Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism

message: As this is a universal page on Prohibitions in Sikhism, references should be based upon religious text (Quotes from SGGS), rather than referencing the Rehat Maryada, as that is maintained by the SGPC, a questionable organization.  All Sikhs, no matter what type, believe in the religious text.  For the neutrality of this page, everything should be based off of Gurbani.
Gurbanivichar (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you must use cited refrences from verifiable sources. ISBN numbers. You must adhere to WP:NPOV, Thanks.--Sikh-History 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gurbani

message: Forget POVS, the section on Nihangs is plain incorrect. Firstly, its not bhang its SUKHNIDHAAN/ SHAHEEDI DEGH, Nihangs never refer to it as bhang, in fact this would be insulting.  Secondly, it is not an intoxicant, as made clear in the video given, just as much as a paracetamol is not an intoxicant. Thirdly, the article makes no mention of its PRIMARY use as a pain killer and protein drink. Finally, what on earth does "the HINDU god shiva", have to do here?
Also, what on earth was wrong with me categorising Kurehits and Bajjar Kurehits? I placed effort into that part, can you tell me how that broke any rules? 
Also, in general about your Meat edits, as much as we may wish it, the SGPCs ruling on something does not automatically make that view 'mainstream', 'orthodox', or official. Although perhaps in a black and white world this would be the case, but it just isn't and as far as I am aware wikipedia is to INFORM on the REAL world. Yes, akj is a minority in sikhism, but the way it has been placed there to cover the vegetarian side of the argument, seriously blurs it making it very one sided.
Onetwothreeabc (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly wikipedia is an encylopedia. It is not the provisio or "ownership" of one person. It relies heavily on Good Faith and NPOV. Therefre I ask yet again, please assume good faith. If you have cited refrences with ISBN numbers then please presents them here and we will read them. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that your surmise of not using meat is a very good one. If you study the Mongol's and what their field rations were, they comprised of meat. This is the case in many standing armies. There are many historical accounts of Sikhs eating meat. I am a vegetarian, not because I believe the Sikh faith or brotherhood forbids it, but my own conscience will not allow it. I did not become baptised and then gave meat, but did not eat well before that. The beauty it Sikhism it allows for people who do and do not eat meat to sit together and not let that be a factor to affect their spirtuality. The Akal Takht realised this and ruled on this. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: PLease discuss edits and do not add POV. I have checked that youtube video and it does not back up what you have claimed. Regards.--Sikh-history (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nihangs

message: Im not saying I agree or don't agree. But this page CONTRADCITS other pages about Sikh teachings (Vegetarian, being a priest etc.). 
108.23.228.249 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean. This contracdicts nothing? SH 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This page can't be right

message: I agree with many of the above comments regarding contradictions in this article and with the generally accepted principles of Sikhism. 
#Many feel Gurus never created universal, rigid laws or prohibitions. And feel Sikhism is based on broad wide ranging principals to guide followers. This makes it difficult to find enough verifiable, reliable sources that address the topic directly see WP:SIGCOV. 
#All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles
#There is little more important to say/add about the subject making it a candidate for permastub status. see WP:PERMASTUB
#I believe the suggestion above regarding use of Gurbani was made as the editor above was trying to suggest SGGS is more widely accepted by Sikhs.
#The article should not be too heavily based on primary sources. SGGS and Rehat Maryada are primary sources see WP:PRIMARY.
#Some referencing is dubious and misleading:
::*"According to the Sikh clergy, "the fad among youth to shed the pagri" is being observed" - The article is contradicting itself with reagrd to clergy. This can be confusing. Also this reference is a news article in which one individual is quoted as making this statement yet the sentence implies that Sikh clergy as a whole has reached this consensus.
#The article is very biased. For example:
::*"Not all people calling themselves Sikh subscribe to these prohibitions" - This implies the auther is deciding who can and cannot call themselves Sikh. It is irrelevant if they can or cannot call themselves Sikh. We should always write in an uninterested and neutral/academic tone. i.e. Who thinks these people should not be called Sikhs and can said statement be verified.
::*"Intoxicants are strictly forbidden for a Sikh." - The use of "Strictly" introduce a level of Non-NPOV. The use of "a Sikh" Implies this rule is accepted and followed by all Sikhs". 
:::A better way to write is. "removing hair from any body part is strictly forbidden for Sikhs by the Sikh Temple governing board" - In this case the editor makes it clear the label "Strict" is applied by "the Sikh Temple governing board". I accept that in the first case a reference points to Rehat Maryada which is controlled by Temple government, however this is misleading and takes away from neutrality.
With regards to point 1 (Prohibition is not an absolutely accepted principle in Sikhism WP:SIGCOV). Point 2 (Overlap with larger Sikh Articles) and Point 3 (Permanstub status WP:PERMASTUB). I would like to propose discussion to either delete this stub article or merger of it with Sikhism.
In any case i feel we shoudl address some of the non-NPOV statements and misleading comments in the article. Tindy1986 (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is Permastub and Sometimes Misleading

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Prohibitions in Sikhism. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611221322/http://sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_four.html to http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_four.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020202081302/http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html to http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208133334/http://satnamnetwork.com/Vaisakhi/sikh_code_of_conduct.htm to http://www.satnamnetwork.com/Vaisakhi/sikh_code_of_conduct.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114083718/http://sikhspectrum.com/112006/doris/ch8.htm to http://sikhspectrum.com/112006/doris/ch8.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prohibitions in Sikhism. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526123431/http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/meat.pdf to http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/meat.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified