Talk:Bhakti movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arbitrary heading

There are a lot more and older bhakti movements than chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Andries 14:22, 31 January 2004 (UTC)

We should delete this page or just redirect it to bhakti yoga. --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:22, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

But if we don't, we should take out everything relevant to teachers of Krishna Bhakti from the Rama Bhakti section. Also, the Rama Bhakti section should not be completely separate from the Vaishnava Bhakti section, because they aren't mutually exlusive categories. The largest Vaishnava monastic organization is the Ramanandi, whose members are Rama Bhaktas. --Raimmmmm 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article rambles quite a bit and requires a clean-up. I agree that Rama-bhakti should not be so segregated from Vaishnava bhakti as many Vaishnavas worship Rama and Krishna, or Rama as an avatar of Vishnu, or Sita and Rama as their dearmost Ishta-devas. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had disciples who were also Rama bhaktas ([1]). Ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New name?

How about we re-name this article to [Bhakti (History)] or [History of the Bhakti movements] or similar? Much of the information included is chronological rather than philosophical and it would then make sense as a partner-page to the other bhakti articles. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

May be re-organizing the set of articles

1. bhakti movement that describes the philosophies and types (e.g. shaiva and vaishnava)

2. list of bhakti movements

3. history of bhakti movements

4. merging bhakta into bhakti

Andries 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shaiva, Shakta, etc Bhakta movements?

Headings in this article, and to a lesser extent content, seem largely Vaishnava. comes across as undue weight. --Simon D M (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

vague and incomplete

The article is vague, not to the point, incomplete and small emphasis on Bhakti Movement.

Bhakti Movement was started during the period of Delhi Sultanate.It's earliest known exponent is Ramanuja, who flourished in 12th century

others included Nimbarka, Madhava , Ramanand , Chaitanya who is considered one of the greatest saint of Bhakti movement, Namadeva , and Kabir. The founder of Sikhism , Guru Nanak is also considered to be a part of this movement.Ajjay (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to gurus

Just to let every one know. I will be taking out the listing of Bhakti Tirtha Swami from the vaishnava bhakti Acharya list on the article on Sat. 08 March 08'. I do not think that some one should put their personal guru in a list of Maha-gurus/Acharyas. zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa 19:24, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

By any chance...who put Bhakti tirtha swami in the list of vaishnava bhakti acharyas? Who is the one who puts these ISKON gurus on articles? It seems that no one knows their history. We should take out PERSONAL gurus and just leave Maha-acharyas like Sankarycharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Caitanya Maha-Prabhu. And thats it. zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa 19:24, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in regards to the link to Bhakti Tirtha Swami and have removed it. It was added some time ago by another editor. I see no reason why he should be singled out amongst other devotional teachers and Swamis. In terms of notability I believe that the link to Bhaktivedanta Swami is relevant as the organisation he founded is of historical significance in terms of the spread of bhakti, as are his published writings on the subject. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree also with you on Prabhupada...Absolutely. I forgot to list His name in the postings above.zeuspitar Govinda Ramanuja dasa 18:24, 07 March 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Islamic rule & Bhakti Movement

There is a sentence in the introduction of Bhakti movement which states that "Islamic rulers were pressing public to convert religion from Hindu to Islam" - to this I have added citation needed because there is difference between political tyranny & socio-religious developments. Though I do not deny inter-relation between two, but Bhakti movement was not just response to that tyranny. It has very larger background - like opposition to rituals, social division on caste lines & Brahman dominance. So, it is inappropriate to call Bhakti movement as response to Islamic politcal tyranny which in fact defeats the whole purpose of Bhakti movement. Please refer Bipin Chandra's India's Struggle for Independence book (Chapter - Socio-religious reforms) this chapter clearly rejects concept that Medieval Muslim tyranny was anyway related to religious reforms. Javalkoti (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Puthandu

Puthandu nothing to do with hinduism as it is celebarated by all tamils regardless of religion.Eventhough tamil calendar is influenced by sanskrit currently the new years date has been changed from chithirai to thai following Thiruvallivar andu Tamil calendar(unsanskritised) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.43.10 (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why Puthandu is a topic here (I didn't see any mention of it in the article or elsewhere on the talk page). Anyway, Muthuvel Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, used his political influence to change the New Year. Soon after Jayalalithaa became the Chief Minister in 2011, the date was changed back to the original one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav Sharman (talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bhakti in tamil nadu ?

It claims two times in the article, that Bhakti was originated in Tamil Nadu. But its still unclear to me how this statement is made. Per my understanding it started In Maharashtra in the Varkari Sect. or in other words the "Bhagwat" samaj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.230.84 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Per this source, which is cited, it began in Tamil country. If you have any alternate reliable sources that indicate differently then feel free to highlight them here. It is possible for sources to be reliable but differ in their statements, in which case our articles have to reflect the differences, per WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Most contribute the birth of the Bhakti movement to the poets known as Alvars and Nayanars (Vishnu and Shiva devotees respectively) who came from Tamil Nadu around 500-900 A.D.. References abound for this. Arguably, certain upanishads describe bhakti that predate this such as the Shvetashvatara Upanishad which explicitly uses the word bhakti and "was presumably composed in the Maurya period (4th or 3rd century BCE)"Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Rama Bhakti

The Rama Bhakti section contains two pargaraphs about Ramananda (good) but then goes off on Krishna Bhakti, and turns into a list of all the Vedanta schools and their founders, which is not about Rama Bhakti, and barely about bhakti at all, but more about vedanta ontology. If no one objects I will do a massive purge of this section.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is relevant to the article but in an inappropriate section. In any event, it needs to be sourced or removed. I did some work fixing problems with the article but that section confused the heck out of me, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bhakti movement

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bhakti movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Flood":

