Talk:Ram Singh Kuka

Date of death

In the one source I can check for the date of death, I'm seeing contradictory information. Are we better served to remove the date of death until we can verify it in a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We should remove this. Wonderphu1 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred - Encyclopedia Britannica gives his date of death as 1885 in Mergui, Burma [Myanmar]: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ram-Singh

It does not mention a month of death, however. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Respect

Using "Satguru" and "ji" is a form of respect that must be given and is a important part 122.173.27.39 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:HONORIFIC. Wikipedia does not use "ji", "PBUH", "+", or any similar honorifics after religious names. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

See, the thing is just like other Sikh gurus, Satguru Ram Singh ji was also a guru while there are different faiths in Sikhism too most of the Sikhs do not accept but a particular faith does. If you see, there are many places where he is known as Satguru. But if that doesn't work, then atleast writing 'Baba' before his name is but obvious very necessary because it is given to anyone who is very much respected in Sikhism is necessary. Just because he didn't get the respect and recognition he deserved, you just call him as Ram Singh Kuka, by which law is this satisfied?? Calling him satguru is very necessary but if it doesn't go with your policies or it might affect someone, I can't do anything. But using 'baba' is the need of the hour. Kindly address to this issue. Nopede Dopede (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

While we should also realise that Guru or religious people in every religion are to be respected with a prefix showing respect. we use guru with any of the earlier gurus, and someone of any other religion says that no that he isn't a guru or any other things that doesn't mean we change that even if they are majority, similarly in Sikhism, there are different sects. As a neutral organisation, Wikipedia must respect all faiths and this call him satguru. Just because being a guru for a minority doesn't mean that the respect isn't given and due to the majority not calling him the same you don't. And namdharis are a proper sect of Sikhism just like others are for example akalis,neeldharis,amritdharis etc. One can understand that another Sikh website doesn't use the prefix due to them not believing but according to the Wikipedia rules, being neutral is it's core, so where is it now? Nopede Dopede (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nopede Dopede: The difference is WP:COMMONNAME. The first ten gurus are commonly known as "Guru _____". It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with how English sources commonly refer to the people (or book) that the articles are about. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Painting of Ram Singh Kuka (second Namdhari guru) on horseback.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Common Name

In keeping with the policy of WP: COMMONNAME, I request users to consider the following scholarly sources and the reference therein to the notable personality pertaining to the article page:

1. Understanding Sikhism. By W. Owen Cole. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 2004. 182 pages. ISBN 1-903765-15-3. [uses the prefix 'Guru']
2. A Short History of Namdhari Sikhs of Punjab. By Joginder Singh. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 2010. 205 pages. ISBN 978-81-7770-156-2. [uses the prefix 'Namdhari Guru']
3. Namdhari Guru Ram Singh. By Joginder Singh. National Book Trust of India, 2010. 186 pages. ISBN 978-81-237-5918-0. [uses the prefix 'Namdhari Guru']
4. Sutantar Bharat Vich Namdhari Sikhan Da Sarthank Yogdaan (Contribution of Namdhari Sikhs in Independent India). By Kuldeep Singh. Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, 2019. 287 pages. ISBN 978-93-87765-28-3. [uses the prefix 'Namdhari Guru/Guru'].

Apart from this, culturally the reference is never made without 'Guru' in one form or the other. Government of India and State Government, Punjab never use the name without 'Guru', which is as per the recent scholarship and cultural understanding, 'inseparable' from the birth name.

I propose that if there is an urge to differentiate from the beliefs of mainstream ideology, the prefix 'Namdhari Guru' can be added. If the society has advanced to a good understanding already that the work of a personality will be considered on the face value of it (and not on the basis of their underlying background), then the prefix 'Guru' can be used, and it may be made sufficiently clear on the Wikipedia page that this belied is held by the Namdhari Sikhs. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 - Would you like me to ping some editors who work in the Sikh field of Wikipedia so they may share their thoughts? ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi: Sure, you may do so for a healthy discussion.

