Talk:Dera (organization)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
List of "Non-Sikh deras": NPOV issues[edit]
List of "Non-Sikh deras" includes groups who identify as Sikh – for example Namdharis. I understand how some Sikhs don't believe they are a valid Sikh group, despite their own claims to be – but it isn't Wikipedia's job to decide disputes over whose interpretation of a religion is a true one. Wikipedia's standard should be (not just for Sikhism, but for any other religion) – we'll classify as Sikhism any group which claims to be Sikh, and only classify as "non-Sikh" groups which reject a Sikh identity. By that standard, some of the groups on this list indeed belong here (like Ravidasis)), others definitely don't (Namdharis), others I am not sure. This page really needs attention from an expert on Sikhism; sadly I am not. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- The article just sticks to the source, Ashutosh Kumar (2014), which states "The above three deras, like the Nirankari Dera and Namdhari Dera, have been non-Sikh deras. Unlike the Sikh deras, Sikh Rahit (code of conduct) is not observed strictly in these deras and also they have their own distinct rituals, dress code, symbols and sacred texts. Non-Sikh practices like idol worship and considering the dera Guru as the messenger/incarnation of God are common in these deras." utcursch | talk 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- The source is biased though – because Nirankari and Namdhari identify as part of Sikhism. Relying on a source which classifies them as "non-Sikh", is no different than relying on a fundamentalist Protestant source which says "Catholics aren't Christians". That may well be true from the viewpoint of the theology of some Protestants, but Wikipedia can't adopt such a religiously biased viewpoint. In the same way, it may well be true that from the theological perspective of many Sikhs, Nirankari and Namdhari are not valid forms of Sikhism – but Wikipedia can't adopt such a religiously biased viewpoint either. When treating religion from a religiously neutral secular perspective – the only valid perspective for a resource such as Wikipedia to adopt – we have to ignore statements that "X is not really part of religion Y, even though it claims to be". If X seriously claims to be part of religion Y, then by a neutral secular standard, it is, and theological arguments that it isn't should not be accepted. So clearly this source is not a neutral secular source, it is applying a theological standard of what is "real Sikhism", and to that extent must be disregarded. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)