• From Bhakti: Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-43878-0.
• From Vedas: Gavin Flood sums up mainstream estimates, according to which the Rigveda was compiled from as early as 1500 BCE over a period of several centuries. Flood 1996, p. 37
• From Hindu: Flood, Gavin, "Establishing the boundaries" in Flood (2003), pp. 1-17.
• From Puja (Hinduism): Flood, Gavin D. (2002). The Blackwell companion to Hinduism. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-21535-6.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Bhakti named cult in articles

Although there is nothing wrong with the original meaning of the word "cult", its current popular use and implications are mostly negative. I corrected one chance instance of "cult" to "movement" but then I made a search for "Bhakti cult" [2] and found that the use of this term is frequent. I do not feel adequate to go about making such changes on my own, so I bring this issue up here in case there is a consensus to effect such changes. Hoverfish Talk 09:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to change this, this is the real meaning of cult. The negative associations we have with the word are only a secondary meaning that doesn't matter when discussing religious movements academically. Look up sect vs cult. A great book that mentions this difference is A History of Modern Yoga by Elizabeth DeMichelis.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no focus in the header: Virasaiva and Ramprasad

There are way too many specific references people put in to the header to suggest certain figures are prominent. Ramprasad Sen and the Virashaiva movement should be mentioned in the article body, not the header as neither one of them is a particularly universal or typifying example of the bhakti movement. If any Bhakti writer should be mentioned, it is Tulsidas or other definitive bhakti sants like the alvars. I'm removing these mentions, but welcome someone to reinsert them into relevant paragraphs in the body of the article.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the Virashaivism was added back, I've made a new section for it outside of the header. Hopefully to the liking of User:Mohanbhan Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Vira Shaivism

Iṣṭa Devatā: Having a separate section for Vira Shaivism is fine but since it started in 12th century, (it actually started in 11th century, the first poet of the Virashaiva movement was Jedara Dasimayya), and is older than Rama and Vaishnava bhakthi movements, it should be the first section. Also I didn't start an "edit war" nor did I simply "revert" your edit. You can see that I retained your changes and simply added the paragraph on Vira Shaivism. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're claiming Virashaivism is the original bhakti, that is a contention you'll be hard pressed to back up with references (and it definitely isn't clear from what is on the page). The twelfth century is in the middle of the bhakti movement and well after the 7th century roots of bhakti and the rise of bhagavatism and gopala cults. It does however precede many of the later schools of Vedanta, but not the roots Sankara laid for Smartha's five deity system of devotion (and Sankara gets no mention in the intro either). And monotheist worship of the abstract lingam is not exactly typical of bhakti, but rather unique (and often considered more heterodox or 'non-hindu' than other bhakti movements) so I don't understand what makes this movement seem like a good example for the intro. The intro is supposed to give an overview of bhakti, maybe listing a few branches, but not elevate the significance of certain examples over others. In fact, virashaivism is so unique, its section could use more elaboration on the specific mode of vira bhakti and the lingam. And what I meant by don't start an edit war is simply come to the talk page before you revert or restore an recent edit (full or partial), because this often sets off an edit war. I hope you understand my points as I have no interest in boosting or disparaging any of these groups. If you have some names to add to the lists in the intro to better represent shaiva schools of bhakti, that would be of great help. Just anything too detailed needs its own section or a link to its own page.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking that this be in the lede/intro, (I have written "first section") but since it started in 12th century it should be placed before Rama Bhakti section rather than at the end. And Shankara/Smarthism is part of the orthodoxy that Bhakthi movement was against (he preached gnana marga), so there is no question of him being part of the movement. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, notice that I was following WP:BRD, when you make a "bold" edit it is reverted and then the discussion takes place. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I would hardly call my edit bold (not as bold as putting that paragraph back in the middle of another paragraph without responding to the talk page). And the order of the sections isn't based on importance, nor is it our place to editorialize about which bhakti is preeminent. As for Sankara, remember that few of these movements are just bhakti or just jnana. And the five deity system of smartha is about ishta devata, not jnana. How can bhakti be a rejection of advaita when advaita is younger than bhakti? They're both reform movements, advaita just became 'mainstream'.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD, when you make an edit it is reverted to the previous version and then the discussion takes place--this is the BRD cycle. The suggestion was to place Vira Shaivism as the first section since it started in 12th (11th century). You can claim that Advaita was part of Bhakti and add it to the article but you will have to support it with WP:RS. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The BRD cycle is, by its own description, optional. My edit wasn't bold. Copy pasting the paragraph back in the wrong place (the middle of an unrelated paragraph) was bold. Either way we're going way off point: I just thought it was a little aggressive to change it so sloppily. I am not trying to make any claims about advaita and bhakti, it was just an example of bhakti that precedes the founding of virashaivism. I am just saying you're claim on this talk page about vira shaivism being older than other forms of bhakti doesn't make any sense. If bhakti is from the seventh century, and lingayatism is from the twelfth, in what way is lingayatism the original bhakti or older than the alvars or rama bhakti? If an example is going to be spelled out in massive detail in the intro, it needs to typify the bhakti movement or be the origin of it or it should be its own section (or page). And I made it clear, I'm not trying to put any group 'first', advaita or vira. I'm just saying vira is clearly not the first bhakti movement nor a definitive example of a bhakti movement (really it's a movement that incorporates bhakti, but is not defined by it) and any changes based on that notion of preeminence would need to be backed up with references that don't exist on this page (or any other, because it's a far out sectarian claim). So if you want to push a lingayat agenda on this page, bring some evidence because it's looking mighty POV. Otherwise I'd just as soon drop this debate unless you have some practical changes you want to discuss.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Lingayat agenda? Haha. I was suggesting that you follow a chronological order, and since 11-12th century Vira Shaivism comes before 15 century Rama Bhakti, I wanted you to make VS the first section. The Alvars and Nayanars of 5-7th century Tamil Nadu are not Ramanandis and have nothing to do with Rama Bhakti. (The section on Rama Bhakti says as much.) The Alvars were Shiva worshippers who became Vaishnavites and the Nayanars were Shaivites. Since there is no mention of Alvars and Nayanars in the article the next prominent Bhakti movement, Vira Shaivism, should be placed first followed by Rama Bhakti (of Ramananda, 15th century) and Vaishnava Bhakthi (of Vallabhacharya and Sri Chaitanya in the 16th century). -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And Thirumurai is one of the oldest collections of Bhakti hymns. Why did you remove it? -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all I added the thirumurai first, then removed it because I was looking for a list of comparable scriptures, and the thirumurai didn't seem like a comparable example, but if you think it matches put it back in (I also toyed with adding the Agamas). Secondly, as I have already said: the order of the subsections is not currently based on a chronology, but if anything I would think it should go in order of prominence. I never claimed anyone as Rama Bhaktas and I didn't say anyone should go in the first section. Although if we want to emphasize age, Valmiki was a Ram bhakta well before the beginning of the Bhakti movement and the roots of the Ramayana in devotional practice is far older than the Ramanandis (though you could make the same argument about lingam worship). Number wise (though I can't prove this) I would expect the worshipers of Krishna and Rama are more populous and wide spread. And age wise, non-lingayat worship of Shiva is generally treated as the original self-described bhakti movement with roots visible in the svetasvataropanisad. And Bhagavatism is from the earliest parts of the common era, but didn't specifically use the word bhakti until the medieval period. It doesn't even have a section. That doesn't make Virashaivism younger (and since all of these are syncretic schools, how do we really establish a concrete chronology anyways?). If we should rearrange the whole article on prominence or chronology, that is a bigger proposal than just moving Virashaivism to the top: that is a page overhaul for a pretty incomplete page. If Virashaivism had been a major influence on later bhakti schools, that would be different (but I haven't seen that claim before). Now making a timeline of Bhakta Sants would be a little easier and give you the satisfaction of seeing Basava's name come before Caitanya's if that's what you're after. Big thanks to User:Ms Sarah Welch for jumping in on the clean up effort here with me. Though I wonder if this shouldn't all be rolled into the Bhakti page.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content

