Jump to content

Talk:Guru Tegh Bahadur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Guru Teg Bahadur)

Untitled

[edit]

Not quite sure if the transliteration in Devanagari is correct. Please can someone double check it for me. Sukh 13:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit

[edit]

The section on the future Guru's birth is suspect as the name Bahadur was rewarded to the young man after he had evidenced noteworthy courage on the battle field at age 13?, using his sword so well he was had the title Bahadur a title of honor appended to his name. For men to have known of the childs name 13 years before it was given speaks of majic or fortunetelling. Perhaps the writer just got the name wrong?

Earning his Sikh martrydom? I did not know of the special category. Sikhs have earned martrydom often, and have been awarded many medals of valor in many armies, to my, limited knowledge, Sikhs generally use the term earned martrydomor was martyred. He was, as is well documented in history, beheaded during his confrontation with Auranzeb in an effort to stop the ruler from taking steps to forcibly convert all of India's Hindus, starting with the Hindu Pandits of Kashmir who had come to him seeking help.Atmamatma 02:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Before the execution I think he was offered, as was an earlier Sikh Guru, a reprive if he would do some majic or perform a miracle. Both Gurus refused to do majic.[reply]

Developing

[edit]

The article is in start phase.Please don't delete my contibutions .ThanksAjjay (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't merge but delete

[edit]

There are only five names of places given.And they are not places but schools or hospitals.There must be hundereds of such places named after him .Those can't be put in an article.Freankly the article must be deleted and not merged with this article.No use.Ajjay (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dubious content removed

[edit]

The following content is removed from the article page to here.

Guru Gobind Singh has written about the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur in Bachitra Natak:

"Guru Tegh bahadur was the protector of the tilak (ointment) and janeu (sacred thread) of the Hindus. In the land of the gods rang shouts of adoration."

Where is this quoted from - book, publisher, page? Who said these lines - Guru Gobind Singh, translater, reviwer, poet in Guru Gobind Singh's court? There is no uniform content of so called "Dasam Granth". Scholars are still debating how much of the content is that of Sikh Guru Gobind Singh, as such one cannot assert on Wikipedia saying -"Guru Gobind Singh has written.....". --RoadAhead =Discuss= 19:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a garbage article written to portray Aurangazeb as a fanatic. This supposed guru, Tegh Bahadur, got what he deserved for causing unrest. No emperor or king in those times would tolerate such a new, pseudo religion, nay cult, to challenge their rule. The mughals were right to put these sikhs to the sword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.9.78 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mughals were always the first to harm the sikhs. This discrimination began as soon as Babur , the first Mughal emperor came and imprisoned Guru Nanak.
Sikhs did not fight and they were not warriors until the matyrdom of Guru Arjan. The new conditions made them adapt and they were now warriors. No matter the circumstances , Sikhs have always survived and mostly resisted the attempts made to wipe them out. Today , the mughals are no more but Sikhism is still there and it is one of the fastest growing religions. Your comment 'This supposed guru, Tegh Bahadur, got what he deserved for causing unrest.' would offend a lot of sikhs. ਗਿਆਨੀ ਪੁਰਸ਼ (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guru Tegh Bahadur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

when did he die?

[edit]

The first sentence says Nov. 24 but the section Execution says Nov. 11. I presume this is a calendar issue (Nov. 24 Julian falls on Nov. 24 Gregorian) but I don't know the facts. Can someone who is confident fix it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richard. It shows Nov. 11, 1675 on Britannica. IndieDit Guy (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guru Tegh Bahadur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Teg Bahadur Ji

[edit]

Please provide authentic information about our history a humble request 🙏 Gsmalhadia (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Teg Bahadur

[edit]

To 

  Wikipedia peer review Team

Guru Teg Bahadur "hind di chadar" not shristi di chadar ☚ understood

please dont distroy that teg line it is a humble request once again to all "Wikipedia peer review Team"🙏

Please dont play with wards it is dangerous and shameful thing understood ☚

Proof

Gsmalhadia (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface names in paragraph

[edit]

Why are ALL instances of his name in boldface in the introductory paragraph? I think it violates wikipedia guidelines. Here's a few famous personalities that I've checked, you can see NONE of them have multiple boldface instances of their names :

I suggest removing all boldface from all names but the first to get the article in line with the guidelines.