In my opinion, this particular case is a perfect example for WP: COMMONNAME. This policy clearly mentions that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." In simpler sentence, this means that Wikipedia editors should not shy away from using terminology that is widely accepted and used in reputable sources (majority of current reliable and relevant sources) related to a particular topic. This principle is based on the idea that Wikipedia aims to present information from a neutral point of view and relies on verifiable sources to do so.

I sincerely hope that the editors would not fall into the trap of trying to belittle the information in the article, fearing popularization of a particular ideology. This page is not for popularization of an ideology, but dissemination of the work on Sikh revival done by Guru Ram Singh. Though considered a Guru only by the Namdhari Sikhs, the work done for revival of Sikh principles, empowerment of women and opposition of imperialism was for the whole Sikh heartland, with the concepts of 'non-cooperation and boycott' being introduced for the first time, though gaining popularity in the Indian mainland, due to absence of temple functionaries (in the line of argument followed by Richard Fox) and the availability of media network, along with a difference of time span of another half a century from 1860s to 1920s. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Twarikh e Khalsa and @CanadianSingh1469 - hey guys, feel free to share your thoughts if you'd like. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Hey i wanted to let you know that canadiansingh (as of now) is currently retired from wikipedia. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Twarikh e Khalsa - I don't blame him. Anyways, thanks for letting me know. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Shall we use 'Namdhari Guru' as prefix, as also suggested by @Usingh0663? Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 Too soon to decide. The discussion was started 2 days ago. Not enough time has elapsed. ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Great. But I hope this would be settled as per the Wikipedia policies, and not as per the individual ideologies/beliefs. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 If you keep making personal attacks like this, I will be making a report to admins. First, you accused me of "copy and pasting" from a source, which is wrong as anyone can check all of my additions and see how I paraphrased and reworded any info found in sources I use. Now, you claim I have bias based upon "individual ideologies/beliefs". I request you refrain from commenting/making accusations against me and focus on the content dispute at-hand. ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Ok, cool. This was only inadvertent. I apologize. By 'copy pasting', I also meant that one should look at multiple sources preferably. In one of your own comments, you asked 'not to sanitize etc', I can also take it personally as an accusation. I am focused on the content. Per se, there is not dispute, I assume WP: Good faith in all of our discussions. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 Removing critical commentary of Ram Singh based on flimsy grounds is indeed possible sanitation of the article. Anyways, I feel like we are going to be going in circles with this so how about I make a request for a third-party opinion? I will focus on asking there if the EB source is reliable or not, since your objections seem primarily due to material from that source. ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi That's a great suggestion. I think it would help a lot. So far as I understood, I was clearly told by a Wikipedia administrator that Guru Ram Singh's article on EB doesn't constitute reliable source under WP: HISTRW. I think this would be a learning for all of them as well. Please go ahead. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 Which admin said Ram Singh's article on EB is unreliable? Please let me know their username. ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what's wrong with just using the title of "Guru" in the context of the Namdhari Sikh Gurus?

The term "Guru" is used in both Hinduism as well as Sikhi, so using "Namdhari Guru" might be too long for a single title. It may be more consistent to either write "Guru Ram Singh" as is the case of folks considered to be Gurus in the orthodox tradition of the Sikh religion (Guru Nanak Dev, Guru Angad Dev, etc.).

The alternative would be to use "Ram Singh" but then it might require changing the name of every Guru to remove this title. So "Guru Nanak Dev" would become "Nanak", etc as a way to maintain consistency across all Sikh wiki articles. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the prefix "namdhari guru" works best. Usingh0663 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Bharatavarsh.1947 - can we agree on the term 'Muslim butchers' rather than solely 'Muslims' or 'butchers'? I found sources that make note of their religious identity and highlighted it as being important in the civil conflict. Also, the Britannica encyclopedia is considered reliable if the article hosted on it was authored by the editorial staff of the organization. ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi In my opinion, branding 'butchers' as 'Muslims' here is wrong. Moreover, the point of contention was not religious identity. In fact, the British confidential correspondence reported that 'many Muslims spoke well of the Kuka faith'. As would be clear form the briefs that have been added in the article, the primary contention was the issue of kine slaughter. In fact, Namdhari Sikhs severed ties with Maharaja Duleep Singh, after he was reported to have consumed beef (he hadn't turned to Islam then). Hence, it gives a wrong picture if Wiki mentions 'Muslims' instead of 'butchers'. You can consider that and on your own responsibility. If you wish, I can share reliable sources here, which clearly demonstrate the point that I have made, on the basis of which I edited for the right word.