This article has had a WP:V request banner since 2013. A major surgery on this article is long overdue, which I am now doing. Please feel free to re-add text, but with reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(Copied from above) Big thanks to User:Ms Sarah Welch for jumping in on the clean up effort here with me. Though I wonder if this shouldn't all be rolled into the Bhakti page.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Merging it there may not be wise, but I will reflect on that suggestion. Meanwhile, your help in developing a more complete verifiable list of Bhakti movement poets, writers, musicians by each denomination, would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken on the merge. A link here to a bibliography full of good references Bhakti Bibliography. Particularly ' Songs of the Saints of India New York and Oxford: Oxford University. Press, 1988' gives a good citation for listing Ravidas, Kabir, Nanak, Surdas, Mirabai, and Tulsidas. Also talks about bhakti in the sikh tradition (Nanak) and useful for citations on nirgun vs. sagun bhakti as the book divides the poets up by this category. I'll keep looking for more to add.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Thank you. Assuming we can find recent reliable sources, I am envisioning a table that might look like this:

Bhakti poets, writers and muscians

Denomination	Sub-schools	Scholar-sant	Key works
Saivism	[add]	[add]	[add]
Vaishnavism	[add]	[add]	[add]
Shaktism	[add]	[add]	[add]
Smartism	[add]	[add]	[add]
Sikhism	[add]	[add]	[add]
[add]	[add]	[add]	[add]

Such a table would provide information and WP:RS leads to scholarly literature, to any reader interested in a specific bhakti scholar. Any other columns to add? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakti, Bhakti, Sikhism section, WP:BRD

@Jujhar.pannu: Do you have sources for what you mentioned in your edit comment, "Prior to Sikhism aspects of Shakti were always considered opposite and opposing to the concepts of Bhakti"? If you do, please provide. Otherwise, this reads like your OR/personal wisdom/personal prejudice. Perhaps if you provide a reliable source, I can review it and get back. You "Removed image is alternative Sikh practice", but per WP:NPOV, we can't take sides in disputes inside Sikhism. On rest of your edits, please do not remove reliable sources as you did here. If you have other sources which suggest "God is shown as both Nirgun and Sargan in Sikhi", please provide and we can add it as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The actual edits text are not my personal view only it is the prominent and accepted view. That above was mainly my own thoughts. I was referring to the whole thing about how Guru Hargobind convinced the Simriti Ram Das of the Marathi and guide of Shivji to do a dharam yudh who agreed to his concept after originally criticizing it, or the other saints who criticized thrones, and armies, etc or how lots of these bhakti type thought are usually non defensive and non violent. I actually had a few references for those but since it was only a comment and not used on any actual pages rather just a comment to show how obviously important Shakti here was. There are a lot of examples and if you woud like you can write something like "Bhagats like Banda Singh Biraghi did not understand the Shakti aspects of Sikhism and where angered by the Guru's display of Shakti until..." Shakti and Bhagkti are directly related to this topic and subtopic. If you have any reason to suggest why they are not please tell me. I am suggesting it because if you have a topic on metals for example and list the various submetals in it you would describe why that submetal is different from the other.

