Talk:Women in Sikhism

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 footnote. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, some if it appears to be copyright violation (ie. a straight lifting from a copyrighted text, unless she released it into the public domain?), I'm not an expert on this, so can someone simply convert this into their own words in the third person? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question
Do women carry kirpan? Or the other "5 Ks"? If not, are there other differences?

Dehbach 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.187.16 (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Not exhibited
Hi There,

Regarding the section reproduced below:

'''In Eastern Society, the Muslim religion also demeans women. The holy Koran contains explicit details concerning the inferior treatment of women. This includes the right of a man to divorce his wife, never vice versa, and the wearing of a veil to cover a woman's face, called burkah, in public. The Koran reminds men, "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) ... And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them."2'''

I believe that you have not used a Neutral Point Of View. You have stated a "fact" in which the above paragraph would imply, to anyone who does not know better, that all Muslim women are treated in an inferior manner. YOu have not cited any of the passages in the Quran, which advise on treating women equally which you should do as well. Also, in the statement above you are expressing your opinion. You need to re-phrase this to be neutral.

Please read up on the neutral point of view, within the help pages on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

What, no men in Sikhism article?
Hey, what gives?! (AsSingh) 19:58, 13 Aug 2006 (UTC)

WOMEN DO CARRY KIRPAN AND THE 5K's. THEY ARE TREATED WITH RESPECT.


 * How about page 304? Arrow740 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit (July 2008)
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)


 * 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)

Don't deal with Religion
"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)

Changes Requested
I was going through this article and noticed a lot wrong with it, mostly things that cannot be fixed by me, with my limited knowledge- okay, nonexistant knowledge- of Sikhism. So, if it's okay with the rest of you, I'll place a list of things that need clarification below. Cool? Cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Song of the Dragon (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "In Sikhism, women are considered to have the same souls as men (clarification needed here- same exact souls or same quality of souls?)"
 * "They are allowed to... work as a Granthi (insert short description here), and participate in religious, cultural, social, and secular activities."
 * "Also, according to Sikhism a man can never feel secure and complete during his life without a woman, and a man's success depends upon the love and support of the woman who shares her life with him, and vice-versa (The second male example should be replaced by a female example)"
 * "The founder of Sikhism, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, reportedly (is this a fact? Can I get a reference?) said in 1499 that "[it] is a woman who keeps the race going" and that we should not "consider woman cursed and condemned,/[when] from woman are born leaders and rulers."(Do the words “sic” have any useful purpose? I deleted them…)"
 * "However, gender equality has been difficult to achieve. (This is a ridiculous sentence. I’ve deleted the “because” part, but if someone would kindly figure out the real reason and put it there I would be most grateful.)"
 * "Women who were used to having equal privileges with their men in Vedic India were reduced to a position of subordination during the time of the lawgivers. (A little more background information would be nice.)"
 * "The Smrtis (what is that supposed to be?) used to enjoin upon the widow to practise sahamarana..."
 * "...according to which a woman giving birth to a child remains in pollution for a given number of days, depending upon the caste to which she belongs. (A short explanation of 'pollution' would be nice.)" Song (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

copyediting
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)

Lots of unverified claims
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)

Minor copyediting
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)