Talk:Akhand Kirtani Jatha/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

User roadahead

"primary citations are quoted already on the article; long discussion has taken place on this already; plz don't take us in circles"

Plz state where ? Thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying here by quoting the edit summary of my edit in some other article? --RoadAhead =Discuss= 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SikhiWiki as source

Please do not use SikhiWiki pov on Wikipedia as source; its not a reliable source. Thanks, --RoadAhead =Discuss= 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Meat - dispute within the AKJ or only in the larger community?

The Jatha, like all Sikhs, agrees with the official Rehit Maryada that "Kutthaa" is prohibited. There is dispute, however, over the meaning of Kutthaa. Some Sikh scholars and the SGPC have defined Kutthaa in modern times to mean "meat slaughtered in the Muslim way" or "Halaal meat". This was added as an explanatory footnote in the SGPC-published Maryada. Others interpret Kuthaa is “slaughtered animal” or “killed animal”, and thus to mean any meat. As a result of this difference in interpretation, some Sikhs understand the word “Kutthaa” to mean Halaal meat, and some to mean meat in general.

I don't see why this belongs in an article about the Jatha, unless there is dispute within the Jatha about this. If there is, I would politely request a source. If not, then I submit it does not belong here, but in a more general article on Sikhism. Unless there is an objection, or a source showing (even a weak one, for me) that there is reason to include the dispute here, I am killing it tomorrow.sinneed (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sineed, this group differs from mainstream Sikhism, and it's followers (like Khalsaburg) are very didactic in their views. Their views differ on mainstream Sikhism on issues of meat (mainstream Sikhism leave the choice to the individual), and also on the issue of Keski. There are other points of contention and I think these need to be highlighted. I have added a link to the offficial Sikh code of conduct to highlight this point. Note also how the author of this has put Sikh Rehit Maryada in quotations, to indicate that he or she does not think of it as the Sikh Code of Conduct. I think these differences are important and need to be highlighted in this group. This group has also been linked to Sikh Extremism, which needs to be distanced from mainstream Sikhism. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Please join the discussion before making changes"

If you are serious, the solution is to lock the article against any changes. I won't support that. If the current editing style continues, I will support discussion before the kinds of sweeping changes you are making, but I don't advise it. It is too cumbersome. - sinneed (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sect? Objections?

There is a CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR difference between a sect and a jatha! How ridiculous to use christian terms to define a uniquely Sikh concept!! By claiming AKJ is a sect is completely misleading and incorrect. It is a JATHA an ORGANISATION completely under the mainstream religion. Just because you have a bone to pick with AKJ and other jathas, does not mean you can alter and distort accepted Sikh concepts. Talk to your average Sikh who is not too religious and not part of a jatha, they will not call a jatha a sect. AKJ IS A JATHA NOT A SECT, GET IT? Also, 'strict' is POV mate. Onetwothreeabc (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This is a very poor article that needs a clean up. A sect is just a smaller "group" within a larger "group". That does not constitute a POV. Jatha means group if I am not mistaken, and AKJ is clearly a distinct group or sect. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So fact I have found this neutral source that defines AKJ as a sect.Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
SH, you clearly have strong feelings against the AKJ, and your edits are strongly wp:POV. If this belongs in the article, it belongs in the body, with discussion and wp:BALANCE.- sinneed (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I will come back to you on the sect thing, I still find it very misleading. Anway, I'm not sure who put up the Babbar Khalsa bit at the end, but the comment simply defies logic. For one organisaton to be a front for another it would have to have been started AFTER the other organisation. To be honest the last section is a bit like tabloid journalism. Onetwothreeabc (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur, and cut it to the talk page for possible inclusion.- sinneed (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Readded the content in the body. Sikhs have been linked to Sikh Extremism. Should we add that to every article about Sikhs? Of course not.- sinneed (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you can find a neutral source that describes it other than a sect than I am open to suggestions. I have no feelings towards AKJ either way Sineed. Assume Good Faith. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to assume good faith. I am confident of your good faith. I am also confident of your wp:POV. The 2 have nothing to do with one another. I have readded the "sect" bit, in the body. We can FLOOD the article with {{CN}} flags, but to what point? Someone with knowledge of and interest in the AKJ will come along (perhaps yourself, though I don't relish pulling out the POV) and beef it up. It isn't needful to find a source that says it isn't a sect. The statement that it is a sect is in... putting it in the 1st sentence? I am confident you won't find support for that... but I have been wrong before. There are real problems with the article that could be solved instead of focusing on whether or not it is a sect.- sinneed (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious editorial hatchet work.