The word Sargun must be mentioned in the SGGS alone hundreds of times. There are plenty of sources that show that Sikhism views God as both Sargun and Nirgun. For example page 21 of Sikhism: its philosophy and history by Daljeet Singh or page 305 of Comparative Religious And Philosophies : Anthropomorphlsm And Divinity by Mahinder N. Gulati

Regarding the picture with the lamps. There is arti arta which is done by maybe 1% of sikhs from certain sects which is done with lamps like that. And then there is arti which is done a little more frequently by just singing and even that topic might be considered WP:UNDUE. Please see page 139 of Sikhs in the Diaspora by Surinder Singh Bakhshi or Page 14 of Holy Sikh Shrines by Surinder Singh Johar Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Please don't remove WP:RS sourced content. These are from established scholars, high quality secondary/tertiary sources. You can't delete them. For this talk page, let us avoid a WP:FORUM-y discussion. We can only use reliable sources. You mention page numbers with a few sources, which I will now review, and get back to you. I am delighted that you have raised the sagun/nirgun point from Sikhism perspective. I need to check alternate WP:RS on your 1% claim, as I remember Ronki Ram's paper in Routledge Handbook of Contemporary India, which stated Ravidassia Sikhs practiced arti and ardas. There are a few other relevant examples. I am aware of the Ravidassia Dharm and their recent split from Sikhism, but we need to ensure that all significant sides are represented for WP:NPOV. We also need to avoid misrepresenting mainstream Sikhism by overemphasis of a minor practice or through silence. Let me check your sources and get back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: How about we make the following change,

Current: In Sikhism, Bhakti of nirguni (devotion to divine without attributes) is emphasized.[88][89][90]

Proposed: In Sikhism, Bhakti of nirguni (devotion to divine without attributes) is emphasized,[88][89][90] but it accepts both nirguni and saguni forms of the divine.

References

I reviewed Bakhshi or Johar. Where do they say, there is no Bhakti in Sikhism? All they comment on is the idol worship and lamps, which is just one aspect of Bhakti. Bhakti has always been more than that - see the David Lorenzen etc books cited in this article. There is plenty of sources mentioning Jaap, kirtan, Ardas etc. See Nirmal Singh's Searches in Sikhism, page 93 and Darshan Singh's Indian Bhakti Tradition and Sikh Gurus, page 178. Are you okay if we mention kirtan, etc? On Shakti-Bhakti, you have not provided any source, just your personal opinions/wisdom/prejudice. If you read the Devi Mahatmya-related scholarly works, you will find that Shakti-Bhakti were not opposed, as you incorrectly allege, but they were synergistic/ cherished/ harmonious/ practiced together centuries before Sikhism was founded (e.g. see June McDaniel published by Oxford University Press, Vasudha Narayanan published by State University of New York Press, etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: I looked into more sources, as I promised above. I propose that we also summarize the Bhakti-content on Sikhism from the following,

1. SGGS pages 305-306, verses 305(16) – 306(2).
2. Guru Nanak taught, states Jon Mayled, that the most important form of worship is bhakti.
3. A short summary on Nam-simran as Bhakti.
4. A sentence or two on Guru Arjan's Sukhmani Sahib and his recommendation of the path of loving devotion to God, Bhakti.

I will give you a few days to review and comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

@Ms Sarah Welch: Your purposed change is:

In Sikhism, Bhakti of nirguni (devotion to divine without attributes) is emphasized,[88][89][90] but it accepts both nirguni and saguni forms of the divine

Yet you continue to re-add:

Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru and the founder of Sikhism, was a Nirguni Bhakti saint. In contrast to nirguni focus of Sikhism, Hinduism developed both saguni and nirguni bhakti (devotion to divine with or without attributes) as well as alternate paths to spirituality, with the options left to the choice of a Hindu

Please add more content, especially what you suggested at the end of your last post, unless there is already bundle of cited reasons not to. I see you removed a lot of referenced content without mentioning why. I mentioned why when I took them out and you have not addressed my concerns. Lastly I did not say there is no Bhakti in Sikhism. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: I reverted to the old stable version, per WP:BRD, a while ago, while I awaited your comments. Now, given the sources which are in the article and the new ones I have provided above (after my revert a few days ago), let us together work on a revised version for the Sikhism section. I will shortly propose a revised version, on this talk page. If you would like to suggest, please do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed content for Sikhism section

A Bhagti (Bhakti) in progress using an Aarti plate in a Sikh Gurdwara. Bhagti, Kirtan and Ardās is an important tradition within some sects of Sikhism. Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.

David Lorenzen states that Bhakti is an important idea within 15th-century religion Sikhism, just like Hinduism. In Sikhism, Bhakti of nirguni (devotion to divine without attributes) is emphasized, but it accepts both nirguni and saguni forms of the divine.

The scripture of Sikhism is based on the hymns and teachings of the Sikh gurus, and thirteen Hindu and two Muslim bhagats. The thirteen Hindu bhagats whose teachings were entered into the text, were poet saints of the Bhakti movement, and included Ramananda, Namdev, Pipa, Ravidas, Beni, Bhikhan, Dhanna, Jayadeva, Parmanand, Sadhana, Sain, Surdas, Trilochan, while the two Muslim bhagats were Kabir and Sufi saint Farid. Most of the 5,894 hymns in the Sikh scripture came from the Sikh gurus, and rest from the Bhagats. The three highest contributions in the Sikh scripture were from Bhagat Kabir (292 hymns), Bhagat Farid (134 hymns), and Bhagat Namdev (60 hymns). Some of the Bhagats whose teachings were included in the Guru Granth Sahib, were Hindu bhakti poets born before the birth of Guru Nanak – the founder of Sikhism. While Sikhism incorporated hymns from the Bhakti poet saints, it was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement and Sikhism disagreed with some of the views of Kabir and Ravidas.

Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru and the founder of Sikhism, was a Bhakti saint. He taught, states Jon Mayled, that the most important form of worship is Bhakti. Nam-simran – the repetition of God's name – is an important Bhakti practice in Sikhism. Guru Arjan, in his Sukhmani Sahib, recommended the path of loving devotion to God. The Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib includes suggestions for a Sikh to perform daily Bhakti.[note 1: place here verses 305(16) - 306(2) into notes section with cite]

