Talk:Sundar Singh (missionary)

God finally came to Sadhu.

Can someone prove this?? --78.154.133.146 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What an odd question obviously not in wicki terms.

Why do we need a quarter of the article about one paper that is so critical of the sundar singh story ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.68.186 (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

references

references may contain weasel words otherwise I find it helpful on the life of a sadhu, especially a transcultural visionary Julia Rossi 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sunnyasi?

Is the reference to Sunnyasi Christians spelled okay? Or is it meant to be sannyasi - this would be a generic monastic order in India and not specifically christian. Can someone clarify this point please? Julia Rossi 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In the 1927 biography The Gospel of Sadhu Sundar Singh by Fredrich Heiler it says that while traveling in Nepal Sundar Singh also found frequent support from the secret Order of Christian Sannyâsis. Perhaps this point will help clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelBM (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed the spelling in the article to sannyasi. – Fayenatic (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article seems like it was written as a personal essay and not as a neutral, encyclopedic article. Take these for example:

1. "Still no more than fifteen, he was utterly committed to Christ and in the twenty-five years left to him would witness extensively for his Lord."
2. "He described a struggle with Satan to retain his humility but he was, in fact, always human, approachable and humble, with a sense of fun and a love of nature."

Both of these (and larger bits of the article) could easily be rewritten to take out the tone issues. The first sentence could be rewritten as:

"He devoted himself to Christianity as a teenager and would spend the remainder of his life proselytizing."

It is a bit rough, but I'm sure people can see the difference. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with these remarks. I removed the "Biographical Controversy" from this article because it clearly reflected an type of evangelical bias concerning remarks about an unorthodox teacher Sundar Singh may have thought highly of. I find it irrational to characterize Sundar Singh as an evangelical any sense of what that means. Simply review his life. He basically decided he didn't need Western Christian institutions to legitimize him. That is a biographical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.86.139 (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"I find it irrational to characterize Sundar Singh as an evangelical any sense of what that means" - above paragraph - before describing anything in pejorative terms (i.e. badmouthing something) perhaps we all ought perhaps to do a bit of checking online (it saves us looking likew total prats sometimes) -

gathered today in about 5 minutes-

evangelical

OED (Oxford English Dictionary) online - 1 d. Of a person: Imbued with the spirit of the Gospel. rare. 3. Of or pertaining to an evangelist, or preacher of the Gospel. rare.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/evangelical - 6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelical - 5: marked by militant or crusading zeal ...

ARTFL Project: Webster Dictionary, 1913 - http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=evangelical - 3. Earnest for the truth taught in the gospel ...

"It is a bit rough, but I'm sure people can see the difference". --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (two paragraphs above) - yes the difference is clear but they don't say the same thing - so it's perhaps not a matter of style and phrasing - judging by the content of the article and the fact the Anglicanism apparently recognises the Sadhu as a 'Teacher of the Faith' the objected to example seems probably nearer the actuality of things than the bowdlerized version

Mich Taylor (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done – I think I made sufficient improvements, achieving a more neutral tone, to justify removing the tag. – Fayenatic (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite a bit of this article appears to have been simply copied verbatim from various Western hagiographies of Singh, especially the one by Benge, without citation. Not only is this plagiarism and possible copyright violation, but it also causes the inclusion of "unencyclopedic" material in the article: the material assumes the truth of one specific religion's beliefs, and also contains quite a bit of very questionable Orientalist biases and stereotypes (e.g. the bit about "Asia's awareness of God, no matter how limited that might be" or Singh's "vision of Jesus, who opened Sundar's soul to the truth"). Bruce Tindall 15:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Tindall (talk • contribs)

Biographical Controversy Section

This entirely section is a religiously motivated attack on Sundar Singh, his reported experiences, and his character. It was poorly written and there is little attribution to non-religious sources. It is completely inappropriate in a biographical entry on a religious figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher.sam (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"sadhu"

Is "Sadhu" a name? I know it is a title, but the wiki article about it does not indicate that as a title it is ever used by Christians. But this article always calls him Sundar rather than Sadhu. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)