This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would someone please tell me, what does Sikhism say about: Apostasy (leaving Sikhism)? Homosexuality? Mixed dancing? Eating pig-meat? Are they prohibited, discouraged, ignored, allowed, or what? Perhaps they should be mentioned in the article, as things that other monotheistic religions have strong views on -- Hugh7 ( talk) 07:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. And does Sikhism have no sects? If so, that seems quite remarkable for such a large body of believers. Is there some particular way it is achieved? -- 121.72.144.204 ( talk) 10:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Dearest Sikh Sangat, there is a grave missuse of the Monotheistic word, our religion is clearly described in the English Oxford Dictionary as one of the 5 Monolythic religions (Christian, Muslim,Jew, Bhai Faith and Sikh,) all talk to the same God (Ik-Oankaar.) as a Sikh it is not hard for me to see this and our own teachings, teach us that God appears in many places, can be a beggar or rich person. This may also correct the misconception why Sikhs touch the floor and touch their forehead, ( if Waheguru, God, My Lord, Allah ) what ever your religion calls him, in many different languages, there is only one GOD, and if he has been present in our Gurdwarra, I want to be blessed by the dust off his feet. This is the only dictionary that tells the truth about our sikh religion for me and all Sikhs the truth is paramount. The majority of world dictionaries I have checked, state that Sikhism is an off shoot of Hindu religion, this is a blatant spin by corruption to our God Fearing religions and a further dilution of Sikhism and where it belongs in the world. I have been fighting for many years to have these world dictionaries change and tell the truth. Please look at the British Oxford Dictionary, written before 1947 Angad Singh (Sikh Activist) Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh
Its funny that the only people who think that Sikhs are Hindus are Hindus themselves. Sikhs are not Hindus, nor a segment of Hinduism, if we were we would call ourselves as such. ( 174.1.80.242 ( talk) 19:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
Dearest SadhSangat, It is to my humble understanding that the first line of this article is open to a heavy misconception. Firstly, when attempting to understand from Wikipedia's description of Theism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism, (read further by clicking the link to "personal god" in the second sentence of that article) It conflicts with my understanding of the teachings in Gurbani, We do not in any way believe in a "personal God", (Yes the word "God" and "Him" comes up in many English translations of Gurbani however in the original untranslated text, the word "God" or "Him" for that matter, is something that does not come up as far as I have searched) So how can Sikhism be a Mono-Theistic religion?, I see a conflict between the teachings in Gurbani and this definition. Again many of the words in English are open to a high level of misconceptions because they have been simplified and personified from their original Greek and Latin meanings (Which are much deeper), therefore care must be taken when using such words without elaborating. Also changing it to "Non-theistic" would still be open to misconception, so I believe it needs to be elaborated and points illustrated quoting Gurbani instead of leaving it to any "*theistic" definition.
Edit: I think "Pantheistic" may fit better, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Sat Sri Akal, SatveerSinghBhullar ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I must say that the current state of the article is still confusing. I have a Christian background and was reading this article as a complete outsider who'd heard nothing about Sikhism aside from the name itself. I found the article very confusing. It starts off by saying it's a monotheistic religion and uses the word "God" a lot but everything it says about this "God" runs against what I (and presumably most non-Indian Christians/Jews/Muslims) understand to be "the God" or even "a god". I think the beginning of the article should be rewritten to make it clear that what the Sikh believe in is in no way "the God" or "a god" in the sense the terms are understood by western Christians/Jews/Muslims but is something altogether different which is described only by the word "God" because the English language is incapable of capturing the term properly. In fact, thinking about it, it may be preferable to replace the use of "God" with the Latin transcription of a non-English word XXXX linked to an article XXXX that explains that "XXXX is the higher entity believed in by Sikhs. XXXX is not comparable to the notion of "God" as used in western religions. <more description here>" 93.134.196.70 ( talk) 15:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Sikh and other religon relations must be added into the article for general knowledge and correct information. Wiki admistrators will be contacted to dispute and correct the article. Public demands that information on the following religons and relations should be provided as information in this article.
all information has been provided earlier in history. Requests have been made to revert information on all three religons and relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 ( talk)
I found a grest sikhism website www.sikhzone.net that provides information about sikhism, sikhism principles, sikh gurus, gurdwaras and also lets you download pdf gurbani. I think it's worth adding to External Links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The coool ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed a couple of external links that appear more to be resources for Sikhs than adding substantively to the article. I request the editors of the article to review these.