References

@Jujhar.pannu: Please suggest changes, with WP:RS to improve the above version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: If you feel the image over-emphasizes the minor sects within Sikhism, I am okay with removing the image, and moving the sentence in the caption into the main article, for WP:NPOV. As Joshua Jonathan, Chrisw80 and I have previously discussed, we need to keep the Ravidassia religion perspective when we discuss Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: I concur with Ms Sarah Welch, removing the image is fine and moving the sentence into the main article is OK, as long as it's reliably sourced. Thank you for contributing! Chrisw80 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisw80: Thank you. Here are some more reliable sources on "lamp-based arti" in Sikhism (regionally, not in their Punjab region): one WP:RS is Karen Pechilis' book published by Routledge, another by Pashaura Singh published by BRILL Academic. Both of these are professors of South Asian religions, with Singh well known for his publications on Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I know very little of Sikhism, but I do that both Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi were bhakti's, in contrast to their depictment as Advaita vedantins. So, Sikhism having strong Bhakti-roots does not sound strange to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This article change is still incorrect on many fronts. Can you please provide any reference from the bhakti movement that considers doing arti a form of bhakti? The teachings from the Sikh perspective are very little and you removed my referenced content without mention so I added it back. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, dear all. Interesting discussion which I am glad to be part of. Sharing some points related to the first sentence of the proposal "Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.[88][89]". After reading both these references, I found [88] says

" and (Sikhism) is often described as a bhakti sect by many Hindu and western writers. Sikhs dislike this description, which seems to question the distinctiveness of the revelation received by the Gurus."

In [89], it appears authors try to link Sikhism to a hypothetical "Bhakti religion" and that's about it. I think we should represent the reference [88] accurately. Right now, only the initial bit of the quote I shared above has been picked and this provides incomplete context. Rather, complete context needs to be provided for the readers. Looking forward to nice discussions. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, looking at the Raj Pruthi reference now. In the article we have "according to Raj Pruthi, it (Sikhism) was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement". The complete and accurate quote however is as follows

"Sikhism should not be looked at as simply an extension of the Bhakti movement but as a new movement entirely."

Appeal again that the quote be included in full to provide complete information to readers. As you can see, I am most interested in ensuring that the sources are represented accurately without any cherry-picking. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: The arti/kirtan/bhajan has been part of the Bhakti movement. See Bruno Nettle, The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Routledge, ISBN 978-0824049461, pages 246-257; J Lele, Tradition and Modernity in Bhakti Movements, BRILL, ISBN 978-9004063709, pages 120-121. I am reverting some of your changes because your changes are WP:UNDUE-ly and incorrectly imply "Kabir and Ravidas" were all that Bhakti movement was. Furthermore, criticism of Kabir etc is WP:UNDUE in this article. This is not Pruthi-pedia. We must consider a range of sources, and try our best to summarize in a way that reflects the broad scholarship. We can mention Shakti aspects, but again we must keep WP:FRIND in mind, not just Raj Pruthi. Is Pruthi a reliable source, or is his book WP:SPS? One of the sources you added was published by Singh Brothers and looks like WP:SPS. I am deleting it for now, but if you provide evidence that it is a WP:RS publisher, we can add it back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revkh: Welcome to wikipedia. Revelation means many things. What you suggest is WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not Pruthi-pedia, and we must strive to summarize the broad scholarly consensus. You may want to read the current Bhakti-related discussion at TALK:Sikhism for numerous scholarly sources that disagree Sikhism was a "new movement entirely" POV. Also read the archives related to @Js82 and @Js82's numerous sockpuppets. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch, Can you please provide the quotation that fulfils my request? There is nothing to suggest that Singh Brothers is not a reliable source and it is not a self publishing company and further more they have been publishing for 70 years. http://www.singhbrothers.com/singhbrothers.htm. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Just click on the ISBN, follow through and look for the page number. If you are unable to verify "Arti/kirtan/bhajan is part of Bhakti" in Indian religions in these sources, perhaps we can ask another editor with better resources to intervene and check. On publishers... just because someone is printing books for 10 or 60 years does not mean they are not WP:SPS. To be a reliable publisher, editorial oversight and the process of selecting authors matters. The Singh Brothers website does not clarify this. @Kautilya3: what are your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A quick look showed that their books have multiple citations including from several "high-profile" authors. Attack on their credibility closed. Move on. I also once applied for getting a book published from them and was declined. Since I am frequently approached by Cambridge University Press asking me to publish with them, so Singh brothers indeed has stringent oversight and processes in place. Kigman fs (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Raj Pruthi source: reliable or unreliable?

@Jujhar.pannu: I dug more into Raj Pruthi source, and learn that his education is in law. The Pruthi book has been published by a recently founded private publisher which advertises for WP:SPS-type publications. FWIW, Pruthi's comparison of Christianity and Sikhism, Buddhism and Sikhism, etc is WP:FRINGE-y. The book is inconsistent internally, such as on Ahimsa. On page 6, states Pruthi, Nanak supports and explains Ahimsa. But on page 203 Pruthi declares "Sikh Guru's (sic) did not believe in this Hindu practice". Pruthi book has no scholarly reviews that I could find, and does not seem like a WP:RS. I will give you a few days to collect and present evidence that Pruthi source meets wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect. It was founded in 1983 and is not a self publishing publication company.

http://www.discoverypublishinggroup.com/aboutus.html Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Sorry, they are looking for authors, and asking authors to send in their resume. That is SPS-style approach. There is nothing in that link to suggest Pruthi source or the publisher is WP:RS. You need to provide better evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am frequently approached by Cambridge University Press folks to send in my resume and outline for publishing a book. So we rule Cambridge Univ Press as SPS-style approach also ? Kigman fs (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kigman fs: Really? @Jujhar.pannu: I am concerned with the editorial oversight and the process the publisher uses to select authors per WP:RS guidelines. Beyond the publisher, Pruthi has a law degree, no peer reviewed religion-related journal articles I could find, and his views on Christianity/ Buddhism/ Hinduism/ Islam / etc versus Sikhism are strange and questionable. His book is internally inconsistent on Ahimsa, and raises questions. You need to find a better source. If Pruthi views are mainstream, you should be able to find multiple WP:RS publications by professor(s) or other well recognized scholars stating the same. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content by @Jujhar.pannu, seeking explanation: part 1

@Jujhar.pannu: Perhaps, we should discussion this item by item. Please explain why you are deleting the following sourced content,

Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions. In Sikhism, "nirguni Bhakti" is emphasized – devotion to a divine without Gunas (qualities or form), but it accepts both nirguni and saguni forms of the divine.

Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

References

This was not taken out by me rather by Kigman fs and I was adding back some stuff after his revision so I temporarily reverted with it there and did not want to add it back as his reasons seemed legitimate with his concern about the quotes being represented inaccurately. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Here are all the edits and comments of now blocked sockpuppet "@Kigman fs" account 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Where does that account express "concern about the quotes being represented inaccurately"? How do you know? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content by @Jujhar.pannu, seeking explanation: part 2

@Jujhar.pannu: Please explain why you are deleting the following sourced content,

While Sikhism was influenced by Bhakti movement, and incorporated hymns from the Bhakti poet saints, it was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement. Sikhism, for instance, disagreed with some of the views of Bhakti saints Kabir and Ravidas.

Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I did not delete that. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You quite clearly did. I'll restore the status quo ante before the edit-warring and sock-puppetry took place over the last two days. If you want to delete sourced content, you're going to have to explain why here and seek a consensus for your version. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Shakti and Bhakti

It is incorrect to suggest or imply that Shakti-Bhakti was unique to Sikhism. It existed many centuries before Sikhism was founded, and one of its central text is Devi Mahatmya. The text and a related goddess-tradition existed in 1st-millennium CE, and thrived before the start of Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Since you did not find the quotation for me I have removed the arti part please provide it if you have it. The article does not suggest Bhakti and Shakti to be unique. Your last revision I have never come across such a thing as "The Bhakti themes in Sikhism also incorporate Shakti (power) ideas" and it does not seem to match the reference. Please be careful as I have warned you on this before. As per Kigman fs revision that one has lots of subtle mistakes. You have misinterpreted the reference of Ahimsa on page 6 the view is consistent. So there is no reason currently why my latest revision should be edited unless you want to add more. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Don't edit war, or delete sourced content, without explaining. You have been deleting scholarly sources from the very start, and again today repeatedly without proper explanation. You left accusations and templated warnings on my talk page here, on "Deletion of referenced content". This reads as if you are lawyering the rules on others, but not living by them. This is WP:TE and disruptive. As you requested, I embedded the quote inside the cite. @Joshua Jonathan:, @Chrisw80:, @Kautilya3: What are your thoughts? Perhaps one of you can see the two versions, and figure out an NPOV, best version? Again we are dealing with two new accounts above, one "@Kigman fs", of the same type we spent a lot of time addressing in Sikhism article and its talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: Please note that threats on talk page violate WP:TPNO. If you have reason to seek admin action, just take it to ANI/DRN. I have removed the "Bhakti-Shakti" sentence for now. I think it is WP:UNDUE in this article. Please provide a quote from the source on Shakti-Bhakti, with reason why you feel it is WP:DUE (you just asked me for quote, above; and decided to "Since you did not find the quotation for me I have removed the arti part"). Your turn to return the favor of a quotation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You are unclear about what WP:UNDUE means. All sikhs agree with Shakti and Bhakti. It is not a minority view anywhere that they were combined into Miri-Piri. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: I asked you for a quote from your source, and evidence that it is a reliable source. Whether something is WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE, depends on whether Shakti-Bhakti sentences you have been trying to add is "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If "all Sikhs agree", then all mainstream Sikhism scholars would be writing about it. Bring a quote from books on Sikhism published by well known scholars or through established publishers whose books you find in libraries worldwide. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Explaining revert

@Jujhar.pannu: Please provide quote from the source for the following...

Sikhism combines Bhakti with Shakti (powerfulness), with Bhakti being slightly more important than the former, into the singular concept of Miri-Piri developed by Guru Hargobind.

Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Pannu has a valid point. You may verify from page 677 History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E By Surjit Singh Gandhi

Shakti in Sikhism is thus a part and parcel of Bhakti. A true Gurmukh or Gyani is the embodiment of Bhakti and Shakti.

Guru Hargobind underscored this point by wearing two swords representing Miri (temporal) and Piri (spiritual) aspect of Guru's office, which were the same as Bhakti and Shakti.

Revkh (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revkh: That is not adequate support for "slightly more important than" or "singular concept". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revkh: The phrase "singular concept" has a particular meaning in philosophical thought, and Buridan argued that a singular concept is one which the elements have not been distinguished from each other. To state that Miri-Piri is a singular concept is counter-intuitive, therefore it is going to require some fairly substantial attribution (per WP:REDFLAG - preferably directly to the source that makes the claim). Additionally, nothing has been adduced so far to verify that "Bhakti [is] slightly more important than [Shakti]", so the burden is on those wishing to introduce that text to substantiate that is directly attributable to a reliable source. A direct quote would be best. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, thank you. The complete quote

Shakti in Sikhism is thus a part and parcel of Bhakti because the user of Shakti was required to work—even sacrifice, to see the will of God operating without any let and hindrance. In this sense Sikh Shakti is suffused with devotion to God because if it is not so, the Shakti (power) would turn out to be a power of a tyrant and not of God. A true Gurmukh or Gyani is the embodiment of Bhakti and Shakti.

According to Bhatt Kalsar, all the Gurus right from Guru Nanak to Guru Arian Dev had lived the life of Raj Jogi. Guru Hargobind underscored this point by wearing two swords representing Miri (temporal) and Piri (spiritual) aspect of Guru's office, which were the same as Bhakti and Shakti. Guru Tegh Bahadur, therefore, besides remembrance of God received military training. After he was elevated to guruship, he travelled widely and in course of his travels conducted himself in the manner of a chief, fond of horse-riding, wearing arms with the Kalghi on his turban, followed by a large retinue, just as his warrior father used to do.9S According to Dr. Fauja Singh, "Bhakti was to be continued with Shakti to offer full view of the Guru's philosophy of life."

