Talk:Damdami Taksal

---

Akhand Kirtani Jatha

Pls give reasons for ommisions for AKJ information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.198 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonder what info of AKJ was omitted? Is the line ending - without legitimate democratic jurisdiction - correct? Did the writer of this line mean to say it would not be legitimate and done without legitimate democratic jurisdiction? puzzeling, as I thought the whole idea of Sarbat Khalsa was exactly that - done by majority. Allenwalla (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

POV questionable in section Declaration of Khalistan & Constitution of the Panthic Committee

I'm nominating this section as needing editorial review for Neutral Point of View, I question the last statement about genocide on a par with Nazi Germany. Please see WP:NPOV for guidelines. Chuckiesdad (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Distortion of History section

I request editor Sikh history to not to distort this section and also not to delete the references. It violates several wikipedia policies including wp:pov and wp:vandalism. He can discuss his issues over here. Thanks.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop these personal attacks and stop trying to change what the references state. You are on your final warning. After this you will be blocked. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears, other editor simply invited you for discussion but instead of working on wp:consensus you are blaming him/her with some 'personal attack blames' which per my understanding, he never did. Dear editor User: Sikh-History, suppressing duly referenced information can not be allowed on wikipedia. How many editors would you suppress? Please work with other editors to reach wp:consensus--144.160.130.16 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no invitation for discussion, but references were deleted without discussion and text altered. I am open to discussion. What I am not open to is censorship. Thanks--Sikh-History

If you guys refer to my edits of May 9th, you would see that I had made the text very neutral but editor Sikh-History didnt like it and he again pused his own views, which is definitely a violation of wp:npov....It appears that this censorship is actually comming from editor Sikh-History's side only. I consider myself totally neutral in this matter and I personally do not agree with the way this article is being distorted by this respected editor. I am open to any discussions to make this article valuable. 170.35.208.21 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There are very few editors, some of them are involved here, including editor Sikh-History who are knowledgeable on Sikhism and who are actually contributing to Sikhism related articles. These editors should look for wp:consensus to give room to each other and to imrpove Sikhism related articles with each other's help...any fight among ourselves is not going to take us anywhere..... so dear editor Sikh-History, please re-evaluate your way of editing/censorship... at the same time, all the best to you and other editors....'just my few cents... 170.35.208.21 (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article as it stands IS wp:balanced. Quite frankly, there are some very "dodgy" website links and only a handful of ISBN referenced books. In terms of referencing, an ISBN referenced book carries far more weight than a website. Thanks--Sikh-History

Sikh History is at it again and he insists Sunder Singh Lyallpuri was a leader of the Taksal rather than Sunder Singh Bhindranwala.Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't really care. All I care is about the references being WP:Reliable SH 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting back to an incorrect synopsis which also lacks the - who what where and how requirements of an event. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Google books, http://www.panthic.org/articles/2696, and http://www.vidhia.com/Rehat%20Maryada/Gurmat_Rehat_Maryada_-_Damdami_Taksal.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, may I rewrite the points from the Gurmut Rehat Maryada in my own words and add them back the section? Is it still considered to be copyright? eg.

"Children are not to be taught Gurbani or the philosophy of the Guru, by a non Amritdhari or a non-believer of the Guru." - copyrighted

turns to

The Damdami Taksal believes that all education related to Gurmat (the Guru's Ideology) must be taught strictly by Amritdhari Sikhs. - own words

Thanks, Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Content needs to be not only in your own words, but presented differently. For example if you paraphrase all the material but present everything in essentially the same order as the source, you might still be in violation of copyright law. Please see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing especially Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE#How to write acceptable content. Also, you will first will need to discuss the reliability of the sources and the validity of the content with User:Sikh-history, who removed the material once already for reasons other than copyright concerns. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I ordered that content myself so that shouldn't be a problem (under the heading you saw in the earlier edit). I have read through the links and do understand the problem of paraphrasing. I will contact SH before proceeding. Thanks Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You really need to watch your grammar and english use. Your overly long use of wording, when a few words will make the same point need to be worked on. For example, it makes no difference to the fact that when the conflict started between Gandhi and the Taksal that 2.2 million people were gathered? How is this relevant to the point you are making? Also we don't need to put, Jathedar Saheedian Misl Baba Deep Singh etc etc. See WP:Manual of Style. It's pure flannel. Superflous. Thanks SH 09:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

www.panthic.org fails WP:reliable. I've ben through the site and shoddy "journalism" (is use the term in quotations because its clearly not journalism) such as this, leads me to believe it's more of an extremist blog than something that is reliable. Thanks SH 09:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, The 2.2 million people present is a big deal. Its not your average event. It clearly makes it a more prominent event. The way you have worded that paragraph does not have enough details to convey what happened nor does not make sense chronologically. Secondly I put " Shaheedan Misl Jathedar Baba Deep Singh" Which is not an honorific but just tells what Misl Baba Deep Singh belonged to but I can change Jathedar to leader if its too complex for non-Punjabi readers. It's not "flannel" and its also referenced content. I apologize for using www.panthic.org once on Harjinder Singh Dilgeer page. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand WP:Manual of Style. I suggest you re-read it. In the meantime you are being reported for edit warring which will probably lead to a block. ThanksSH 01:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:Weasel

