Talk:Guru Arjan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Birthplace

Is the birthplace correct? I seem too find differences one other web site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.92.12 (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Let us know the website you saw a different birthplace on, and if it's a reliable source, we can include it as a possible birthplace too. -kotra (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Role of Chandu Shah obliterated

The role of Chandu Shah in stirring up the controversy against Guru Arjan that he has written blasphemous writtings against Hindus and Muslims has been surprisingly obliterated. It was Chandu Shah, who persuaded Jahangir to take action against the Guru. His role in the martyrdom of Guru Arjan cannot be ignored. Princhest 11:40 PM, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The support for historical revisionism by suppressing the historical facts of martyrdom of Guru Arjan is deplorable. User:Utcursch is guilty of having abusive admin powers. User:Goingoveredge is stalking my edits and vandalizing Sikh historical facts all this going unwarned by the admin Utcursch. This is clearly biased against Sikhs and against their history. I specifically wanted to discuss the role of Chandu Shah, the Hindu revenue collector of Lahore and other high level Mughal officials in the martyrdom of Guru Arjan. I have provided acceptable historical referances for those. Please tap down on the trouble rouser not the historical facts.Princhest 17:05 PM, 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk 17:40 PM, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop raising the bogey of Sikhs being discriminated against. I've made more contributions to Sikhism-related article than all of your contributions combined together. In fact, I've been called a "Sikh Extremist and Racist towards Hindus" by a user (now banned), and have been awarded a Special barnstar for Sikhism-related articles[1].

The article has been protected because of childish edit warring -- all the editors involved (not just you) in the revert war were blocked by User:J.smith.

The changes made by you (later restored by Roadahead) involved removal of four cite book templates, and constituted copyright violation. The content was copied from Sikh Spectrum, with a few words changed here and there. This can be confirmed by Googling random phrases that have been lifted from another site:

• "political necessity was forced to uphold Islamic Puritanism of Naqashbandi revivalists"
• "and Akbar’s forgiving his errant son and proclaiming him heir-apparent"
• "the Hindu position was listless except that they would hobnob"
• "Khusrau’s indiscreet revolt against his father on April 6, 1606 and his hurrying"

I find it amusing how you selectively copied the content that suited your point-of-view, and conveniently omitted concluding paras of the article: "Guru Arjun's martyrdom, the first of its kind in the history of Hindustan, the sub-continent, caused great resentment and indignation among the general body of Hindus and Muslims, apart from the Sikhs. One tends to agree with Ganda Singh that: 'Much of the Chandu-story was given currency, in those very days to shift the responsibility of tortures inflicted on the Guru from the Mughal Officials to the Kafirs. Chandu was only a minor official at Lahore, and hostile to the Sikh Panth (nation).'"

The article has not been protected for ever -- please utilize the time to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. utcursch | talk 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Utcursch, the concluding part of article was author's own opinion and he doesn't provide any historical reference for that. Nevertheless, no body denies Chandu Shah's role in approaching the Emperor Jahangir and complaining against Guru Arjan. Nowhere, my edits included that was solely responsible but My point was to raise the issue of obliteration of his role in the article irrespective of his act being minor or major in Guru Arjan's martyrdom. And, I will keep myself more up to date with the guidelines. Cheers ! Princhest | talk 10:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Date

The article says he died on May 30, 1606, but June 16 and Nanakshahi_calendar say June 16. What is the reason for the discrepancy, and what arguments or documentation can be adduced for the two dates? --Haruo (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral POV & Original Research