Regarding the consideration of Encyclopedia Britannica, as I have been informed, including by an admin Abecedare, that as per WP:HISTRW, item no. 8 'Signed articles in scholarly encyclopedias', only signed articles are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. That's when, I had stopped referring to Guru Ram Singh's article on Britannica further. EB is a good source, but for signed articles. I think you are drawing too heavily from EB. Please also consider revising the sentences, as I think, we are not supposed to be copy pasting content here.

For the point which you had reverted, I think it is 'presentation of the colonial opinion as a fact'.

I am quite sure that for the statement "However, years passed and the supposed prophesies of the British being vanquished by Ram Singh did not come true, therefore internal struggles began to arise within the sect. Then the sect began targeting Muslims as an alternative.", you would not find any reference in secondary source. This is the colonial line of argument taken in British reports and has not been verified in independent sources. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947

"we are not supposed to be copy pasting content here."

This is a egregious claim. Please point out which additions of mine were copy and pasted from EB? Also, I think we should seek out a third-party opinion to resolve this dispute. I do not agree with your reasoning as I find they are not in-line with reliable sources and would not present a neutral point of view for this article.

"I am quite sure that for the statement "However, years passed and the supposed prophesies of the British being vanquished by Ram Singh did not come true, therefore internal struggles began to arise within the sect. Then the sect began targeting Muslims as an alternative.", you would not find any reference in secondary source. This is the colonial line of argument taken in British reports and has not been verified in independent sources."

– I sourced this opinion from a source, it is not my own judgement and you cannot present your own understanding like this as fact over what is present in sources. We follow what reliable sources say on topics in Wikipedia, not our own understanding/judgement. ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Don't feel hurt. I don't mean to ridicule you.

For example, consider this sentence 'Ram Singh taught that the Namdhari sect was the "clean" ones out of all the Sikh sects and they referred to non-Namdhari Sikhs as mleccha ("unclean").' I don't think it is correct reading, even of the EB article. This is too much generalization and not in accordance with reliable historical sources, and in my opinion, not as per the expression of the EB article itself. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 The EB source states this: "Ram Singh instilled a sense of worth and dignity into his disciples (many of humble origin) by telling them that they were the elite of God and that other sects were mleccha (“unclean”)." How did I misinterpret the quote? It literally states that the Namdharis thought of "others sects" as mleccha with the explanation for the term given as "unclean". What exactly am I misinterpreting here? ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi The other sects does not mean "non-Namdhari Sikh" sects per se. It refers to superstitious beliefs and practices. Don't worry, I will share from reliable sources. As for the source I shared from journal Modern Asian Studies, 'mleccha' was used in the context of meat and liquor consumption. There is no reason to believe that theologically, these are in the Sikh religion in general, or were a practice specific to Sikhism in particular during those times. Those sects where either abuse of animals or intoxication was rampant are to be included under 'mlechha' as per Oberoi (1992), not specifically 'non-Namdhari Sikh sects'. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 What other sects would it be discussing? Clearly it's discussing other Sikh sects since Namdharis are a Sikh sect themself. Can you please quote the source you are referring to? ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, shall I quote here, or in the article? Both Dr. Fauja Singh Bajwa and Dr. Joginder Singh mention this. The other sects are those of 'Pujaris, Brahmins, and other spiritual persons who live by the votive offerings they receive from orthodox Hindus' and Sikhs, as are those advocating 'respect for tombs, temples, or shrines'. There is further mention that '(Namdhari Sikhs) reverence the temple of the Darbar at Amritsar as being the depository of the Granth'.