122.177.139.170 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 16:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Execution by Aurangzeb

[edit]

In need of urgent de-POVing. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes in names and chronology of Sikh gurus

[edit]

In articke on Guru Tegbahadur on wikipedia, it is found written that Guru Hargobind (6th guru) was father of Guru Tegbahadur. However, in another article of Guru Har Krishan, it is written that Guru Har Krishan was father of Guru Tegbahadur aka Tyag Mal. In another article on wikipedia, it is written that Guru Hargobind (6th guru) was succeeded by Guru Har (7th guru), who was succeeded by his younger son Har Krishan(8th guru). There are lot of anomolies found in the names and chronology on Sikh gurus,especially about the life of tenth guru viz Guru Gobind "Singh", not only on wikipedia but on other websites such as sikhiviki,indianculture.org, britanica. 103.183.55.79 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

[edit]

Link- [1]Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I was about to start this, but you beat me to it. I apologise for my initial revert as when I checked the link I couldn’t find mention of the book in discussion.
There is only one comment to the RSN and it seems a consensus was never truly formed. Remember the noticeboard says, “answers are not official policy” A new discussion would be better suited then old discussions which had minimal responses. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is Patwant Singh a historian nor is Crown Publishing an academic publisher. He isn't reliable. You're free to ask others for their input. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you start a WP:3O. I am a little busy and have to go now. No worries if you can’t start it. I will just do it later. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, no need to apologize, it was my fault for linking the wrong section to the RSN. And sure, I'll do it sometime today. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is Patwant Singh even saying anything particularly unique as compared to what is written in the Narrative section? Many scholars identify the narrative as follows: A congregation of Hindu Pandits from Kashmir requested help against Aurangzeb's oppressive policies, to which Guru Tegh Bahadur decided to protect their rights. Are you sure you want to proceed with the 3O? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should analysis of Persian sources be included?

[edit]