Please do not use the term WP:Weasel in the wrong context. The reference by Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby, John H. Garvey, ed. (1996). Fundamentalisms and the state: remaking polities, economies, and militance. The Fundamentalism Project 3. University of Chicago Press. p. 266. ISBN 978-0-226-50884-9 states "In 1706, when Gobind Singh...he is said to have founded a distinguished school of exegesis.". WP:Weasel does not apply where it is the reference that makes the assertion. Thanks SH 12:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to say the term Damdami Taksal didn't exist, or that Guru Gobind Singh never started a Taksal at Damdama Sahib? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying anything. All I am doing is quoting from books of researchers. Many (if not most) Sikh Historians doubt DDT even existed at the time of the Tenth Master. What I think and you think is wholly irrelevant. All we must do is present a WP:NPOV . Thanks SH 00:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont understand why you keep removing my referenced content. In your last edit you removed atleast four lines. All scholars agree that Guru Gobind Singh founded a Taksal (school) at Damdama Sahib some call that taksal Baba Deeps Singh's Taksal, some call it Damdami Taksal. My edits clearly explain this rational of different leaders of the Taksal by including titles such as Bhidran Taksal to denote the schools revolving around the Bhindranwale Jathedars. Nevertheless I didnt remove any information that I did not agree with I just added or moved information you must learn to do the same if you want to write in the WP:NPOV style. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually all scholars don't agree the tenth master formed the Taksal. I actually believe he did, but that is irrelevant if researchers and academics can find no proof. Most scholars (read the references in the article) cannot prove the existence of the Taksal until a few years ago. No doubt you will find some obscure scholars who can prove their exitence. The only people who claim to be originated from the tenth master are the Taksal themselves. Thanks SH 08:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, all scholars agree that their existed a school/taksal at Damdama Sahib where Guru Granth Sahib added Guru Tegh Bahadur hymns to the Guru Granth Sahib making its final form. Its not the Taksal its a Taksal. I will add more information soon which will make this point much more clear because I do agree that the 'term' damdami taksal, which literally means in punjabi the taksal on the run, most likely wasnt used by Guru Gobind Singh to describe a specific intuition but a group of places/taksals that consist of similar forms of traditional Sikh learning carried out in a specific way eg. with a prominent Sant in charge. I reworded the two critical references denying the existence of the Damdami Taksal term because they both point to the term rather than place as I've just described, making them more relevant to the source rather than original research. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Show me the refrences here and we'll tale a look. I also suggest you learn some proper grammar before making changes to this article and adding incorrent gibberish to it. Thanks SH 19:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your POV is not important you cannot remove referenced content. Please reply the above questions to have a coherent and productive discussion regarding the original research in the Damdami Taksal term criterion. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to keep the article and the way it is written academic, rather than looking like some religious dogmatic pamphlet. Your co-operation would be appreciated. Thanks SH 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving those parts back this time. I still have a problem with the event that happened on the 300 year anniversary of Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom could you re-arrange it so the dispute part comes before the 'This was the starting point of tensions between Damdami Taksal and the Indian Congress Government' sentence. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit you've done is fine, butyet again your poor English and Grammar strikes again. You have to do better. The Note you have added is just about acceptable.SH 10:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting meaning of Damdami

The article lacks it. if there is indeed a meaning. Etymology section can be added--DBigXray 12:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

February 2020

Sapedder, you should have discussed before removing stuff here. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I made mention of it in my edit summary, basically that one source was a duplicate source of a single book by Pashaura and Hawley in two citations, so I merged the two. The other by Fair and Ganguly quote Oberoi that "while the claims to the tenth guru are plausible, there is no real firm evidence to support it either." I don't know about the encyclopedic value of this statement, it basically says "it could be, but maybe not," which doesn't add to the article imo. Oberoi's satisfactory threshold of proof isn't stated either, and its alumni in prominent positions puts in question its obscurity; it just seemed like a subjective statement. I looked through the source for more info specifically pertaining to Damdami Taksal but didn't find any, so I made the decision to remove the source; the subject matter makes it better suited to other, related articles. Hope this clarifies, Sapedder (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)