As with many articles on Wikipedia about Sikhism, this badly needs to be rewritten with a NPOV, including more diverse and less obviously biased sources. The original research flag is added for authorial commentary that falls under NPOV issues as well. IronSheep (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As a scholar of 17th century Indian religious history, I was sad to see that my section on Martyrdom had been deleted, despite citing numerous Sikhs including the foremost Sikh historian (J.S. Grewal), Bhai Gurdas, and Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself. The fact is that we don't know for sure how or why Guru Arjan died, and anyone with definite evidence is welcome to present it on this page.Duc de Montmorency (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Seen that my contribution has been deleted yet again by jssaggu. This user seems content to ignore any historical evidence and instead present religious writing as definitive historical fact.Duc de Montmorency (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Dictation of the Guru Granth Saheb.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dictation of the Guru Granth Saheb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Being a sikh , first bad thing is how name of my GURU is spelled ... it should be Guru Arjun Dev Ji at every place or at least only Guru would have solved the purpose but mentioning only name reflects disrespect. My projection is on the Martyrdom topic, in which the sense changes as day and night so i kindly respect you concerning members to please rectify this big blunder . and the next mistake which strikes my mind while typing these words is that even word "sikh" is shown wrongly spelled (underlined by red marker),that suggests addition of word "sikh" in your dictionary.Also name of my GURU is underlined by red marker showing that it is misspelled when its not.Again the highlighted topic needs rectification and we shall be very thankful to you ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.241.194 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

I was taking a look at the footnotes. There is no reference to any Sikh scholars, would it not make sense to look into Sikh literature for things that are talked about here? In specific, Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji's(doesn't matter how you spell it btw. It can't be properly translated into English) martyrdom. And it would make sense for Jahangir to "cover his tracks". He killed his father and had already killed his other brother(accused of converting to Hinduism). He needed to find a reason to kill his brother and accused him of conspiring to over throw him(Jahangir). Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji supposedly supported him(the brother) and this is very questionable. It has been taken as support but in fact Guru Ji only "touched his head" and this was taken as Guru Ji supporting the brother(not from a Sikh source). so all in all, it is just something to think about. IMO it would only make sense to look at Sikh history through at least a few Sikh sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgill19 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Variant Spellings

Why does the name change from Arjan to Arjun and back again? I suggest (unless there is a specific meaning to this) that we settle on one spelling and mention any variants that are acceptable. Msalt 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is because of the same reason that muhammed can be spealt differently both of which is becasue its hard to translate directly into english

Well The name is Arjun and not Arjan.Back in 1800 's british historians spelled it ARJOON to make it pronouncable the way it was pronounced by sikhs.It should be corrected to Arjun.Arjan was used by historians holding not a great view about Guru Arjun.Ajjay (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In situations like this it's policy to use the more common spelling, not what is more historically correct. Google says that "Arjan" is more common, at 63,300 for "Guru Arjan" (excluding Wikipedia-related hits), and 30,900 for "Guru Arjun". Britannica lists both with Arjan first, Sikhwiki.org lists him as Arjan (with Arjun as a redirect to it), etc. It seems that Arjan is more common, so we should probably use it as the main spelling. Arjun should of course still be listed as an alternate spelling in the first paragraph. But even if "Arjun" is technically more correct, Wikipedia uses what is most common. -kotra (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and change it back to Arjan as per my last comment. -kotra (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also changed it now on all other articles. -kotra (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't the correct things be shown than what is more common or popular.After all numbers are not the right way to determine what is right or wrong.It is more of a mob thing.Like the sheep that jumped from a cliff!Ajjay (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is based on a Wikipedia guideline. The purpose is to make articles easier to find and identify for everyone. -kotra (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that even if the name is not as technically accurate as another, that doesn't prevent the article itself to describe and use the more accurate name, as long as it's backed up by a reliable source. The name itself doesn't have to be factually accurate, that's what the article is for. -kotra (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, not to state the obvious, but it's spelled Arjun in Panjabi. The second vowel is a short u, not a short a; this is a fact supported by the Gurmukhi spelling on the page itself. The name is Arjun, just as it is for Arjun in Mahabharat. The fact that someone is citing google just means that google has it wrong. This looks like hypercorrection, due to people typically spelling short a as a u (see the debate of punjabi vs. panjabi). Nlsanand (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the question is 'what spelling is used in English?'. Generally, if there is a common English spelling, then we don't transliterate from the original language. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The question would then need to be 'what pronounciation is used in English?'. I've never seen a short u transliterated to a spelling of a. Has his name ever been spelt ਅਰਜਨ . If there's a question of that, I'd buy it, but otherwise this really is just a spelling mistake.Nlsanand (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