The Punjabi radio station and the site offering literature are, I believe, sufficiently far from adding content to the article to qualify for direct removal. Jackollie ( talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In the article it is written that it is believed that Guru Gobind Singh confered the title of Guru upon Guru Granth Sahib.And that this belief finds no mention in Adi Granth or Dasam Granth.I have some obections to the way it is written. firstly a 'belief' is something that is held to be true by a group of people and may or may not be true.That Guru gobind Singh installed Guru Granth Sahib as the eternal guru of sikhs is not just a belief,it is a perpetual truth.It has to be understood that the sikh gurus did not formulate a 'municiple law' or rules for conducting life and disputes among their followers. They left that on the sikhs to decide that by way of gurmatta according to time and changes.Thay were flexible on the approach towards living.Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings of Sikh Gurus and shows the path to salvation.It does not contains the laws or guidlines for Sikhs. secondly the term Guru Maaneyo Granth was composed by the hazuri singhs of Guru Gobind Singh after his departure from this earth.These hazuri singhs ( meaning one who is always in the presence of guru) were not ordinary mortals.They included the panj piaras and relatives of Guru Gobind Singh and sikhs who were dearer to him.They were highly learned men.Guru Granth Sahib Contains only the Hymns of Sikh Gurus.The work of sikhs is not included in it. thirdly Sikhism should not be viewed through the eyes of a Muslim or Jew or a Christian.people of these religions have a codified law contained in their religious text unlike sikhism whose religious text does not contain laws. A healthy debate is always good and removes many constraints.I hope the questionable sentences in the article are corrected sooner. Ajjay ( talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh There is no last Guru for the Sikhs. Guru Gobin Singh Sahib appointed our Sri Guru Granth Sahib as our living Guru this subject heading should be changed to accuratly tell the truth as we have a living Guru. Angad Singh Sikh activist Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.139.218 ( talk) 10:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add this link http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/asia_features/sikhism/index.html to the article. Do you have any objections? These pages give a broad history of the Sikh faith and show lots of objects and art work associated with Sikhism. VAwebteam ( talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't the article semi-protected. What happened to that? I don't see the protected sign! Ajjay ( talk) 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be the title? JTBX ( talk) -Undated
If you want to make any major edit, then please discuss before doing so. You have suddenly started doing edits based on your own point of view.Please refrain from doing so.Don't fill this article with names of people who do not belong here. you can add their names in their respective articles. Stop undue POV EDITS on this article.THANKS!! Ajjay ( talk) 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard". This is your mentality. your feelings for sikhs.your idea of hindu-Sikh relations.I don't need to say more.A person like you, no matter how intelligent, doesn't belong on wiki. Ajjay ( talk) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Where did the tensions occur.You cannot just provide a ref. from a book. Also the book is about global terrorism, and a clash which is communal in nature is not covered under it. The author is not speclialised on this subject.
The name of Indira Gandhi or anybody does not belong in article of sikhism. Please remove it. It is enough to state her as prime minister at that time. You provide no govt. sources on alleged hindu-sikh clash. Only a govt. source would be acceptable. Or an eye-witness account. This article is about sikhism and not operation blue star. If you want to add lenghty observations , you can do that in Operation Blue Star or Anti Sikh Riots. This article is about the religion, Sikhism. Is any mention has to be made, it should be of a small nature. Ajjay ( talk) 05:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To all editors: please refrain from making personal attacks. They are not pleasant to read, even if they are about another editor. I've removed the major attacks, and certain other incivil remarks that were made in this section of the talk page.
