Talk:Ik Onkar

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ik Onkar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725085727/http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikhism1.asp to http://sgpc.net/sikhism/sikhism1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602181659/http://www.woodford.redbridge.sch.uk/RS/year9/ikonkar1.html to http://www.woodford.redbridge.sch.uk/RS/year9/ikonkar1.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160818185715/http://www.sikhs.org/art1.htm. 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, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing 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) 12:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ik Onkar literal meaning One supreme Reality

Literally the meaning of Ik Onkar is one supreme reality. Ek Om maker is a non-literal meaning. MehmoodS (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ik Onkar composed of Ik and Onkar literally translates to One within many Indian languages and Onkar translates to Om Maker. On or Oaang is a slight variation of the orthography of the word Om (supported by many claims) and Kar is a suffix meaning the creator or doer. Kar is also a verb suggesting doing or creating. If you look at pages like Jaish e Mohammed, Hezbollah, Lakshar e Taiba, the article mentions the literal translation of these names (Party of God, Army of Righteousness etc). For example Hezbollah is a composite of Hezb meaning party and allah meaning god. Similarly Ik Onkar's literal translation is One Om maker. Saying that Ik Onkar denoted the supreme reality is not the literal translation of the word, it is an exposition or elaboration of the word. I have already explained to that the onkar is derived and a variation of the orthography of the sanskrit word "omkara" meaning om maker, the exposition to that word means the supreme reality or the absolute reality, but it is not the literal translation Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You should have had this discussion before violating edit warring policy. But one again, like I mentioned earlier, you are failing to understand the difference between literal and non-literal. Om Maker is not literal meaning and is rather non-literal and figurative. In plain english the definition of Ik Onkar is well defined as One Supreme reality. OmMaker is figuratively explained in the other section of the article. MehmoodS (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

As soon as you sent me a warning for edit warring, I followed protocols and went on the talk page and even replied to your personal messages. Moreover, I was reverting your vandalism of the page and removing of sources Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Moreover you claim I broke 3RR, however you reverted the article the same number of times I did, you also reverted/undid revisions on the article 3 times, the same number of times I did Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring - 4 or more edits which you continued to make even after the warning. Thank you. MehmoodS (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, when you sent the warning, I was only 2 reverts in. Look at the history again, and moreover adding a source is not a violation of the 3RR Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, you were vandalizing the page and removing reliable sources which is a violation Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not how it works. You continued to make edits and even added unreliable sources which do not support your change and above all when already made clear that their is dispute. I think you need to relook again at the time of the first warning sent and the edits you made before and after. Leave it on admin to investigate. MehmoodS (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Dogra, Ramesh Chander, and Gobind Singh Mansukhani. Encyclopaedia of Sikh Religion and Culture. pp 138–39: "Ek-Omkār / Ik-Omkār / Ekankār It is from the Sanskrit word Omkar.

McLeod, W. H. 2005. Historical Dictionary of Sikhism (2nd ed.), Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. p. 97: 'Oankar' is actually a cognate of “Om” and can carry the same mystical meaning.

Wazir Singh (1969), Guru Nanak's philosophy, Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 1, Issue 1, page 56:  Onkar is, according to Wazir Singh, a "variation of Om (Aum) of the ancient Indian scriptures (with a slight change in its orthography), implying the seed-force that evolves as the universe

The literal breakdown of the word Onkar is the composite of On/Ooang (cognate or variation of the spelling of OM) and Kar which means Maker.

MehmoodS is misunderstanding what's going on; he's not understanding that I'm merely providing a literal translation of the word Onkar, and not delving into the exposition or meaning behind it. For example, go on to the wikipedia page of Hezbollah and it will say in the very begininng, "literally Party of God". It doesn't mean that Hezbollah is literally a party of God, but that the translation of the word Hezbollah is Party of God. Similarily, the meaning of Onkar is One Reality/ One Absolute, but the translation/breakdown of the word Onkar means One Om Maker. MehmoodS, please dont delete this section without my permission, like you deleted the previous section where I provided the bulk of my explanation. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking about MYSTICAL meaning or non-literal alas figurative meaning here. The discussion is about literal meaning and Suthasianhistorian8 fails to understand the difference. YOu were creating multiple sections on the same discussion subject when one is already in place which I already started. You should keep the discussion where the original discussion started from. As far as literal meaning is concerned, you or your sources haven't provided any such information.