the wikipedia site should have some sikhs come and tell them the correct thing

I am a Sikh and we've always pronounced Guru Arjan Dev Ji's name *differently* from Arjun of Mahabharat. Only after I was grown up, did I realize that they're probably the same word but pronounced differently by Sikhs. Sikhs pronounce the 'a' in Arjan as the first 'a' in Sanjay. (Its another matter why Sanjay is not spelt Sunjay, but that's just been the way Indians spell their names in English - and it causes westerners to mis-pronounce our names because we use an 'a' to produce the sound of a 'uh'). Going by the Indian way of spelling names and going by the Sikh pronounciation 'Arjan' is the right spelling. If spelt 'Arjun', it would be pronounced like the Arjun of Mahabharat and that would be different.--Lionsing (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Spelling about Arjan ji

I dont mean to be disrespectful and I think this has already been broughten up but what is the actual spelling? Is it Arjan or Arjun? It seems like Indian people in general usually spell it Arjun. So why is it Arjan then here? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to my response under 'Variant Spellings' above. There isn't any 'actual spelling' in English, since the name originates in a different language (which is neither the Hindi nor the Punjabi of today). Sikhs today pronounce it as 'Arjan', different from 'Arjun' of Mahabharat.--Lionsing (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Punjabis and Sindhis pronounce this name Arjan, not Arjun, however, the name is the same - in both cases the Pandava warrior of the Mahabharata. I have also changed the Gurmukhi spelling of hte name to remove the "u" matra. This is also the way it is written on several texts I have seen online and matches how it has been pronounced by people who have that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.55.107 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

changes made

I have streamlined his name from Arjun to Arjan. Infobox with image. Added wikilinks and repaired broken ones. Did minor edits here and there. (27.34.39.97 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

Mughal accounts regarding the execution of Guru Arjan

Troubles between the Mughal authorities and the Sikh community began in the year 1573, after Jahangir the rightful heir of Akbar, subdued a ferocious rebellion put up by his own son Khusrau Mirza, who had gathered a powerful army consisting of 3000 warriors and relentlessly besieged the city of Lahore and Guru Arjan had clearly given assistance and support to the unpopular renegades within the Imperial ranks.[15] This account seems to be wrong. Guru was born in the year 1563 and as per this account Guru met Khusrau Mirza in the year 1573 which means that Guru in the year 1573 was only 10 years of age and was not having title of Guru as he was made Guru only at the age of 18 years of age in the year 1581. Hence there is some wrong expression in this story. As far as I have read this episode happened in the year 1603 , after the death of Emperor Akbar when family fight started for throne as Akbar wanted Khusrau to be installed instead of Salim. Salim supported by relegious fanatics took over as Emperor Jahangir and then Khurau fled towards Lahore and on the way met the Guru at Goindwal sahib. This meeting was used by opponents of Guru to feed the ears of Jahangir against the Guru and for helping khusrau Jahangir acted against Guru Arjan Dev.

I deleted this whole section since it is confusing, contradictory and the dates are all messed up. e.g. It states that troubles began in 1573, even though jahangir was born in 1569 and khusrau was born in1587 --Yuvpsi (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Death

I have changed the details of Arjan Dev's death according to this, this, this source. The reason behind Guru Arjan Dev's death actually seem to be both supporting Khusrau and the growing influence of Sikhs. Jahangir had himself said in his autobiography Tuzk-e-Jahangiri concerning Arjan's support for Jahnagir's rebellious son Khusrau and that too many people were being persuaded by Arjan's teachings and if he did not become a Muslim then the Sikh Panth had to be extinguished. The BBC source saying he was martyred due to including Muslim and Hindu scriptures in Adi Granth is therefore incorrect especially when Jahangir's autobiography states something else. The real reason for his death seems to be growing influence of Sikhism and the cause of death thus remains a mystery. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also sources like BBC shouldn't be used in historical articles since they often tend to ignore other facts. Only scholary sources should be used. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This source by Rajmohan Gandhi and this source by A.S. Bhalla mentions that Jahangir wrote in his writings that he ordered Arjan Dev to be put for death for blessing Khusrau. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim tone has to be rid from articles regarding Sikhism