In terms of the dispute, looking at this recent-diff, While I agree with Nishkid64 that further explanation of Operation Blue Star is helpful, the referencing should be more aggressive. Even if the source is the same, almost every sentence should have a citation in this section. Alternatively, tightening the expression of the article would no doubt, help.
Despite all this, I'm not sure if this article currently qualifies as an FA, so might sooner or later, reassess this article just to be sure. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
User NishKid64 must answer this
When he says that the article is about Sikhism and political advencement should not be there, he does not understand the nature of the article. He should not be making it unduly lenghty and include politics of Indira govt. Ajjay ( talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
*In which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus *There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard *I have an extensive knowledge of Operation Blue Star *(and yes I know it was Congress-sponsored; it was backed by Gandhi's supporters), *I never talked about violence in the article *my stuff comes from books *but Hindu against Sikh violence was far more devastating *I wrote that there were other Hindu-Sikh tensions, not including the anti-Sikh riots (which was not really orchestrated by Hindus, anyway...it was more political). *I know Bhindranwale's involvement with Khalistan is a bit clouded; it appears he endorsed it at one time, but he wasn't really the major proponent *However, the book does state that there were tensions between the Sikh and Hindu communities *Government source? Since when is the government the primary authority on any matter? *My additions detail the conflict between Sikhs and Gandhi's Congress government *Also note that the book cites a number of other authoritative sources, exclusively detailing these events
These are some of the obsevations by Nishkid. You can read and know who is right or wrong. i think there is a malicious move to get sikhism from FA as is corroborated by ( Ncmvocalist )
NishKid if you read my edits to the article ( where i sated that the present state is neutral) , you will find all the information.I don't know you motive and reason to harp on blue Star with lenghty mentions in Sikhism when the same can be done in Operation Blue Star, to which there is inter-wiki link. Ajjay ( talk) 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
*I never said govt. sources are not unnacceptable *There are no specific details of incidents in the article, so first hand accounts are not necessary *I said there were Hindu-Sikh tensions. Tension means a strained relationship *Why? You said this article isn't supposed to go into specifics. Police reports and places of clashes are very specific *you just stated that the govt. accused Bhindranwale of inciting violence). *Politics of Gandhi's government? Blue Star is an army operation
User NishKid is indeed very confused. He must also furnish the govt. report where Bhindranwala was found guilty of violence by a court of Law. Unless convicted by a court, he remains accused and according to Indian law , benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Ajjay ( talk) 07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
"Bhindranwale was arrested by police for his suspected involvement in Jagat Narain's death in 1981. Operation Blue Star came three years later, after Bhindranwale and his armed followers barricaded themselves inside the Golden Temple."
The issue is more complex than you think. And still going strong. An impartial detailed analysis would take a long time to come. Being an administrator you have more probable cause for deciding about an article than me, now it is upto you how to put it in article , which is about sikh Gurus and their religion. Ajjay ( talk) 09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent what I have said Ajjay. As the main member of the assessment team for WikiProject India, and with or without this edit warring, I could not automatically see (on a cursory look) how this article qualifies as an FA, unlike many other FAs. However, as there might be an error, I will reassess the article at a later date formally, to ensure that it is up to the standards of what FAs should be under this project. This does not necessarily mean that this article is not a FA, nor that the grade will be stripped. Please refrain from making any further misrepresentations, personal attacks, or the like against or about any editor at Wikipedia, as this may result in you being blocked from editing. I would suggest all editors on this talk page read and follow the tag that is placed at the top of the page about keeping a cool head. Best wishes in improving the article - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody put up "Sikhism was made to kill Muslims" and "If it wasnt for Sikhs India would be known as Hindustan" -- AlexanderTheGreatSikh ( talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) that my friend is NOT true. it isnt true because sikhism was made just like many other religion, because they believed another god. but it just ended up that the muslims and sikh's in than than sri guru gobind singh ji's time period that there was severe war.nothing else.:|-- Manvirkaurcheema ( talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No there were no sikh-hindu clashes anywhere, all violence was between exteremists and govt forces Jon Ascton ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC).