I light-heartedly hope the article is better with much of the unsourced and (please forgive me if you wrote it) overly complex wording cut.

Please Fact-Check! And please, add sources. Where I was not confident I could reword without erring, I cut... but I will STILL have introduced errors, as there simply are not enough sources, and/or the sources conflict as the matters are subject to opinion.- sinneed (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Article problems

It is rather drastically under-sourced. An interested editor may choose to use the AKJ's web site under wp:SELFPUB to source its beliefs and its statements about itself. This would help with the other problems.--- sinneed (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It does read much more like an essay than a encyclopedic article.- sinneed (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I hope I cut a lot of that out. All still needs more sourcing work.--- sinneed (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to cut out a lot of the elliptical (odd or overly complex) language, but without sources this is difficult and risky.- sinneed (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • What I did not feel I could safely reword, I simply cut... no sources... long challenged and flagged.--- sinneed (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Again partly because of the complex language and lack of sourcing, it is difficult to be sure that the wording is neutral or wp:BALANCED.- sinneed (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • As above. If I could not fix it, I mostly cut it. But there are still areas that need work. Especially sourcing, then balance.--- sinneed (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage someone with an interest in and knowledge of the AKJ to work on these problems.- sinneed (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut to talk for possible inclusion.

Khalistani Support and Links

Akhand Kirtani Jatha has been cited as a front for banned Khalistani organisations such as the Babbar Khalsa [1]. The Jatha, however, has denied these claims.

If this needs to be here, it needs balance, with a source. It also needs to be more neutral as I rewrote it here... no slant, no scare quotes, no "tries to distance". Just say it. If the statement is in the document, please say where and provide a quote. It is not visible.- sinneed (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My fault. I was e-mailed the article to be included in this. The article states that The Babbar Khalsa had affiliation with AKJ.I am not bothered either way if it is included or not. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The EL doesn't mention the AKJ at all. Possibly the underlying article (not cited) would...thus I killed it. No source.- sinneed (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Err actually it does. Subscribe to JSTOR and there are plenty of other articles that http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_011805b.html confirm that view. Some info on AKJ http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/akha.html and http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/02/11/stories/2004021105941100.htm http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/article_samparda_akj15.html Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see it. This does not mention the AKJ... or if it does, I simply don't see it, please provide a quote.
  • No, I will not subscribe to JSTOR, no need, an interested editor, when challenged, will provide a quote, or be content to leave the source off as it does not interest that editor.
  • The Sikh Times article would be good to source what that article says, but not what you added..."front for" won't be coverd by "under the aegis of".
  • The other sources I don't know... would they meet wp:RS? - sinneed (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/akha.html is a good research reference from a University. I'm adding it. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
While it is a website at a reputable institution, it isn't clear that it has the weight of a published source.- sinneed (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Added University of Cumbria's Research

They are about the only body that has actually done some research into various Sikh groups/sects/cults. http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/ Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Search shows a number of book sources over time... various slants, some scholarly, but mostly snippet views.

I have read the International journal of Punjab studies and also the commentary by WH Mcleod on the AKJ, and it pretty much states what the University of Cumbria have summarised. I will dig out the other sources. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording on meat.

At this moment, disputed section reads: "Some Sikhs and Sikh scholars define Kutthaa to mean "meat slaughtered in the Muslim way" or "Halaal meat".[8] Some Sikh scholars[9][10] also define Kutthaa as any ritually slaughtered meat (Halal, Kosher, Hindu Bali etc)."

How about "Some Sikhs and Sikh scholars define Kutthaa as "meat slaughtered in the Muslim way" or "Halaal meat",[8] others as any ritually slaughtered meat (Halal, Kosher, Hindu Bali etc)."

Or some other idea.

