Talk:Sach Khand

untitled
Hi, i would appreciate it if you comment on why you are disputing the neutrality of the article, and its tone. I am simply paraphrasing and summarizing from two scholarly books on the issue (and i gave references to these books). Soham321 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, the issue is that it presents those religious views as truth, which isn't a neutral point of view but a Sikh point of view. Have a look at Sikhism for an example of how you might talk about Sikh teachings in a more neutral way. Agtx (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is is a Sikh point of view. Surely, Sikhs are permitted to express their point of view. I see nothing wrong in a description of the Sikh point of view, the Sikh perspective, on Sach Khand (a term coined by Sikhs by the way) without the need to add all kinds of qualifiers. Just the fact that the article is clearly stating that this is the view expressed in a book written by the Founder of Sikhism is a sufficient qualifier.Soham321 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

, you can't keep the non-neutrality tag on the main article indefinitely. you need to keep participating in the talk page and if we cannot come to some agreement we will simply have to go for dispute resolution. Also, if the article is not following the 'encylopedic tone' used in wikipedia then you are welcome to make suitable modifications. but you can't just place tags on the article and then stop participating in the talk page of the article. Soham321 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The neutrality tag will stay as long as there's a neutrality problem. It's been only one day, and there are no deadlines. I have real life commitments, and other things I do here on Wikipedia, so please don't accuse me of abandoning the discussion because I don't respond immediately. As far as your substantive comments, I'm not suggesting that Sikh's can't express their point of view, but we can't present it here as truth. We can find a way to rewrite this to present the views in a neutral way, like the article I cited before. I'm not Sikh, and I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but if you'd like me to try and edit, I will over the next few days. It's not going to happen immediately. agt x  03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking a little bit more, I have another concern. The bulk of the text appears to be a very close paraphrase of reference 1. I don't have access to the full text, but I can see snippets of page 71 on Google Books preview, and it is extremely close to what is written here. I'm going to add a close paraphrasing tag, and since I don't have access to the source, I'm going to suggest that you either substantially modify or retract the text. agt x  03:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, I'm concerned about the snippets I see at, , and , among others. agt x  03:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have attempted to paraphrase the material without deviating from what the text is saying in any way because i recognize that this concept is something sacred to Sikhs. I am glad you were able to locate the source. Now the thing to do is to stop piling on one tag after another and start modifying the main article. After all, you have access to the source now so there can be no excuses for why you are not modifying the article as you see fit, and prefer to instead place one tag after another. Soham321 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I should be a little more clear. I know enough about Wikipedia to clean up tone even when I don't know about the subject, but I don't know enough about this subject to fundamentally rewrite the article. That's what needs to be done here. I've tagged the article so that when editors who are more well-versed in the subject than I am come along, they can help out. As I said though, the copyright thing is a big problem, and it needs to be addressed. If I just remove the close paraphrase of the copyrighted material, there won't be anything left on the page. I really don't want that. Are you willing to fix the content you added? agt x  04:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I just did more editing. Please give your feedback and remove any unnecessary tags. Soham321 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks a lot better, thank you for doing that. You're definitely more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. I went ahead played around some with the language and cleaned up some formatting. agt x  05:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should add that if my changes made anything inaccurate, obviously please feel free to fix it. agt x  05:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The difference between the two views of Sach Khand
,In his book the Japji Sahib, Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism has described the five spiritual levels culminating in Sach Khand. Now, as per his description, this level corresponds to the individual's mystical union with God.

However, many people amongst the masses that is to say the common man amongst the Sikhs are unfamiliar with the scholarly bookish nitty gritty in Guru Nanak's writings, and so many Sikhs amongst the masses believe they reach Sach Khand after their death. Soham321 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Heavenly land?
Is it a heavenly land for sure? I personally have not heard many sikhs say this term before. Many say this is the equivalent of Mukti (liberation) not some Baikuntha Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)