See the page on 'reincarnation' for full article... it is quoted in this page under the Sikhism section: Sikhism "In Sikhism reincarnation is totally rejected.[11]" I am confused... because in this article it seems to be that reincarnation is a fundamnetal belief of Sikhism. Can anyone help? Hurleyc2008 ( talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurleyc2008 ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer ( talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
See the page on 'reincarnation' for full article... it is quoted in this page under the Sikhism section: Sikhism "In Sikhism reincarnation is totally rejected.[11]" I am confused... because in this article it seems to be that reincarnation is a fundamnetal belief of Sikhism. Can anyone help? Hurleyc2008 ( talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurleyc2008 ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer ( talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sikhs believe in nothing but (Lord)TRUTH ( encompassing all GOD/Allah / Crist etc).
The very first two lines of Adi Granth (Sti Gur Bani) outright reject Reincarnation.
An Eternal TRUTH Crafter's (TRUTH's) True profile is.....(TRUTH & followers of nothing but TRUTH has been defined here) 'Creative TRUTH & fearless friend of even enemies of TRUTH.Thou are TRUE Eternal Idol (made up of nothing but TRUTHs) never to reincarnate. Thou are Self Realised through Thy True Language of TRUTHs. Thy Name was, had been, is here & now at this very moment & will ever remain TRUTH.
5th Sikh Guru(Nanak) says in Aadi Granth( Sti Gur Bani / True Ideas' Language)
" This (currupt) tongue is habituated to parrot Thy false names.Thy One & only One True Name is TRUTH (all other are Thy False Names)"
Needless to say that imagining TRUTH(God) to reincarnate or otherwise is absurd.-- AmiBalRaj ( talk) 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am a punjabi living in Canada and the section about marriages within the Sikh community sparked my interest. Living within a large Sikh community I always thought that there is caste within Sikhism. Although all of the Gurus did not beleive in caste it does exist. There are jatts, khatris, darjis,ramghari, rajputs etc yet the article claims that "Sikhs marry when they are of a sufficient age (child marriage is taboo), and without regard for the future spouse's caste or descent." I know that Amrit Dhari Sikhs do not beleive in caste (as far as I know they maintain their last names as Singh) but for the rest of the Sikh population it seems like caste (although not as apparent as Hinduism) really does exist. Unity717 ( talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually you are wrong, these are castes. Plain and simple. Even though Sikhism is against Caste, it is still practiced, nothing wrong in admitting what is happening even if its wrong. But to just deny it with a wrong statement and pourposely misguiding is wrong. Gorkhali ( talk) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Shalimer, I did not intend to portray my Sikh friends as "prejudiced" since they really aren't. In Hinduism khatris and darjis appear as part of the caste system. Ethnicity is something totally different...the wikipedia article about ethnicity claims that ethnicity is based upon ancestry or geneology whereas caste is not based on ethnicity rather on social status (wikipedia article on "caste"). Sikhism, though a different religion than Hinduism, really does have its roots in Hinduism so it is no surprise that some of the characteristics of Hinduism have carried on into Sikhism. Caste does exist in Sikhism although it might be to a lesser extent than in Hinduism. If it didn't exist in Sikhism, young Sikh people could marry anyone who fell under the category "Sikh" YET this does not happen. Also, your statement about Amritdhari Sikhs as "true" Sikhs is quite interesting as well...that is a judgmental statement that is incorrect and disrespectful to the "rest." Why is an Amritdhari Sikh better than the rest...even if it is theoretically? ( Unity717 ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
I started to conduct a search online about sikhism and caste and I found that even matrimonial sites list different groups of Sikhs. There seems to be quite a division between people who believe there is a caste system versus people who think there is no caste system. Why do people care about sub groups (a.k.a. caste) when they are about to get married? There must be some type of social implications for a Jatt marrying a non-Jatt for example...if there wasn't, people wouldn't specify which group they belonged to while skimming matrimonial sites. ( Unity717 ( talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