I promise I am not leaving these in without the "some", intentional or not, unhappy reading or not, that is a POV push.- sinneed (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Or how about:

"Some Sikhs and Sikh scholars define Kutthaa as meat "slaughtered in the Muslim way" ("Halaal meat"),[8] others [9][10] as any "ritually slaughtered" meat (Halal, Kosher, Hindu Bali, etc.)."

- sinneed (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I am going with this last if there is no objection, as there is clear objection to the current versions.- sinneed (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
At last. Sounds good. Cheers--Sikh-history (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Some" vs. "All"

An editor continues to remove "Some" from "Sikh scholars define...". Since this is clearly a point of contention, this repeated removal seems inappropriate. If, however, there is a wp:RS that says that there are no scholars who disagree... but there won't be.- sinneed (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No Sineed. How can I describe it. The sentence reads as if written by a 5 years old. Some say this....Some say that....Some might say..... and we end up with the lyrics to a new Oasis song. The sentence reads properly now. You ONLY need to put Some in one place. The sentence read "Some Sikh scholars say....blah. Sikh scholars ALSO say.....blah. Do you u n d e r s t a n d. I am not these words become of POV, it is because the sentences read very very badly. Call it my Englishness, but I like to see proper grammar and structured sentences. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Borderline personal attack. This is a simple edit dispute. Please read the "calm" section above. The some stays.- sinneed (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, it is clarifying what I am trying to do "Some" as a word in not the issue. What is the issue is the Grammar. It's bad man. --Sikh-history (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please visualize as many copies of "yes it was" and "no it wasn't" as you wish here. I don't think it is needful to actually go through it. If you feel an overwhelming urge to say someone's edit appears to be the work of a 5 year old, please be aware they may well consider that a personal attack, and that I expect the objecting editor would find wide support for that view. Possibly not, though.
  • If you make 12 sentences out of this, then each will need to make the "some" clear.- sinneed (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt your grammar...

But no hits on "dee"... lots on "da". It isn't really unusual for names to fail standard usage.- sinneed (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Will the real AKJ website please stand up.

We have 2 sites, rather substantially different. I have no idea which, if either, is "official". The one I added is linked from an article titled "Bhai Mohinder Singh KalaSanghyan Declared Akhand Kirtani Jatha Chief" Here- sinneed (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of Sikh history and trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. Here are nearly all the AKJ sites:

For such a small minority sikh sect, they have a massive amount of websites. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly www.panthic.org is probably the euivalent of the Sun newspaper in the UK and the News of the World. Yes Sikhs have tabloids too. :-)--Sikh-history (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


the official site is http://www.akj.org. you can find a lot of literature there that will help clarify any confusion in this article. the other sites are mostly regional, some are for specific activities (gatka), and some aren't even AKJ sites at all! --Jaskaur (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Initiation Ceremony (Amrit Sanchar)

I have removed the section about initiation because it was incorrect. Please don't keep re-adding it (sineed). AKJ follow the SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada proscribed initiation. I'm unsure how to add a source for something removed from a page, so I'll just add a comment here to explain what I'm doing.

When I get more time I'll try to rewrite the article, as the main source (Balbinder Singh Bhogal) seems biased and confused against AKJ in general. --Jaskaur (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Akhand"

the word Akhand means continuous. can we remove the "dubious" tag?

from my punjabi/english dictionary:

Translation for "ਅਖੰਡ" Indivisible, undivided, whole, entire, perfect, complete, uninterrupted, continuous. --Jaskaur (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

With a source, sure. {{cite book|...}} is the best way.- - Sinneed 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dec 5 clash - and other mentions

wp:NOTNEWS - this will need to settle a bit, I think, but I want to capture sources - I also just started capturing articles.

