Talk:Khalsa

Problems in Initiation of Women section

This section has a completely inaccurate claim that there is no female equivalent to the naming convention of "Singh". It's "Kaur" and is quite literally referenced elsewhere in the article. And the claim seems to be made by an expert on the Gnau people, not someone familiar with 17th century Sikh history. I attempted to remove this claim but it was reverted. I think that part should be removed. Amazingserendipity (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Gilbert Lewis, who is featured in Pashaura Singh's Sikhism and History published by Oxford University, was an anthropologist who was in the Department of Anthropology in Cambridge University. He conducted studies on a wide breadth of areas, ranging from medical anthropology, to gender identity, to rituals surronding magic. His tenure in Cambridge University seems to attest to his knowledge and experience in human belief systems. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure but you're not engaging on the veracity of the claim. His claim is that there is no female equivalent to "Singh". There clearly is and the rest of this very article refers to it, "Kaur'. How can an article that refers to "Kaur" also claims hat it does not exist? Amazingserendipity (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Oxford University Press is an academic and peer reviewed press, so that alone would qualify his claims as reliable and suitable for Wikipedia. This RSN thread may be of help: [1]. The crux of the arguments made is essentially Wikipedia particularly values work in academic, peer reviewed works and accords them greater importance than an author's educational attainment or career focus. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Then is it not an issue that a claim is being made here that completely contradicts claims made elsewhere in the Wikipedia page? Does it not create incoherency to include a claim that there is no female equivalent to "Singh" when "Kaur is explicitly mentioned? Many female contemporaries of Guru Gobind Singh took on the name "Kaur" post-1699. I mean I could cite sources for the existence of these women but the Wikipedia page itself acknowledges the naming convention of "Kaur". This seems like such a confusing and contradicting claim to have in the Wikipedia page. At the bare minimum, should there not be a sentence right after that claim bringing up "Kaur" since it's present elsewhere in the article? Amazingserendipity (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

From what I understand, as I significantly rewrote the article Kaur (although the writing part is done, I still need to fix ctitation placement which got messed up), Guru Gobind Singh did not mandate the name "Kaur" or any identifer for that matter to female Sikh adherents. This notion only began to appear in the late 19th century due to the Tat Khalsa's efforts to establish a distinct identity from their Hindu and Muslim counterparts. While it is true that "Kaur" was appended by much of the female Sikh aristocracy in the 18th century, Jakobsh points out that this may have been done as a parallel to Rajput naming conventions, who used "Kanwar" in their names (Kaur is a dimunitive of Kanwar). She also argues that the use of the name Kaur which preceded the Khalsa's inaugration was a result of cultural diffusion. Kaur only attained the same significance as Singh in thw 20th century when it was officially ratified in the Sikh Rehat Maryada, but it did not appear in any historical texts. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Kaur is the female equivalent of Singh, I'm just pointing out that scholars have contested the traditional narrative that Guru Gobind Singh was the one to mandate it as a compulsory appellation and instead trace it back to the Tat Khalsa. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's seems to be two competing theories supported by different scholars. I think this section should be more reflective of the fact some scholars believed women were initiated and given the title of Kaur starting from 1699 while other believe formal induction began with the Singh Sabha movement. I feel as if the way this section is written right now gives undue weight to the latter. Amazingserendipity (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You're free to add content reflecting the former theory, as long as it's reliably sourced. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, will do Amazingserendipity (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you really going not see the Problem here. Suthasianhistorian8 Is the one vandalizing adding fake narratives.Ask he why he Has remove all of the Positive Points I made. Ask him if what I wrote was not true? I even prove his Points wrong with the Sikh Holy book. Is that less of a Proof how Sikh see Women.In his Paragh he write How Kaur's weren't even in the Sikh armies and I gave a Few examples of Sikh women warrior.How is that i am Vandalizing and he is Not. I Request you Undo the Damage he has done and kindly look into what he has done before you will see what I am talking about. 117.223.237.241 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

rv an obvious Vandalism.That is what you did not me.