This article contained words and sentences that blamed the entire Muslim community as a whole for the trial and execution of the Guru. Please note: "Hatred has no place in any Wikipedia article". 182.182.53.39 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

I have reverted the unexplained deletion by Baddowalia (talk) of an image in the infobox. If Baddowalia disputes the image, this is the place to give the reason. Apuldram (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny edits

@SiddharthSunny: Don't edit war. Please see Pashaura Singh's paper, and you will see support for the changes I made. If you have concerns, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'm fairly new so sprry for anything done wrong. I have seen Pashaura Singh's paper, but nowhere he says it to be a theory from 20th century. Also, the quote from Jahangir's biography himself makes it clear it is no theory but the truth that he was arrested after Khusrau and Guru Arjan met. Your change is frivolous, that's why I deleted it. SiddharthSunny (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, you recently told me not to edit war, but you are doing yourselves that right now. If I know correctly, the common policy is to discuss in case you're reverted. Please do not edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiddharthSunny (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny: Welcome to wikipedia. Read the sources carefully. See page 29 of Pashaura Singh's article where he describes the Beni Prasad's "early decades of 20th-century" theory. Jahangir's biography Jahangirnama 27b-28a is already quoted in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I think you haven't read it carefully. This is what Paushara actually said on page 29: Similarly, in the early decades of twentieth century Beni Prasad treated this whole affair as “a single execution due primarily to political reasons.” Paushara Singh is actually talking about Beni Prasad treating the execution like it happened only due to political reasons. And Jahangir's biography himself mentions he had Guru Arjan executed after he blessed Khusrau. Your edits are frivolous and mistaken, please add back the original text of the edits. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ SiddharthSunny: Read the sources again. You are mistaken. The "political reason" is "blessed Khusrau", in Khusrau's attempt to gain power. You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting Jahangir's biography as well. Feel free to take this to DRN/etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I am not mistaken or misunderstanding anything. Paushar Singh only states that Beni Prasad treated Guru Arjan being executed "primarly due to political reasons". Neither Beni Prasad's treatment of the execution or Arjan being executed due to meeting Khusrau is called a theory. And Jahangir's biography confirms Arjan meeting with Khusrau and being arrested due to that. It is you who needs to take this DRN. Please revert your edits yourself and do not hold the article hostage. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Also here is the quote from Jahangir's biography cited in this very article: At length, when Khusraw passed by there, this inconsequential little fellow wished to pay homage to Khusraw. When Khusraw stopped at his residence, [Arjan] came out and had an interview with [Khusraw]. Giving him some elementary spiritual precepts picked up here and there, he made a mark with saffron on his forehead, which is called qashqa in the idiom of the Hindus and which they consider lucky. When this was reported to me, I realized how perfectly false he was and ordered him brought to me. I awarded his [Guru Arjan's] houses and dwellings and those of his children to Murtaza Khan, and I ordered his possessions and goods confiscated and him executed [siyasat o yasa rasanand]. Clearly states that Guru Arjan was executed after he blessed Khusrau. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see the next section Martyrdom. Apuldram (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop the edit-warring and reverts

People here are edit-warring and reverting continuously. Please stop deciding what should remain and what should not. The last thing this article needs is another revert and more people getting involved in edit wars. If anybody here reverts again then I'll request the admins to have this page locked which seems to be the only way to stop it. Maintain the status quo and discuss if you have any problem. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already requested to have it locked since I feel people will still likely revert again despite the warning and also requested the admins that in case they feel it necessary, to revert it to a version before any of this dispute began. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83 It takes two to make an edit war, and you are as guilty of that as anyone else. You appear to be trying to stifle discussion aimed at improvement. At least one section of the article (Martyrdom) is in need of major improvement. Please join in the discussion as to how best to do this, but don't try to block other people's ideas. Apuldram (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Martyrdom