Would you agree/disagree this proves that in Sikhism Shakti and Bhakti go hand in hand. Basically, there is no Bhakti without Shakti and vice-versa. For the Bhakti being higher than Shakti, Mr. Pannu likely says so since the flag for Bhakti at Amritsar Darbar Sahib is higher than the one for Shakti. All Sikhs know this. Revkh (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether it proves anything, as that's not the purpose of sources on Wikipedia. Please read and try to understand WP:Verifiability and perhaps re-read my comment? The quote you bring quite clearly does not state that Miri-Piri is a singular concept - if anything it suggests a dual nature.

I asked what the source was for "Bhakti [is] slightly more important than [Shakti]". If all Sikhs know that, then it ought to be easy to find a reliable, independent, published source that states that, wouldn't you agree? Please read and try to understand WP:Reliable sources - it will make these exchanges easier for all of us. Finally, why has the same request for citation for that text had to be made three times so far without any sign of a source being produced? Are you sure a reliable source exists that states that? --RexxS (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Maybe Mr. Pannu has a source for the singular-concept. But in any case, IMO, the referenced quote above is clearly stating that in Sikhism Bhakti and Shakti go hand in hand, and Guru Hargobind demonstrated it clearly via the Miri-Piri concept. Revkh (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeking opinion on accurately quoting the source

Hi, posting this to seek opinions from you all on this post I made earlier.

Hi, dear all. Interesting discussion which I am glad to be part of. Sharing some points related to the first sentence of the proposal "Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.[88][89]". After reading both these references, I found [88] says

" and (Sikhism) is often described as a bhakti sect by many Hindu and western writers. Sikhs dislike this description, which seems to question the distinctiveness of the revelation received by the Gurus."

In [89], it appears authors try to link Sikhism to a hypothetical "Bhakti religion" and that's about it. I think we should represent the reference [88] accurately. Right now, only the initial bit of the quote I shared above has been picked and this provides incomplete context. Rather, complete context needs to be provided for the readers. Looking forward to nice discussions. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, looking at the Raj Pruthi reference now. In the article we have "according to Raj Pruthi, it (Sikhism) was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement". The complete and accurate quote however is as follows

"Sikhism should not be looked at as simply an extension of the Bhakti movement but as a new movement entirely."

Appeal again that the quote be included in full to provide complete information to readers. As you can see, I am most interested in ensuring that the sources are represented accurately without any cherry-picking. Revkh (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

All, and @RexxS:, please do share if you agree or not. Thanks ! Revkh (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

First, I should point out that this article is about the Bhakti movement, not about Sikhism which has its own article and a proposal to add a Bhakti sub-section. I am quite clear that this article should focus on the Bhakti movement and should mention its influence on Sikhism, but should not concern itself with other aspects of Sikhism that properly belong in the Sikhism article. I hope we can all agree on that.

Second, the Dictionary of Sikhism (current reference 88) seems to support the present article text "Some scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions." I dislike the vague "some scholars" and think that we could be more specific without copyright violation by stating "Many Hindu and western scholars call Sikhism a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions." Nevertheless, I assume your concern is that the article does not mention that Sikhs dislike that description. How much space in the article on the Bhakti movement should be spent on reporting Sikhs' views on that description? Does the dislike by Sikhs shed any additional light on the fact that "[Sikhism] is often described as a bhakti sect by many Hindu and western writers"? I'm sure it's important to a Sikh, but I assume that Sikhs already know that - does it enhance the understanding of the lay reader who has little or no background in the topic? Don't get me wrong: I'm fairly neutral on the principle of expanding the text based on the Dictionary of Sikhism source, but I want to see if there's consensus that any expansion is both encyclopedic and relevant to Bhakti movement.

Next, I'm afraid I can't agree with your dismissal of Lorenzen (1995) as it appears authors try to link Sikhism to a hypothetical "Bhakti religion" and that's about it. Lorenzen indeed writes in terms of "bhakti religion", but even I can see that he is using the phrase to refer to multiple traditions that employ bhakti as the central mode of their worship and share common roots: "More specifically, all its sects and currents were heavily influenced in their origins ... by ... the Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavad-Purana." (page 1). I can see no reason why for example his assertion that "Historically, Sikh religion derives from this nirgunicurrent of bhakti religion although it has established a conscious identity as a separate religion" (page 1) should not inform our text, as it seems to expound quite succinctly the relationship between the bhakti movement and Sikhism.

Of course, all of this debate is pointless unless you actually state the new text you propose should be in the article. Unfortunately I have to reject out of hand your suggestion that we include a quote in full from a copyrighted work. We don't write our encyclopedia by stitching together plagiarised snippets of other peoples' work. We read all of the relevant, reliable, published sources and then attempt to summarise them in our own words, giving prominence to the mainstream view, while not omitting significant minority views. There's a useful description of the process at WP:Neutral point of view and it may help your understanding to study that page. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: I concur and like your suggestions. "Some scholars" indeed is vague. Your suggestions are spot on. Same with your other comments. I support changing the Sikhism section further, to address the points you make, to make it more compliant with wikipedia's content policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revkh: Welcome to wikipedia. You may want to see the discussion on TALK:Sikhism page and its archives, particularly recent discussions between various wiki editors with @Docxx and @Js82, who turned out to be sockpuppets and blocked, asking similar questions and which relate to WP:NPOV that @RexxS explains above. Pruthi's reliability is questionable, but more important he is not the only author. Wiki articles must reflect the broad consensus, both majority and significant minority views from reliable scholarly sources. Assume there are 100 publications. If 90 of them are saying "Sikhism is a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions", 9 are saying "Sikhism has been a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions, but was not simply an extension", and one source published by a non-academic through a little know private publisher in beautiful towns of Punjab-India or somewhere else is saying "Sikhism was a new movement entirely", we can't highlight the "new movement" and suppress the views of other 99 sources. We should highlight what the 90 sources are stating, and mention what 9 sources are stating for NPOV, in due proportion. Similarly, if one source such as "A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism" discusses Bhakti, mentions Bhakti/Jnana marga/Karma marga/etc several times and mentions "revelation" once in the passing, with a contextual meaning, we should not highlight "revelation" with neon signs while ignoring the rest - it is undue and WP:SOAP, instead we should consider what other sources are stating, what the article topic is, and then build the best summary in our own words from multiple scholarly sources. This is particularly true for controversial, difficult topics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