Shalimer, since it seems as if you have alot of knowledge about ethnicity and caste within Sikhism could you hook me up with some other resources to check out? Although you may be correct in saying that jatt/rajputs are ethnic groups most mainstream Sikh people see these groups as caste groups. What we need to think about is that the theory behind Sikhism says one thing yet most Sikhs follow/do/believe another thing. Why the discrepency between theory and reality? Theoretically, won't reality eventually shape/change theory? If someone walks around Canada - especially high density areas like British Columbia (Surrey) and Ontario (Brampton)- the reality of what is being practiced is actually quite far from what the Gurus wanted. This topic is very interesting to me so thanks for the great convo! ( Unity717 ( talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
OneBlood30 has twice removed this image: [[Image:Sikh Family cropped.jpg|thumb|A Sikh family, the boys wearing the traditional [[Dastar]]]] ( see image) from the article, claiming that it was not approved, and then that it was not appropriate. The copyright tags appear to be in order, and I do not see what could be considered inappropriate about it. I do not know much abut Sikhism, is it somehow offensive to Sikhs in a way that is not apparent to non-Sikhs? Because the reasoning is not clear, it needs to be discussed instead of just removed. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made minor changes in 'philosophy and teachings' section. If there is a problem please respond here first. Turniplp ( talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone put sikhism was for killing muslims. That is not true. I am a sikh and I love muslims. Matigues ( talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"There were reports that Sikhs in Amritsar had celebrated the independence on the morning of 15 August by rounding up 30 Muslim women and girls, stripping them naked and then forcing them to parade through in circle before a jeering crowd. They had then picked out the most attractive and repeatedly raped them, chopping down the rest with their kirpans. When the news of the outrage reached Lahore, the Muslims there took revenge by attacking the chief gurdwara, the Sikh temple where scores of Sikhs had taken shelter. They burned it to the ground while Sikhs were trapped inside; Muslim police stood by and did nothing to stop them. But this was only beginning of the holocaust that would last another decade."
may the composer of this section please add some citations. This whole section is without any links to the source.
Someone please correct this appalling act of vandalism (on Sikhism): "..Diwali (also known as bandī chōḍ divas).." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasvinde ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone put a tag on " Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs. Thanks Atulsnischal ( talk) 08:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In English, it is more common to use the spelling latter spelling of realization. I AM PROUD TO BR SIKH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.1.128 ( talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone may want to take a look at the new Guru-da-Gaddi article and see if it can be clarified. Not sure if it should be mentioned in this article. Also, I'm not sure the dates match up with what's in other articles. — KCinDC ( talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
All my googling tells me that adherents to Sikhism must avoid the drinking of alcohol. I can't find a reference to this in the article (unless "find" isn't working). Is it true? Can someone who knows please add it? Kayman1uk ( talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) mlwr bwxI Bgq rivdws jI kI]
Malaar, The Word Of The Devotee Ravi Daas Jee: < siqgur pRswid ] An Upright PenPallllllllllll Now writes further through the grace of SatiGurBani
nwgr jnW myrI jwiq ibiKAwq cMmwrM ]]
O humble townspeople, I am obviously just a shoemaker.
irdY rwm goibMd gun swrM ]1] rhwau ]]
In my heart I cherish the Glories of the Lord, the Lord of the Universe. ||1||Pause||
sursrI sll ik(r)q bwrunI ry sMq jn krq nhI pwnµ ]]
Even if wine is made from the water of the Ganges, O Saints, do not drink it.
surw ApivqR nq Avr jl ry sursrI imlq nih hoie Awnµ ]1]
This wine, and any other polluted water which mixes with the Ganges, is not separate from it. ||1||
qr qwir ApivqR kir mwnIAY ry jYsy kwgrw krq bIcwrM ]]
The palmyra palm tree is considered impure, and so its leaves are considered impure as well.