I feel that the section on martyrdom has become top heavy and much too wordy. The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism succeeds in presenting efffectively the same information in two paragraphs and 350 words. The section has become a cross between an article on Jahangir and a lengthy compilation of the disagreements of all the biographers of Arjun. Is there really any benefit from providing long quotations from documents instead of brief summaries? Apuldram (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Apuldram: Indeed, I was thinking of the same thing. Go ahead and revise it please. Perhaps, we can push the quote into "Refn" for easier WP:V and for reference. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Apuldram: I think the propsoal is not necessary. But I think you should seek a consensus for it first. SiddharthSunny (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny: See WP:NPOV. You are new to wikipedia, but note that we present all sides. We don't pick a side. The Jahangir quote already summarizes why he executed Guru Arjan. We must also present the belief prevalent within the Sikh tradition, as summarized by secondary scholarly sources. You are asking for consensus from @Apuldram, a seasoned respected editor of wikipedia. Yet, you yourself are editwarring, without gaining consensus. You must respect by the rules, you ask others to respect. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch Do not tell me who is edit-warring. You are the one who's doing it and holding this article hostage. Enough is enough. If you revert even once again, I'm going to straight away complaint about you. I'm tired of your harassments and your frivolous edits. Besides what we are talking about is sourced content, not what others think of it. I'm starting to suspect that you might be personally biased in these articles seeing how you bluntly misinterpret the sources. Jahangir's biography clearly proves that Arjan being executed after Khusrau's arrest is no theory. If you can't cooperate, then you don't deserve to be on Wikipedia. SiddharthSunny (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

About martyrdom

User Omni Flames, I've recently noticed you changed my earlier info about the topic's martyrdom to it being a theory. You said it is sourced from A.S. Bhalla's "In Search of Roots: Guru Amar Das and Bhallas". There was no such thing. Can you point out the page and mention the paragraph that says so if there is any such thing? Thank you. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: Welcome to wikipedia. @Omni Flames may respond separately, but did you read page 20 of the Bhalla source? You reverted @Omni Flames edit, and added "selling ideas challenging the established religions in the Mughal Empire." Please identify the page and mention the paragraph that supports what you added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks for the welcome. No I didn't read it, I'm unable to find the book. But the source wasn't being even used to cite that it is a theory that Guru Arjan was executed for meeting Khusrau. If you want to use it, then please mention the paragraph where it is written. As for the "shop selling ideas challenging the established religions in the Mughal Empire", that's from previous additions, and you're right it's not in source as well. I'll change it. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: If you haven't read the source, you should assume good faith, and not revert @Omni Flames edit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume good faith, but you're misunderstanding what this is about. It is about that Omni Flames is saying that AS Bhalla's source was used to cite it is a theory, which it hasn't been. So I'm quite sure it's a simple mistake on his part. You cannot cite sources that haven't been used to add back something. And as the source hasn't been used to cite your statement of theory, I'm sure none of us here have read it. But still, don't add back something using a source that hasn't been used to cite it and which you possibly never read. Besides if he has some other justification, he can speak for himself. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for revised martyrdom section

@Apuldram:, @Omni Flames:, @Joshua Jonathan:, others: Per @Apuldram's suggestion above, here is a redrafted trimmed section. I have checked the sources, avoided WP:Overcite, and embedded quotes for easier WP:V. Your thoughts?

Guru Arjan's martyrdom in Mughal custody has been a controversial issue in Sikh history, and has been variously interpreted.

Most Mughal historians considered Guru Arjan's execution as a political event, stating that the Sikhs had become as a formidable social group, and Sikh Gurus became actively involved in north Indian political conflicts. A similar theory floated in early 20th-century, asserts that this was just a politically-motivated single execution. According to this theory, there was an ongoing Mughal dynasty dispute between Jahangir and his son Khusrau suspected of rebellion by Jahangir, wherein Guru Arjan blessed Khusrau and thus the losing side. Jahangir was jealous and outraged, and therefore he ordered the Guru's execution.

