning of sentence. He has quoted lines from source but the lines doesn't say mention anything like "contemporary interpretations". Infact, the source cited by him says "Such indeed had been the fundamental teaching of the Gurus". So, I don't understand on what basis you are calling his version as not bad. Jasksingh (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Differences sections ignoring WP:OR[edit]

The user Azuredivay had raised objections that many sections under Differences are ignoring WP:OR. The reason given by him was that these sections don't contain common sources which mentions the stance of both religions on various points like Pilgrimage, Fasting, Idol worship etc. He had removed some of the sections because of that. So, I will keep on adding such sources in various sections so that they no longer ignore WP:OR guideline. I will also keeping on mentioning those sources in this section of talk page so that any other user, who has the same concerns, can refer to this section.

For eg: today I have made changes in Idol Worship section so that it no longer ignores WP:OR. The common source for that is the following book:

https://archive.org/stream/ACompleteGuideToSikhism/#page/n109

Other supporting sources have also been kept as just common source is sometimes not enough to mention all the details. For eg: the above common source doesn't mentions that all Hindus don't worship idols so other sources have to be used to clarify that. Jasksingh (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Pilgrimage section, following source has been added as a common source for both the religions:

https://archive.org/details/IntroductionToSikhism/page/n57 Jasksingh (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Heaven and Hell section, following source has been added as a common source for both the religions:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TxP5Ww_JO64C&pg=PA188 Jasksingh (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Fasting section, following source has been added as a common source comparing both religions w.r.t fasting:

https://books.google.ie/books?id=gqIbJz7vMn0C&pg=PA71 Jasksingh (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Caste System section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=H9jKt0dLz1IC&pg=PP56 Jasksingh (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Asceticism section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.ie/books?id=gqIbJz7vMn0C&pg=PA22 Jasksingh (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Shrādh section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://archive.org/details/encyclopaediaofs0000dogr/page/433 Jasksingh (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Menstruation section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=boI8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA125 Jasksingh (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Auspicious Day section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://archive.org/stream/ACompleteGuideToSikhism/#page/n120 Jasksingh (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Animal Sacrifice section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FYxRDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA117 Jasksingh (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For concept of God, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FYxRDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA105 Jasksingh (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Rama in Sikhism into Hinduism and Sikhism[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To improve or delete rather than merge; WP:SUMMARY in place. Klbrain (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very poorly sourced and almost all of the sources are about the target. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge/Delete Article based off of highly unreliable citations. Direct the title or merge to Hinduism and Sikhism or even vote for its deletion as the article seems propaganda created by an editor who was temporarily blocked for edit warring and has since been inactive.MehmoodS (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom, and WP:OVERLAP. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 00:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per above. Rockcodder (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - There is not much in Rama in Sikhism and I'm not convinced that any is worth merging, but an "oppose" would have looked like support for the existing article. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - We have similar articles like Jesus in Islam, Muhammad and the Bible, Muhammad's views on Christians, Moses in Islam and so on. TB, if an article is poorly sourced you are supposed to improve it, not merge it. I would recommend closing this proposal. LearnIndology (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other stuff exists. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, a poorly sourced article isn't a reason to merge the article. LearnIndology (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the sources that justify a standalone article. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The initial article is very one-sided and based on unreliable sources. In any case, even after adding reliable sources, it can exist as a standalone article. So, I oppose merging it. Jasksingh (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks but where are these sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a bunch of unreliable sources and seem to be pushing only one view point CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Improvement[edit]

The first paragraph of "Historical links" & opening lines of "Beliefs" are mentioning about the same thing i.e. historical links. So, it would be better to merge them and keep it under "Links" section. Links section can have two subsections - "Ideological" and "Struggle against Mughals". Beliefs section can straightaway start from "Concept of God". Others please suggest. If anybody has objection then we can discuss it on this talk page otherwise I will make the changes after few days. Jasksingh (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_Sikhism&oldid=1217253588"