I gave proofs amd you call it Vandalism. 117.242.32.37 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to use reliable, secondary sources, ideally similar to the ones already within the section, they don't necessarily have to be the same authors (Jakobsh, Copeman etc), but they do need to be written by modern day historians or anthropologists. Wikipedia doesn't allow people to write their own interpretations and beliefs. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I Did there is no great reliable Source that Guru Granth Sahib ji itself. And also I added examples.I see what you have been doing.I know that you are pasting the tag of Terrorist on Every Sikh related wiki.Removed BJP from many Pages.You are a Sikhism hater.You want to be a keyboard Warrior be a Keyboard warrior. I am watching. 117.223.237.241 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Guru Granth Sahib is a primary source (meaning first hand account) and hence unsuitable to directly cite it. Please make use of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you're unsure about whether or not the source you want to add is in accordance with Wikipedia's standards on reliability. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2023

add khalsa fauj nishan sahib which is given by Guru gobind Singh ji to khalsaArunjit singh05 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Initiation of women again

Southasianhistorian8: so you're back, now years into your around-the-clock obsession with taking swipes at anything Sikh. After all that deranged socking, stalking, blocks, bans, and warring, you've again begged your way back, emboldened.

Noting for Yamla (whose view of the edit here is welcome if inclined) that you broke your "self-imposed" 1RR, as you do periodically. Don't cite ONUS at me, you've never even explained your own edits here:

• Where does it say "no mainstream acceptance" for women's initiation? Why did you neglect to mention any practice before? You read that women did have initiations, both attested in theory prescribed by Chhibbar Singh, and pre-colonial blade initiation in practice by 1849. Knowing that, why push this?
• Why are you suppressing a crucial portion of McLeod's theorizing? We can see what he refers to as "progress," but we apparently can't reveal what that is, because RAJ? WP:RAJ is an essay about histories and caste commentary. Not a policy. Not a hammer for every nail. And not relevant here anyway, McLeod presents and discusses the observation free and clear.
• McLeod is openly making a lot of assumptions and is clearly guessing based off little evidence, typical hand-waving tone aside. Why is your tone so much more declarative? To satisfy your fellow Redditors that you continue taking editing cues from, gloat to, and bash Sikhs with your accounts there? Noting this continued behavior that came to my attention for GeneralNotability, fwiw as it's been a while.
• The Singh Sabha did not emerge in the twentieth century(!) Ofc ignorance never stops you from your oddly strong views, but I'll be heavily expanding several such articles, so you might actually learn the basics, which you won't learn from your repulsive reddit forums.

This was just the first sentence!

• Nothing was "removed," just rearranged and organized from your stacked Google scholarship. One opinion (Copeman) was partially merged as it simply repeats another opinion; several of these (contradicting) writers are just repeating and incestuously quoting each other anyway, to the point of centering the section around Nikky Singh for some reason. She barely speaks of actual initiation, and strangely seems like some big game to be taken down by you.
• Why the wording "Dasam Granth and the rahitnamaS.?" It specifically cites the Charitropakhyan, dubious per Mann and many, many others, and one rahitnama. You are trying to make Jakobsh's evidence look stronger than it is, while trying to muzzle McLeod's evidence. You never fished for opinions calling her or her clique here "lopsided," and again gravitate toward Nikky Singh.

"POV-pushing" is projection. You cannot substitute presented observations for opinion-stacking . Sapedder (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to AN/ANI. This is a completely and utterly unacceptable way to start a discussion, and your ridiculous threats and accusations don't scare me in the slightest. You have a pattern of being incredibly rude and condescending to anyone who disagrees with your POV, it's shocking that this is the way you choose to conduct yourself after your 2 year break where you were brazenly canvassing and trying to vote stack for a RFC. Funny how you accuse me of all sorts of indiscretions, are you even remotely aware of what nonsense comes from your co-religionists on this site or do you just turn a blind eye to it? Relentless sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, spamming articles that only promote religious heroism which numerous other editors have complained about, illegitimate vote stacking in AFDs, creating subreddits and making threats of violence to editors who dare push against the relentless POV pushing, lying to and deceiving admins and the community time and time again is just the tip of the iceberg. The entitlement from this clique on Wikipedia is astonishing, you think that you can just do whatever you want and the entire community has to just kowtow to your nonsense; any objections to your brazen religious supremacist agenda is met with accusations of bigotry and threats. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)