Rehat Maryada Versus Sikh Rehat Maryada

Ok, this is a fundamental point that needs to be clarified. The terminoligy is fundemental. "Rehat Maryada" means code of conduct and is apllicable generically. Muslims, Hindu's, Christians, Jews Buddhists all have a code of conduct. The "Sikh Rehat Maryada" is the Sikh code of conduct, devised by the "Akal Takht", and is published by the Shiromani Prabhandhak Management Commitee. Note the word Management Committee. The SGPC do not have their own code of conduct. They do not sanction codes of conduct. They are just a management body. To keep inserting SGPC is a fundamental flaw and distorts the article and the meaning. I have inserted references from books to highlight this, but the words keep being deleted. Please do not do this again. The "Akal Takht" is the Sikh body that rules on Sikh Temporal affairs. --Sikh-History 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article title remains Rehat Maryada.
Adding "Sikh" seems appropriate, however, removing the SGPC (see references) from it is not.
Changing the article redirect to point to an article that does not exist is not appropriate.
Removing the other edits is not appropriate. It is quite clear that the AKJ and SGPC do not interpret the document the same.
It seems the references do not refer to the "Akal Takt Sikh Rehat Maryada" but to "SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada". Perhaps the article needs other references. - Sinneed 13:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this right? You are using an incorrectly cited wikipedia article which has been tagged for ages as the basis of your argument? Oh dear. The SGPC does not interpret anything. Are you reading the sources? Are you reading the books? The references are there. There is no such thing as the "SGPC Rehat Maryada". That is WP:OR. All they do is manage. The SGPC do nothing else. Why cannot you understand this. Best Wishes. --Sikh-History 14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope.- Sinneed 14:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Read these sources and get back to me:
  1. ^ Haynes, Jeffrey ((30 Jun 2008)). "19" (in English). Routledge handbook of religion and politics (1 edition ed.). Routledge;. pp. 316. ISBN 0415414555. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ULWtjZxscpIC&pg=PT328&dq=Sikh+rehat+maryada&as_brr=3&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Sikh%20rehat%20maryada&f=false. Retrieved 17th December 2009.
  2. ^ Singh, Nirmal (2008). "10" (in English). Searches In Sikhism: thought, understanding, observance. New Dehli: Hemkunt Publishers. pp. 184 onwards. ISBN 9788170103677. OCLC 320246878. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yMJypUEQkEQC&pg=PA184&dq=Sikh+rehat+maryada&as_brr=3&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Sikh%20rehat%20maryada&f=false. Retrieved 17th December 2009.
  3. ^ Kapoor, Sukhbir Singh; Mohinder Kaur Kapoor (2008). "Introduction". The Making of the Sikh Rehatnamas. New Delhi, India: Hemkunt Publishers. pp. 9. ISBN 9788170103707. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6A_IX9WxnhoC&pg=PA9&dq=Sikh+rehat+maryada&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Sikh%20rehat%20maryada&f=false. Retrieved 17th December 2009.
  4. ^ Takhar, Opinderjit Kaur (2005). "3" (in English). Sikh identity: an exploration of groups among Sikhs (Hardback ed.). England: Ashgate; illustrated edition edition (24 Aug 2005). pp. 76. ISBN 978-0-7546-5202-1. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aeKWQzesOc4C&pg=PA76&dq=Sikh+rehat+maryada&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Sikh%20rehat%20maryada&f=false. Retrieved 17th December 2009.

Thanks--Sikh-History 14:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but thank you. I believe I have made the edit you have been attempting to make for you. Please focus on the content, not on educating me.- Sinneed 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hold on Sinneed - you asked (several times) for sources and now you are claiming to be patronised because they have been supplied? You don't seem to be approaching this debate with a great deal of maturity. Nancy talk 14:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I pointed out that the source in the article used the words quoted in the article "SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada".- Sinneed 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am bowing out. I really cannot be bothered to get in a dispute. I know Sineed you are a good editor, but in this instance I don't understand what you are doing. I was approached (by email) in trying to balance out incorrect information with 4 verifiable sources. I will leave it to you. Regards --Sikh-History 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Me too, SH.- Sinneed 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts Sikh History. Yes! SGPC is simply a management body, it doesn't have any of its own code of conduct. It does not sanction code of conducts. The "Akal Takht" is the Sikh body that rules on Sikh Temporal affairs. SGPC simply manage Sikh institutions and post orders-of/matters-approved-by Akal Takhat, e.g. Akal Takhat's order--24.5.208.21 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

It might be better to include that in the AKJ beliefs/practices section, with more neutral language.