This used to be a half-decent article, in the sense that it could be read by a layperson. It is now chock-a-block with obscure technical terms, references to people whose authority/expertise is not explained, elements that seem almost irrelevant, and vague phrasing such as "some scholars". Alas, this seems to be quite a common trait when Ms Sarah Welch gets involved - is there any way we can simplify the thing? I am not an unintelligent person and I struggle to understand it. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Grr. And another common event when MSW becomes involved is a total disregard for Indian English in favour of US English, and of existing citation styles. I've lost count of how many times I have mentioned this and still they carry on their merry way. It isn't difficult. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: This was the state before my first edit. Tagged. Almost entirely unsourced. Blog-like and OR. Strange that you consider it was "half decent". On technical terms, we just need to keep close to the sources, without introducing OR and respecting the Copyvio guidelines. Feel free to improve to the article, such as by simplifying the technical terms and changing US English -> Indian English. You may want to run the spelling conversion bot too, don't know how good and complete that is. Everyone's effort, including yours, to improve the article are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

COI Suggested Edit

Replace: "John Stratton Hawley describes recent scholarship which questions the old theory of Bhakti movement origin and "story of south-moves-north", then states that the movement had multiple origins, mentioning Brindavan in north India as another center.[123] Hawley describes the controversy and disagreements between Indian scholars, quotes Hegde's concern that "Bhakti movement was a reform" theory has been supported by "cherry-picking particular songs from a large corpus of Bhakti literature" and that if the entirety of the literature by any single author such as Basava is considered along with its historical context, there is neither reform nor a need for reform.[77]"

With: "In his book A Storm of Songs John Stratton Hawley shows how the notion of the bhakti movement crystallized in the earlier half of the twentieth century, giving special consideration to the dialogue between Hindi and English sources. Yet he also shows that the principal features of this narrative are older. Hawley draws attention to the paradigm of the four sampradays (orders or teaching traditions), which Nabhadas developed in his Bhaktamal in about 1600 C.E. This paradigm for understanding how southern Vaishnavism made its way northward was adopted and elaborated by various sectarian communities in north India under the pressure of political considerations in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Most people know the “south to north” story of how Bhakti infused itself into Indian life from the picture that is given in the Bhagavata Mahatmya, a text that praises the glories of the Bhagavata Purana. That text too turns out to be relatively recent—and again northern. The earliest manuscripts for the Bhagavata Mahatmya come from the early 18th century; they appear only in the north.

Keeping all of this in mind, Hawley asks what can now be said about the all-India bhakti movement narrative—very sort of story that has been told elsewhere in this essay. One obvious possibility—a path others have followed—is to disaggregate the bhakti movement (or “trend”—see above) into smaller, regionally coherent bhakti movements. Alternatively one could jettison the “movement” metaphor altogether and think in terms of an India-wide “bhakti network.” Hawley is not saying that there is no sense to the classical “south to north” narrative—there may indeed be—but the narrative itself is deeply conditioned by history." 1

1 John Stratton Hawley (2015), A Storm of Songs: India and the Idea of the Bhakti Movement, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0674187467, pages 1-147, 295-312.

Bhakta219 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 01-OCT-2018

 Unable to review edit request

Your edit request could not be reviewed because it is unclear which page numbers from the provided reference are used to verify the provided claims. When proposing edit requests, it is important to highlight in the text which specific page numbers are being used to source the given statements. The point of an inline citation is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation's note number does not contain page numbers. Note the example below:

N INCORRECT

The figures concerning the sun are varied. It's surface temperature has been determined to be 5,778 K. It's radius is 432,169 miles, while its escape velocity (from the surface) is 617.7 km/s. 1.

References

---

      1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018. pp. 135-190.

In the example above there is one reference provided, but the claim statements do not indicate on which pages the claims exist. Only a page range is given. Your edit request similarly does not specify which page the claims originate on. This is important when one source gives multiple claims. Each page number of the source must be provided, as shown in the next example below:

Y CORRECT

The figures concerning the sun are varied. It's surface temperature has been determined to be 5,778 K.^[1]:214 It's radius is 432,169 miles,^[1]:79 while its escape velocity (from the surface) is 617.7 km/s.^[1]:177

References

---

      1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018.

In the example above, the individual page numbers where the claims exist are perfectly clear, as they display immediately after the reference note number, separated by a colon (:). Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Page numbers may be added using the {{RP}} template. Regards,  Spintendo  22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Bhaktis and Sikhs

Why can't Bhaktis leave the Sikh alone? Monothesim is the prime beyond all else, that thought is intrinsically not Hindu and not localised to Indian pantheism. Getting a bit tired of these wiki edit wellas, (an agnostic ex jatt sikh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.70.185 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hindutva fueled plagiarism, dont ask me "how" extremist. These sources are dead links, and contain nothing of "scholars claim Sikhism's is influenced and apart of the bhakti movement". dont make me log in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:DE0:2F98:192A:65DD:F6D2:36A5 (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Postmodern" vs. "contemporary" scholars

I have replaced occurrences of "postmodern scholars" with "contemporary scholars". (There were 3 such occurrences, one in introduction, and two in section 9, including section heading: "Controversy and doubts in postmodern scholarship.")

I made the edit because none of the mentioned scholars (Pechilis, Biardeau, Miller, Hawley, Pollock, and Guy) are "postmodern," nor does postmodernism figure in their work on the Bhakti movement. A citation is necessary to link this scholarship with postmodernism. Otherwise the linking of the postmodernism article is irrelevant / distracting.

--Smrti.manava (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)