Talk:Women in Sikhism

message: The point is to write it in the third person. Entire sections should not be quotes. Good material, but will need some change in language. Ie. if a quote is from a book, then it should be cited as so. Alos, there's a way to use footnotes more efficiently at Wikipedia:footnote. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

message: Do women carry kirpan? Or the other "5 Ks"?  If not, are there other differences?
Dehbach 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Hey, what gives?!
(AsSingh) 19:58, 13 Aug 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about page 304? Arrow740 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What, no men in Sikhism article?

message: I have copy edited the lead section of the article for grammar and tone and restructured the sections. There are a few portions which I cannot improve because they are confusing or ambiguous. For example, what does "man takes birth from a woman, and woman is born of a man" mean? Is this a reference to a Sikh creation story?
I am not going to continue copy editing for now because the rest of the article is confusing in both language and structure. However I'll post this page up on the CAT:COPY (or the monthly subpage) talk page for editors who want to give it a go.
I have also the large quotation and incorporated the important points into the text. I am pasting the removed quotations here for future inclusion in wikiquotes (I am not doing it myself now because I'm completely unfamiliar with wikiquotes...):
===Quotation ===


-Samuel Tan 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Samuel. I'll be moving them to Wikiquote shortly. They will be visible if you go to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nanak. Song (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit (July 2008) 

message: 

-Samuel Tan 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Samuel. I'll be moving them to Wikiquote shortly. They will be visible if you go to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nanak. Song (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation 

message: "Women in Sikhism" is a very delicate topic, first of all. I thank Samuel Tan for daring to take such a topic. I went through the topic, and what I saw was completly enough. I don't think this topic needs any editing at all. And in an encyclopedia, we should'nt try to interfere in any religion. That's all what I have to tell.
Edoo verysweet (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't deal with Religion 

message: Oh dear, yes - it has many issues, and I don't see how it can proceed without attention to copyediting, although as a copyeditor, it's sometimes hard to know what to do when the article has so many other issues.  Therefore, I am going to do the best that I can and request that others work on the other issues before resubmitting it (if needed) for copyediting.  Okay - copyediting is done, it's beyond copyediting, there are egregious statements in this article - I'm on to the neutrality editing.  Some statements made in this article are completely unsupportable in principle - and they are going to be removed right now.Levalley (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyediting 

message: Far too many.  I inserted fact tags at some of the most problematic, but practically every sentence in the middle section needs citations.  The article is opinionated and not up to wiki-standards.  I have removed text that would need an entire other (booklength) article to prove.  I have no way of knowing what parts are original research (entire thing reads like original research, although clearly, the editors have been using other sources than scripture in their work).  The article is very interesting and I believe it should stay on Wikipedia, it just needs lots of work.  I'm adding an expert tag and taking off the copyedit tag - it's been copyedited thoroughly (twice) and there's nothing more needed of copyeditors until the other problems are fixed (as noted by another copyeditor, above).Levalley (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of unverified claims 

message: I made a few edits in the Sati and Purdah and Equality for Women sections.  The second half of the article seems to have far greater issues with it than copyediting.  An Oxford comma was used in the intro, so I edited other sentences to include that.   Heresybythought (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor copyediting