Fans of the founder have tried repeatedly to insert the "Sant", "Bhai" and other wp:honorifics into this and his own article. The amount of glowing fan-cruft I cut earlier was large.- Sinneed 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Word it as you see fit. I just inserted the quote from the source that was sent to me. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll let it rest, see if anyone else is interested. If only I see it as a problem, it just doesn't matter.- Sinneed 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Beeshoney (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

walls of separation

This artical says that majority of sikhs serving in the world's armies belonged to this Jatha, if they will only eat food cooked by Amrithari's did they have special cooks or kitchens in each armies's kitchen?

Brings to mind stories of Muslims who will not touch a Hindu or Christian or their food or water. And of highcast Hindus who will not touch food , water, or even the shadow of those below their station or of any other religion (including its people) this does not remind me of Guru Nanak who surely ate food or drank water along with his Muslim and "untouchable" brothers. are not all humans born of the same clay, clod or clot of the creator?Atmamatma 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sikhs of AKJ eat langar alongside whoever else is there. However, they usually only eat food prepared by other Amritdhari Sikhs. This is based on Gurbani: ਚੋਰਾ ਜਾਰਾ ਰੰਡੀਆ ਕੁਟਣੀਆ ਦੀਬਾਣੁ ॥ ਵੇਦੀਨਾ ਕੀ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਵੇਦੀਨਾ ਕਾ ਖਾਣੁ ॥ Thieves, adulterers, prostitutes and pimps, make friendships with the unrighteous, and eat with the unrighteous. -SGGS, ang 524.

It is not the same as Hindus and "untouchables", because anyone can become Amritdhari, while "untouchables" cannot change their caste. --Jaskaur (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the many sakhis with Guru Nanak Dev Ji or Guru Gobind singh ji eating at the hands of the gareeb?? where they somehow forced to take amrit before Guru sahib shakked langar from them? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.79.34 (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Apparently, this group is mainly notable for being involved in some religious violence and terrorism in the Punjab during the 1980s, and to a lesser extent for participating in the Khalistan movement during the same period. It is unclear whether this is now anything more than an internet fad.

I realize that there has been some noise over this on Sikh internet fora over the past years, but a religious group is not the same as internet trolling. If this is simply a topic of internet trolling within the Sikh diaspora in Britain, I doubt this merits an encyclopedia article.

If this is more than a movement that assassinated some Nirankaris in the 1980s and now serves as a flamebait in Sikh internet discussions, the references presented certainly aren't capable of substantiating it. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems

There's a couple of problems here.

  • The article says the movement was founded in the 1980s, but the source at http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/article_samparda_akj.html says 1930s. And lower down in the article, it says the movement arose in the 1970s. Which is it?
  • Is http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/article_samparda_akj.html a reliable source?
  • Citation #2 is really mangled, and has been for years. Part of the content of the article is inserted into the citation; the author names must be incorrect, because the quoted site does not list any authors; the date is obviously wrong, as the material was not written in 1903; and the title is missing.
  • There's repetitive material; we only need to say stuff once. I have made a start at fixing things but someone more familiar with the subject matter will have to get involved in the repairs.-- Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarabveer's edit

@Sarabveer:, There are several problems with your edits. First your tone is very non-encylopediac, preachy and full with WP:POV right from the lead para. Then "well-known Gursikh, Bhai Sahib", whole para on Randhir Singh, then most of it lacks references. At some places you refer to other topics for more details. They way u r doing is not correct. Carefully read WP:MOS. phrases like "generally speaking" (we are not speaking on wikipedia), linking Ragmal the wrong way, using Ji/Sahib for various people throughout article, too much jargon, " teach us" (there is no us), then POV in Sikh-Nirankari clash section. There are many more problem. But these are the ones, which are just too obvious.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani: Keep Reverting Back to Old Article with Less/Wrong Info

I have one question for you, why are you keep reverting the article back to the old one. The new one that I wrote has actual facts and support from books.

Also, I see you not part of the Jatha, why are you getting rid of factual info, I could report you to Wikipedia.

Well I can also report you and most likely get you blocked. Tags asked for expert in religion, not a preacher. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani: RE: Sarabveer's Edit

@Vigyani: Ok then, you could have just told me to fix this up, instead of putting the old article back up? I fix this up right now. And at the moment, I am trying to get more references.

It does not matter if you are part of this organization. And before adding to article, you better paste your version here. I don't agree with your present version.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you are attempting to re-write the whole article. I suggest you first do it in your sandbox and then everyone can have a look at it. Once it looks okay, then it can be pasted here. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani: My Article

Ok, Bhai Sahib is way to give respect. He was a highly respected Gursikh. And He was also well-known. (How? I am trying to dig up an article from the Sri Akaal Takht Sahib) Sarabveer (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

For above line and lead para: According to WP:MOS, no one is to be given any special respect, everyone is referred in a neutral formal way. So Ranbhir Singh will be referred as such without any Bhai Sahib. respected , Well known are eacock terms, see WP:PEACOCK, (2) Instead of "simply a collection" use AKJ is an organization of Sikhs...(3)living life according to how Guru Sahib has instructed, either use specific term like Rahit Mariyada or any other specific set of belief. (4)Widely felt, by whom ?? (5) it is important , this is POV. I mean it is important for you but not rest of the world. (6)Sangat, Gursikhs, Gurmat Karams including Amrtivela Naam Abhiyaas, Nitnem and Rehat Rehini, too much Jargon.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
For section History: In addition to already given suggestions, This section need references for the claims. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
For subsection Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh: Sikh parents --> born in a Sikh family. true Saint-Soldier - Peacock, ot only did he spend every breath in the remembrance of God, but also bravely fought for righteousness and against the British Empire in India--promotional tone. More can be read about Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh in his autobiography-this cannot be done like this.
Please incorporate above suggestions to your sandbox copy and lets see how it goes. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

These two phrases are contradictory:

1. "The group replaces the uncut hair (kesh) with a small under-turban (keshki)"

2. "The addition of keshki to kesh"

Can someone resolve this? Do the AKJ cut their hair or don't they?


AKJ don't cut hair, they replace "kesh" as a kakkaar with "keski", because it is believed that all the kakkaars are external to the body, while kesh is part of the body. --Jaskaur (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The words kes appear in bani - where does kes'ki' appear?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.79.34 (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does Kanga or Kashera appear in Gurbani? - the argument above about Kes appearing in Gurbani is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.213.254 (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Bhogals Article

1. AKJ is not a sect, AKJ follows the Akal Takht Rehat Maryada, and they extend upon the Maryada, which is not considered being a sect. There is no such thing as SGPC Maryada, they don't create it, they publish it. That is a fact.

2. The ref is very biased against Bibek, and the actual meaning. I admit the old articles meaning was weird, but this one is too biased.

3. The AKJ is not fundamentalist as that accuasa is made on a weird and false accusation.

4. It is looked down upon, or considered taboo, to look at someone else other than the Guru as a sant, even when people do it Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh.

5. I used the Bhai Sahib prefix up in the 4th reason because that is the Official prefix given to him by the Akal Takht.

6. This is the truth, there aren't any reliable neutral sources availible for this topic, you need to use self info,even though Wikipedia doesn't like that, it is inevitable.

~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:4200:33:76:C341:7BE:7F19 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Get a decent referenced source and we'll look at it. See article WP:Reliable. No WP:Peacock please SH 20:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is a book that is being translated into English. It has many Articles about the AKJ by various Sikh Scholars.2601:81:4200:33:B5C8:85EF:E6FF:4EEE (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please look WP:Reliable, also be mindful of WP:Fringe , we need something that is not WP:OR and has ISBN reference numbers. If you can do that, put it here and we'll take a look. Please don't delete referenced material in the meantime from the article SH 20:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the book is written in Punjabi, but it does not have a ISBN. I'll try to find better books with ISBN's and English translations availible online.2601:81:4200:33:30FD:6A:B636:8E8F (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I think if it's not an academic sources you may have problems. For example, Bhai Randhir's own book written in English, is pretty poor with regards to grammar and academic sources and would not pass the scrutiny of editors here. If you can get academic papers or books that would be great. Thanks SH 14:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Akhand Kirtani Jatha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akhand_Kirtani_Jatha/Archive_1&oldid=1142751716"