Talk:Fateh Shah

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

India: Uttarakhand / History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

tall claims[edit]

There are some very tall claims about this king in this article.And the author of this article has relied only on a pov of one biased historian(HUH?) who in turn relies on imagination and sets aside the facts.Ajjay (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "tall claims" and "pov of one biased historian" are you talking about? The article includes multiple sources, and viewpoints of multiple scholars.

Your problem seems to be with the assertion that Bichitra Natak's authorship is disputed. In that case, let me tell you that most of the people who dispute Bichitra Natak's authorship are Sikhs themselves. Here is a quote from [A Critical Review of Sachi Sakhi and Parasaraprasna A Critical Review of Sachi Sakhi and Parasaraprasna] by Baldev Singh:

"...there are verses in this composition [Bachittar Natak] which repudiate the core of Sikh philosophy, contradict Sikh history, and are illogical. Moreover, analyses of the contents of Bachittar Natak on the touchstone of Gurmat and logic have shown unquivocally that Guru Gobind Singh can not be the author of Bachittar Natak [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31"

There are several other Sikh authors who dispute its authorship. In fact, Jasbinder Singh, the Dubai-based author of Dasam Granth da Likhari kaun has promised a award of INR 1 crore to anybody person who can prove that the Dasam Granth was written by Guru Gobind Singh. He goes as far as saying that the book was written "to ridicule the Sikh religion in the eyes of world." The book was released by Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgir, "an eminent Sikh scholar", who supports his viewpoint.

Many other Sikhs dismiss such authors as a part of the publicity-seeking NRI Khalistani lobby or the Kala Afgana lobby, but it remains a fact that there are a number of Sikhs who dispute the authorship of Bichitra Natak. utcursch | talk 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong.My problem is not with the assertion that the authorship of bachittar natak is disputed.But the way dispute is presented.If someone puts up an award of rupees one crore for proving that it is farce, then please show him the road to Akal Takht.The granthis there can make good use of the money.As for saying that the dispute has been caused by sikhs only, then you must know that there are many sikhs who claim many other things.Maybe you can point out what repudiates the core sikh philosophy instead of expressing views of only malicious writers.Ajjay (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]