Bgiq Bwgauqu ilKIAY iqh aUpry pUjIAY kir nmskwrM ]2]]
But if devotional prayers are written on paper made from its leaves, then people bow in reverence and worship before it. ||2||1296
myrI jwiq kut bWFlw For FovMqw inqih bwnwrsI Aws pwsw ]]
It is my occupation to prepare and cut leather; each day, I carry the carcasses out of the city.1297
Ab ibpR prDwn iqih krih fMfauiq qyry nwm srxwie rivdwsu dwsw ]3]1]]
Now, the important Brahmins of the city bow down before me; Ravi Daas, Your slave, seeks the Sanctuary of Your Name. ||3||1|| —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmiBalRaj ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sikhs lived in India but have spread across the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.230.131 ( talk) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I was reading this article today and I think it has been edited quite well but I wonder why it is such a big deal to make a connection between sikhism and hinduism and islam? Sikhism began with Guru Nanakji - he was born a hindu so it is obvious that some of his beliefs would be linked with his upbringing. Most religions originate and begin by a person or a group of people who choose a different path. Why is it so hard to understand that Sikhism also has roots from another religion or religions? Understanding this doesn't mean that Sikhism is any less of a religion. It is a great religion that is unique but shares qualities with other religions as well. Unity717 ( talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Its called insecurity. Any proud and knowlegable Sikh knows that its obvious that Sikhsim will have links and origins within Hinduism since that was the ancestral faith of all the Gurus, however, unlike the Christians who have no problem accepting Jewish roots and influences from the ancient religions of Europe, it will only come with time that people in India will realize that there is nothing wrong with accepting connections with an older religion or your ancestral religion, and neither does it lessen the importance of the religion that has stemmed out of it. Its just plain and simple insecurity and ignorance, and also political agendas with no regard for the Gurus teachings or their history. Makes you wonder why its called Har-Mandir, or the Gurus call themselves Gurus....etc etc etc....nothing wrong with having ancient roots, however some people will never realize the wisdom.
Gorkhali ( talk) 06:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir,
Seeing Sikhism through the prism of non Sikh faiths makes no relevant sense no where. There is One & Only One way of Understanding 'Sikhi' (That is how Sikhs would like their faith to be socially known, in stead of through the anglicized term 'Sikhism'. It rhymes with Nazism & may be with some more ‘isms’, not really in good taste) .It is by becoming a Sikh by Publicly Owning Thy Name……..
...Khalsa ‘Jpu’ Singh....
Trying to establish links between any entities in a traditional scholarly way in context of ‘Sikhi’ is futile.
Unlike non Sikh faiths there is nothing really to understand about Sikhi. Sikhi has to be lived through to understand it. It is not possible otherwise. Grammar of True Thoughts' Language formally documented in One & Only One Scripture of Sikhs is popularly addressed by Sikhs as 'Stigur Granth Sahib'. The Language of Humanity alias (Lord) TRUTH need to be learned, Like any language by rigrious practice through Thinking, Speaking, Singing, Listening to, Believing in, Discussing, Sharing & Finally Documenting for generations to catch on to it with ease.
Through the grace of Thy True Thoughts' Language this trivia bit PenPal has tried to humbly submit Thy (not my) thoughts & share them with humanity. Since yours Truly owns nothing but Thy Name, the onus of slipups in this writing goes to non one but Thou (TRUTH)... ha! ha! ha! .
Hope this helps !
An Upright PenPalllllllllllllll Creative Khalsa -- AmiBalRaj ( talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Singh NirV”r ‘Jpu’
A user, user talk:Morbid Fairy, whose posting reminds me strongly of user talk:Satanoid, made this change at Sikh extremism.
Murder in Austria, Riots in Punjab.