The competing view is that of the Sikh tradition which states that the Guru's execution was part of the on-going persecution of the Sikhs by authorities in the Islamic Empire, and that the Mughal rulers of Punjab were alarmed at the growth of the Panth. According to Jahangir's autobiography Tuzk-e-Jahangiri (Jahangirnama), too many people were becoming persuaded by Guru Arjan's teachings and if Guru Arjan did not become a Muslim, the Sikh Panth had to be extinguished.[add Thankston's Oxford University Press quote as note 1] Jahangir believed that Guru Arjan was a Hindu who pretended to be a saint, and that he had been thinking of forcing Guru Arjan to convert to Islam or to execute him, for a long time.[add Thankston's Oxford University Press quote as note 1]

In 1606 CE, the Guru was imprisoned in Lahore Fort, where by some accounts he was tortured and executed, and by other accounts the method of his death remains unresolved. Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi cheered the punishment and execution of Guru Arjun, calling the Sikh Guru an infidel.[add Pashaura Singh's journal paper and Friedman Yohanan's McGill University quote as note 2]

According to the Sikh tradition, before his execution, Guru Arjan instructed his son and successor Hargobind to take up arms, and resist tyranny. His execution led the Sikh Panth to become armed and pursue resistance to persecution under the Islamic rule.

[Rest of the section: to be discussed] Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

References

@Ms Sarah Welch: No, the modern version is fine. Your version has some problems. You say "According to this theory, there was an ongoing Mughal dynasty dispute between Jahangir and his son Khusrau suspected of rebellion by Jahangir, wherein Guru Arjan blessed Khusrau and thus the losing side. Jahangir was jealous and outraged, and therefore he ordered the Guru's execution." - This isn't just said by the theory. In fact, the quotation of Jahangir's biography and other sources confirm that he was arrested after Jahangir heard that Khusrau had met Guru Arjan Dev. Therefore you should remove the "According to this theory" part and as said by the other editors, don't make unsourced changes.

Besides your trying to unnecessary reorganise the article. Your version is like a self-interpretation of the sources. The modern version seems fine and both the persecution of Sikhs as the cause and Arjan meeting with Khusrau as a cause should be retained in the similar paragraph. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: We don't pick sides in wikipedia, per WP:NPOV content guideline. Jahangir's biography and Mughal historians version is one side. The Sikh tradition and WP:RS scholarship on Sikh sources, is another. We must summarize both. There are different sides here, and that is what the WP:RS stating. See the embedded quote in source [1] above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: Please be careful with your edits. Never change other people's edit on talk pages, as you did here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Yes we don't take sides. But did you notice that you haven't provided a single source that says so that it is a theory that Arjan was executed due to meeting Khusrau? Please tell me which Sikh source is saying that Guru Arjan being executed for meeting with Khusrau is a theory? You seem to be only using misinterpretation of a source to back this up. None of them say. Not only that even if you believe that the Sikh sources say it is a theory, why aren't you mentioning the viewpoint of other sources as well which clearly say it is not some theory? I don't have problems with mentioning different viewpoints. But unless you can present a proof/source that it is a theory, you cannot add it as it will be an unsourced addition. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, this is mentioned above the edit box whenever you are editing anything.