Two users have now removed the paragraph that introduced the claims of "Persian and non-Sikh sources", including the earliest Persian account of the events leading to Tegh Bahadur's execution written by Ghulam Hussain Khan. The paragraph (removed in this edit) summarized the claims made by Persian sources without presenting them as fact, and cited contemporary sources that apparently saw fit to mention these accounts. Without this paragraph, the remaining arguments regarding these sources now lack context, as the Persian narrative is not introduced in the first place. How should we proceed? Perception312 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Persian sources is that individuals like Ghulam Hussain Khan weren't present at this incident, and in addition to their errors, it is evident that they harbour bias towards non-Muslims. Historians like Hari Ram Gupta and Ganda Singh have highlighted the inaccuracies and naive nature of these sources. In addition, the sources come within the categories of WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:RAJ, as User:Ganda Singh has demonstrated that Ghulam Hussain Khan was employed by the East India Company. Alvin1783 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvin1783: As Perception312 has pointed out, simply removing the material removes context for other material in the article. A more subtle approach to mere extraction is required. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context for which Material? The claims presented by Persian sources are riddled with flaws and false information, fueled by their hatred for non-Muslims. Why should Wikipedia allow fake information about a historical figure to spread that has been refuted several times? Alvin1783 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvin1783: The very next paragraph states:
Satish Chandra cautions against taking Ghulam Husain's argument at face value, as Ghulam Husain was a relative of Alivardi Khan — one of the closest confidantes of Aurangzeb — and might have been providing an "official justification". Also, the Guru's alleged association with Hafiz Adam is anachronistic. Hafiz Adam died in Medina in A.D. 1643, 21 years before Tegh Bahadur attained the status of Guru.[citation needed] Satish Chandra further writes that Ghulam Husain's account places Guru Tegh Bahadur's confinement and execution in Lahore, while Sikh tradition places it in Delhi.
If we remove the material you want to remove, this next paragraph makes no sense. The point here is to present the historiography from both sides, to show that there are conflicting accounts and a clear narrative may not be possible. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wanted to Remove both of these Texts because Satish Chandra is wrong here a Persian Source earlier than Ghulam Husseins Account states the following: Then Tegh Bahadur, the younger son of Guru Hargobind, occupied the seat for fifteen years. In the end he was imprisoned under Imperial officers; and in 1081 A.H. [A.D.1670-71], corresponding to the 17th regnal year of 4 Alamglr [A.D.1673-74],10 he was executed at Shahjahanabad [Delhi] in accordance with ‘Alamgir’s orders. At the time of writing this book. Guru Gobind Rai,11 the son of Guru Tegh Bahadur, has been in occupation of the sacred seat for twenty-two years. from [[2]] this proves that Not ONLY sikh accounts but also a Persian account from 1696 supports the Claim of Guru Tegh Bahadur ji being executed in Delhi NOT in Lahore by this Satish Chandra and Ghulam Hussein Khan are Both in the Wrong and need to be Removed for not fitting into WP:RS. Alvin1783 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:RS applies here, since the discussion in the "Historiography" section exists specifically to demonstrate that early sources differ on the course of events, and in the absence of any primary sources, we are forced to consider all the secondary sources and consider their unreliability. I'm not a historian, so I'm going to ask for an expert opinion here from WP:WikiProject History. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advance the deletion of the section with Ghulam Hussein Khan and Satish Chandra because of the given arguments and the major error in these works that cannot be depended upon. I believe we can both agree that Ghulam Hussein Khan is not a good source for such a topic, nor Satish Chandra, who arrogantly states that Sikh tradition places the execution in Delhi, despite the fact that there are earlier Persian sources than Ghulam Hussein Khan that also state that the execution took place in Delhi. Given this, all of these sections must be deleted until an expert's opinion is provided. I'm sure we can agree on this. Alvin1783 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvin1783: Clearly you want things your way, despite the disagreement of others. I'm not an admin and I can't stop you, and I certainly don't have time to waste on this argument. Tapping out. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alvin1783, you have linked to a primary source that I do not have the expertise to evaluate. If you have a reliable secondary source that contradicts Satish Chandra's analysis, we can add the opposing viewpoint, but I don't support removing all material sourced to Satish unless you can get the Reliable Sources noticeboard to agree that he is unreliable when it comes to Tegh Bahadur. His Wikipedia article says he is "one of India's leading scholars of the Mughal period". Perception312 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When Ghulam Hussein Khan is incorrect, what is the point of debating on Satish Chandra, who references him? I might recommend some adjustments to the page; if you have any concerns about the changes I will make, please let me know here after reading them. Alvin1783 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all the material in the article concerning Ghulam Hussein is based on Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom by Satish Chandra, in which he presents Ghulam Hussein's account and points out the flaws with it. Chandra's reliability does not depend on Ghulam Hussein's reliability, because Chandra is aware of the unreliability of Hussein and is not blindly relying on his account. Admittedly, Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom is an opinion piece, but I think Chandra is a relevant historian. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles are supposed to include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We can summarize these views without endorsing them – we just need to make sure that opinions are attributed to their authors rather than being stated as fact. Perception312 (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is that the Opinion is fake Information and Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom is not really a piece of Opinion the facts are given that he was executed in Delhi using Ghulam Hussein is like spreading Fake Information about an Important Historical figure Alvin1783 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about what sources say, not necessarily what is true or false. We attempt to present opinions neutrally without the implication that they must be true. In any case, Chandra agrees with you that Ghulam Hussein's account is flawed, and accepts Delhi as the location of the execution despite what Ghulam Hussein says.[3] Perception312 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so could we agree upon that i can add the Opinion of other Persian Sources or Historians to expand the Matter? i think it could be only fair to do so. Can we agree upon this? Alvin1783 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on the quality of the sources – they must be reliable and independent from the subject matter. As WikiDan pointed out in one of his edit summaries, Hari Ram Gupta has a Sikh affiliation. Perception312 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hari Gupta Ram was neither Sikh or Punjabi just because he chose that field does not make him Pro-Sikh neither did i call Satish Chandra Pro-Mughal was Choosing that Field Alvin1783 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Sock of HaughtonBrit[reply]
If other editors don't object, I am open to the idea of including his arguments. Perception312 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought the matter to RSN: [4] Perception312 (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Perception312, this t/p may be of relevance-[5]. The previous user here openly admits that he's here to scrub polemical content on this page, even if it's well sourced, to promote religious heroism. He calls editors who disagrees as "Afghans" with "retard arguments" and openly admits that he's part of an instagram group trying to co-ordinate Wiki edits.
We're dealing with a bunch of trolls not arguing in good faith. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up – I am not experienced in dealing with conduct issues outside of regular vandalism, so I am open to your advice. Perception312 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Perception312, Alvin1783 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of HaughtonBrit. See [6]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was wondering where they went, lol. Perception312 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guru_Tegh_Bahadur&oldid=1227816345"