While it needs a copyedit, it might be worth including in Wikipedia, but it does not have a place in the article about Sikh separatist extremism. - sinneed ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Sikhism definitely the fifth-largest religion in the world? If you click on "fifth-largest" you're then taken the Major religious groups page which looks as though it's suggesting that Judaism is bigger with 10-20 vs. 12-25 million. I appreciate that the range leaves room for ambiguity; with a top estimate value for Sikhism and bottom estimate for Judaism, Sikhism would be bigger (as the source suggests), but with such ambiguity should it be explicitly stated that it is the fifth-biggest? Especially on a feature-quality page. Perhaps the figures on that page just need altering or perhaps it should be reworded such as "is widely regarded as the fifth-largest organized religion in the world". Gul e ( talk) 22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Reality is all numbers about religions are extremely blurry, as they rely on opinions... if nothing else they rely on the claims of the individual. - sinneed ( talk) 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This page along with other pages like sikh and List of famous sikhs were tried to be vandalised in past few weeks by unregistered users. Many honerable users reverted the edits. So can this page be put on semi-protection??-- Migelot Talk to me! 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
...are not mentioned on this page. Warmest Regards, :)-- thecurran Speak your mind my past 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried putting that and it got taken away. 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 08:22, 22
January 2010 (UTC)
In the opening two paragraphs: Paragraph 1 states that the last of ten successive sikh gurus was Guru Granth Sahib. Paragraph 2 indirectly states that there were ten sikh gurus, and that Guru Gobind Singh was the tenth. Are there 11 gurus, or 10? And if we are saying there are 11, why do we say "six of the ten gurus" in paragraph 2? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.78.9 ( talk) 18:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh Veer Ji Please contact me Angad Singh a.buck.singh@gmail.com Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh== SIKH PERSECUTION !!!! ==
I don't know and I can't understand - why there is no separate article on wikipedia regarding the persecution of Sikhs.Sikh Community has faced persecution during Mughal era , British era ,In Independent India and also in different countries for Multiple reasons.It is not surprising to see that there are separate articles of persecution of EVERY major religious group like HINDUS ,JEWS,CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS,BUDDHISTS ,ZOROASTRIANS, Bahá'ís and Even NON religious people ,There are articles of ethnic persecutions as well.There are even sections for persecution of HOMOSEXUALS. But it does amaze me that there is no article related to persecution of the Sikh community which has faced and survived ATROCITIES , OPPRESSION,INJUSTICE,DISCRIMINATION ,HOLOCAUSTS ,GENOCIDES, MASSACRES throughout their history from different Rulers ,Governments, Terrorists, Extremists , Fanatics ,Imperialists and what not? Is this Subject dealt in the PERSECUTION OF HINDUS THEN? AS MANY PEOPLE THESE DAYS SAY THAT SIKHS ARE HINDUS.I think there should be a new section dealing with this Subject in this article and there should be a separate article dealing with the details, timeline ,history and eras of Sikh persecution and a link of that Main article provided in this one.I REQUEST ALL THE People Who Have KNOWLEDGE of SIKH HISTORY And Who Want THE WORLD To Know THE SACRIFICES AND STRUGGLES OF SIKHS, TO CREATE A PAGE WITH THE HEADING "PERSECUTION OF SIKHS". If you (Whoever monitors and protects the contents of this article) think there should be no Article regarding this then please tell me the reason.WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceboy499 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This webpage is repeatedly being edited by miscreants and should be locked. Offensive and derogatory statements against the Gurus, calling the faith "pagan", "terrorist" and "militant", etc. The article is being edited with these highly offensive terms to cause tensions between communities. Please remove these offensive terms and make sure these people are blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.77.121 ( talk) 10:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
One can see under the heading "Philosophy and Teachings" that the contents are predominantly similar to the intrinsic teachings of Islam, that is, the attributes of God (eternal, indescribable, all knowing, one). I have read that the cloak of Guru Nanak (at Dera Baba Nanak) was inscribed with verses from the Holy Quran and several Arabic prayers. The following passages are quoted from the third edition of Bala Sahib's Janam Sakhi, printed by the press, Anarkali, Lahore in the early part of this century. The book Janam Sakhi of Bala Sahib is an authoritative source of Sikhism. Bala was Nanak's constant companion and he accompanied his Master for twenty years during his travels. It is true that in Janam Sakhi one finds much fiction mixed with facts. Bala was a Hindu and after Nanak's death, estrangemant of Sikhism from Islam had started. As such any statement contained in Janam Sakhi in favour of Islam has the weight of a hostile witness. On page 134 of Janam Sakhi by Bala Sahib, we read, The Quran is divided into thirty sections, proclaim thou, this Quran in the four comers of this world. Declare the glory of one name only for none other is an associate with me. Nanak proclaims the word of God that came to him, thou hast been granted the rank of Sheikh, so thou shouldst abolish the worship of gods and goddesses and the old Hindu idol - temples. The fundamental article of the Islamic faith, the Kalima, has been given the greatest stress in Janam Sakhi. A few Shaloks (verses) from this Sakhi read: I have repeated one Kalima, there is none other. I have repeated one Kalima, there is none other. Those who repeat the Kalima and are not devoid of the faith, shall not be burned on fire. Repeat the Holy Kalima of the Prophet, it shall cleanse thee of all sins. By repeating the Kalima, the punishment of this world, as well as the next is averted.