And Sarah, please don't do nitpicking of others' edits like of this one here. It simply might have happened due to my mouse accidentally copy-pasting it, my mouse is a little bit defective. No need to create an issue over something so small. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@AkhtarHussain83: The Pashaura Singh source, [1] above, mentions "number of interpretations". In formal language and philosophy, an interpretation is a model theory, and to meet WP:Copyvio guideline to summarize the source in your own words, the term "theory" is appropriate. I am fine with using the word "interpretation" instead of "theory" instead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Apuldram, long quotations from primary sources should be avoided in an encyclopedia. I support Ms Sarah Welch´s proposal for a revised martyrdom section because it presents different points of view per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, citing reliable sources. Thank you for the good work Ms Sarah Welch. JimRenge (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious - I too support Ms Sarah Welch's proposal, for the reasons given in section Martyrdom above. Apuldram (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I have been unblocked right now. And here I come back to see that you are repeating the same reasons to others as well. Like I told you your reasons are frivolous. The editor nowhere calls Jahangir's execution of Arjan stemming from his meeting with Khusrau as "theory" or as an "interpretation" as you now claim. As I mentioned earlier he only says that Beni Prasad treated the execution as exclisivelu political affair. Nothing else. Stop disrupting and meaninglessly arguing over something that doesn't exist. Source your content if you have any sources. However as I already proved earlier you have none.SiddharthSunny (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: @AkhtarHussain83: @Apuldram: She is using frivolous reasons. There is nothing such in the sources. She also has edit-warred. I avoid you all to ignore this and not give her any suppport. SiddharthSunny (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny: Your 36-hour block just expired, but you haven't stopped the ad hominem and insults that admins Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and MaxSem cautioned you about. Please respect WP:TPNO. See the embedded quote in the source [1] above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify- not an admin. But the rest of what Ms Sarah Welch applies, SiddharthSunny. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch Yes the block expired but there is no need to point that out again and again. And you have edit-warred as well. Please tell me what insults I have made here towards you if any. I'm assuming that you are you saying that you have "frivolous reasons" is an insult? It is not. I called them frivolous because they are wrong, nothing else. Though I might be mistaken about what the word actually means. But it was never used as an insult. If you want some other term, then I'll use that. Please do not make any false accusations against anybody, that is against the rules and it can result in you getting blocked. Please assume GOOD FAITH. Thank you. And please keep this about the actual topic. Thank you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead

User:Ms Sarah Welch why did you revert my edit? I was only shifting information as the Biography has nothing except the sucession dispute of Guru Ram Das and the death of Arjan. I am not trying to empty the lead, just move more substantial details. But if so much information is in the lead, then what will we add to the Biography? 117.199.85.227 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. The lead contains a quick overview. We can repeat the same information in lead and main, though that is not necessary for factual statements already stated in the lead with sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

117.199.85.227: Please avoid repeating what is already in the article, such as the information about tank and other infrastructure projects undertaken by Guru Arjan. On citation format, please see WP:PAGELINK guideline. Welcome to wikipedia, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to not repeat. But whatever. I'll try to add whatever possible. 117.199.85.227 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch and Softlavendar back dropping article

Ms Sarah Welch is under investigation for inappropriate behavior previously and now removing content. Softlavender seems to be reverting without stating anything about the content.

Reasons for back dropping as stated by them are "undo unconstructive edits"

How is adding Compiling of Adi Granth and Arrest section not constructive?

Another reason is "recover sourced content and scholarly sources" in this revision what content was removed that you want to add back?

Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: How is "Ms Sarah Welch is under investigation for inappropriate behavior previously" and your first link relevant to this talk page and helpful in improving this article? Were the IP edits between 6 May and 9 May yours? If not, have you checked the questionability of the sources and the alleged support? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Jujhar.pannu: I have reverted the article to the Softlavender version. I checked your sources and many look questionable. I have added back some sources and embedded some quotes to ease WP:V. We need to discuss the quality of some of your sources because they make claims inconsistent with the scholarly sources. Note, sources authored by professor Pashaura Singh, McLeod and others state that we do not know the manner in which the Guru died and the causes of his death (e.g. Pashaura Singh (2005), Understanding the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan, JPS 12:1, page 39). We need to be particularly sensitive to the WP:NPOV guideline in this article. Please identify the sources you believe are RS, state why and then identify what you will like to add that the article does not already summarize. Yes, please do also answer the other questions above in my 18:13, 14 August comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The references in the martyrdom and torture match with what those two references stating multiple view points and all seem to unquestionably legitimate sources. The references text, both McLeod and Pashaura Singh, actually say there are different versions of his final death not denying he was tortured both actually in fact blatantly accept he was tortured. Do you see the problem now? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Jujhar.pannu: The article has and still does summarize "he was tortured" view from the scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ss. T

Guru arjan dev ka first name 2409:4055:119:A2F0:7BFE:86B7:27C6:BAE1 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)