There are number of examples, which show the sects that were in opposition to Namdhari principles and whose business in the form of 'marriage fees, and other gains and exactions' were coming under threat by Namdhari movement, and all of these did not belong to Sikhism. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 By the way, I need to point out that the Brittanica article's bulk was published in 1998 by dedicated editors of the Encyclopedia. It had been updated on Jan 22, 2016 with the only information being added is that Ram Singh is still alive as per Namdhari belief. So it is most definitely one of the reliable articles on the site. Please read: WP:BRITANNICA, articles must be considered on a case-by-case basis and I see no evidence that this particular article is "unreliable". It is not one of the articles published in circa 2009 by contributions from the general public. See the article's history here: link ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi As I said in my earlier comment, please go ahead. I and many others would be benefitted by this, since when the content I was trying to add in Indian Independence Movement page was resented, one reason given was the unreliability of the EB article. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 - Ok, I will look at the page to see if there was any discussion. ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the last two comments under 'Namdhari Movement as first resistance post-1857 administrative unification of India'. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 - So i read the discussion over at the Indian independence movement. I learnt a bit from it. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, even I didn't know that all articles in EB weren't WP:HISTRW. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 Since they do indeed concur that articles by invited experts are reliable but articles written by their general staff is potentiallu unreliable, I see the point you are trying to make. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If you agree, we can completely remove the EB article and use other reliable, independent sources for the information. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, as per our last discussion on the sects, if necessary, we can use some amount of primary information as per the WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD policy. Rather than confusing the audience or mentioning points of contention, we can take care to present factual, verified information. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 - I removed sections of the article that were in-question. I'll add back in your prior edit now. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ThethPunjabi. Your orientation is really positive. In fact, on a lighter note, I was surprised to see your earlier comments. Be assured, I have no intention at all of disrupting Wiki or going against their policies. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Please also consider the issue of 'butchers' in the context. I am ready to even provide a new section for clarifying that Namdhari sect wasn't against Muslims per se. But only thing is that for this, I will have to refer to primary sources, which in my opinion, can be used as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Alternatively, there is a published article on this aspect, though not in a peer-reviewed journal. But rather than giving a colonially-laden information, I think we may use the above sources to clarify the point. The non-peer-reviewed article is backed by strong references. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 However, it's important keep in mind that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is an essay rather than a procedure, rule, or guideline, so it's not universally accepted across Wikipedia as valid. Honestly, the convoluted rules of Wikipedia is not my strong suit. I'm just here to improve articles on topics that interest me. I get why there are rules but I'm probably not the best person to discuss them with because I'm no expert. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi That's ok. Rules are guiding principles and should be taken in that form only. My only concern is that wrong information about Namdhari principles should not be there. Otherwise, this will only add up to existing contentions, when in fact, as per the historical readings that I have undertaken, there existed a lot of cooperation among different sects, belonging not only to Sikhism, Hinduism and Islam, but cross-sect cooperation as well. Some of this has already been discussed in secondary sources, and some remains to be described (or most likely, may have evaded my reading). Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 Feel free to add clarifications about certain statements but the original claims made by writers from reliable sources should not be removed from the article. We have to present a neutral point of view so both pro- and anti- Ram Singh commentary/viewpoints should be presented equally. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with this @ThethPunjabi. I will make these additions in sections, so that these could be discussed, before any other additions are desired. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 Feel free to make the additions, I'm interested in seeing them. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure @ThethPunjabi. I will consider adding these, depending on my regular schedule. Would be great to discuss these with you. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Can you please guide how to cite the reference:

The British origin of cow-slaughter in India : with some British documents on the Anti-Kine-Killing Movement, 1880-1894

byDharampal, T. M. Mukundan, Society for Integrated Development of Himalayas.

This is the reference no. 24, and is being flagged for improvement.

Thanks Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bharatavarsh.1947 Cite the book, include the relevant info in each field, and make sure you add a page number. Not sure what the issue is specifically with this source you mention. ThethPunjabi (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Added. Thanks Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Please see the recent addition that I have done, and guide if it helps us to get the actual picture of the times that we're talking here. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)