Nayar, Dr Kamala Elizabeth. The Sikh View on Happiness Guru Arjan’s Sukhmani. pp 129: "Ek Oankar literally means One Creator". 

Singh, Jasraj 2009. A Complete Guide to Sikhism. p. 204: "Literal meaning: there is only one almighty (God), the infinite." 

Bakshi, Surinder. Sikhs in the Diaspora. pp 14: "The literal meaning is as follows : Ek Onkar There is only One God". 

Clearly shows what the literal meaning is. MehmoodS (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, what I was reffering to was that you DELETED THE INFORMATION and my work, you didn't simply move it to another section, you erased my work which is a violation of the rules. Secondly, you are again confusing the literal translation/breakdown/etymology of the word and the exposition of the word. I have conclusively proven that Onkar is a cognate/variation of the word Om/Omkar/Omkara, Onkar quite literally is just "Omkar" but with a variation in its orthography. Onkar= Omkar= Om Maker in English= referring to the being that created the universe/reality/all of existence through chanting the word "Om". Om Maker in its meaning is synonomous/interchangeable/denotes the same exact meaning as God/Supreme Reality. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean but I think I clearly stated that there is no need for duplicates. Om is not literal meaning, but I added change to resolve the dispute. MehmoodS (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with the current edit on the Wikipedia article. Reasonable compromise. I think we can end the discussion at this Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ditto MehmoodS (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

you wrote that onkar means God/reality, that is already established in the article, the etymology section in wikipedia is dedicated to the linguistic/historical origins and its historical development , which i had already done. therefore your edits do not add anything of value to that particular section and what you added is already repeated in the article numerous times. I am explaining as to how/the steps to build to the conclusion that ik onkar means God, and you are merely adding the conclusion. To reiterate, Onkar=Omkar similar to how Muhammad= Mohammed, Mahavir=Mahabir, Om=Aum etc, color=colour. they're referring to the same thing just with a slight change in spelling/pronunciation. There is an established historical basis as to this and numerous sources to back this up. Once again, Onkar and Omkar don't DIRECTLY TRANSLATE to GOD, it means God, but it doesn't directly translate to God, it translates to a epithet of God or an interchangeable term/name of God.

For example, Al Rahman is another word/name for Allah, while Al Rahman MEANS God, it directly translates to "The Merciful" which is supposed to be a epithet/quality/another name/sorbiquet of God. What I am saying in that section is that Al Rahman is translated to "The Merciful" which MEANS God. Al Rahman doesnt directly translate to God, it translates to The Merciful. Similarily, Onkar is Omkar (color=colour) which translates to Om Maker, which is a epithet of God.

Onkar means God, but through a epithet of God

Hope this helps Suthasianhistorian8 Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your theory doesn't make sense and nor does it justify in the removing the sources and the information provided. Information gives perspective to Linguistic and historical development as well. You need to stop removing the changes and trying to keep it how you feel suitable. The informations provided blends quite well with your edits. So I would suggest you to leave it as is. MehmoodS (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your sources are poor and one was a simple children's book. You are adding irrelavant information to the section which degrades the section and article's quality. Look at some etymology sections work in Wikipedia before adding repetitive content, you have also not provided a source that Onkar directly TRANSLATES (not means) to God in Punjabi. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources are poor? What made you justify that? There is absolutely nothing that is degrading here in that one line that was added to the section with reliable sources. The sources provided very well provide the information that Onkar in Punjabi means god. Not sure what the issue you are having here with this information. Like I said earlier, just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean that the information is degraded. MehmoodS (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes Onkar does MEAN God, it does not DIRECTLY TRANSLATE to God, like you are claiming. My previous edit reconciled this by adding at the end "Ik Onkar" means God. But i have already proved through sources that Onkar is Omkar.And there is historical basis/also just plain common sense if you know Hindi or Punjabi that Omkar translates to Om Maker. There is no historical basis to claim that Onkar TRANSLATES to God, like you are claiming Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The claim you wrote that "Onkar translates to God in Punjabi" must be removed because it is false and unsourced. Yes, there a plethora of sources that state Onkar MEANS God but it does not translate to God. Please understand the distinction between translation and meaning Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources clearly quotes Onkar as Punjabi as with sources clearly providing that information along with quotes provided, not sure why you are diligent to have it removed. Nothing needs to be removed. MehmoodS (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)