For further details, and if you can read Urdu, please read the Book "Sat Bachan" by HAzrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (A.S.). Here is the link (it is a collection of his books, you'll find Sat Bachan from the table of contents) : http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/Ruhani-Khazain-Vol-10.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.131.168 ( talk) 05:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Dictation of the Guru Granth Saheb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
I've removed this section, which was recently added to the article for several reasons:
There are articles about Sikh military history (e.g., Sikh Regiment, Punjab Army). Also, the articles British Indian Army and Indian Army mention Sikhs. These could each be expanded with a well-summarized paragraph on the Sikh contributions to those armies. There could be a new article created called "Sikh military history" which would merge the Sikh Regiment and Punjab Army articles. Comments? Sunray ( talk) 20:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Editors (mainly IPs) keep adding unsourced material on use of cannabis in Sikhism to Religious and spiritual use of cannabis. The only two sources in the section (which I have just added in top line) say cannabis is prohibited in Sikhism. Can someone verify the two sources, and/or provide better ones. Or, alternatively, if what the sources say is incorrect, provide sources to support the unsourced bulk of material saying cannabis has religious use in Sikhism. Thanks In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
From the second paragraph: "Sikhs embody the qualities of a "Sant-Sipahie"—a saint-soldier." I do not know that this is false but from just a general knowledge of the human condition I suspect that not all Sikhs live up to this standard, particularly among the young, and that this should be changed to something more verifiable, such as a statement of the expectation or aspiration. Therefore, I have tagged the statement with a "citation needed" tag.
Also, the mention of "Sant-Sipahie" or "saint-soldier" in the lead paragraphs would suggest that the subject is discussed in more detail in the body of the article, but there is no discussion and only one mention later in the "Prohibitions" section for reasons that are not entirely clear. I should like to learn more about this Sikh quality or aspiration. — Blanchette ( talk) 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply SH. That book, The Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism by K. S. Duggal does not appear to support the claim in question, and even if it does, it is, unfortunately, a devotional history and exposition rather than a scholarly one as would be required for Wikipedia, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That "Sikhs embody the qualities of a "Sant-Sipahie"—a saint-soldier," is an extraordinary claim.
That all eight-year-old Sikh girls embody the qualities of a saint (with the connotations of asceticism that concept seems to have in Sikhism) may be believable, that such girls also embody the qualities of a soldier, would be more of a stretch. That all vigorous and lusty sixteen-year-old Sikh boys are saints would also seem to be an extraordinary claim. If the claim were changed to "Sikhs are expected to embody the qualities of a "Sant-Sipahie"—a saint-soldier," I would be less inclined to object, but I would still want a scholarly source to support that statement. — Blanchette ( talk) 21:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
In the article, the Sikh deity is described as "sightless." "Sightless" means "blind." It looks like the appropriate word would be "unseen" or "invisible." Bluemonkee ( talk) 04:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to people who have actual knowledge of Sikkhi--the introductory paragraphs say that there are both "over 26 million" and "over 30 million" Sikhs. This may be literally true but it's darn confusing. May I suggest settling on one estimate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.13.100 ( talk) 12:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This article uses both spellings. One spelling should be selected and the other removed. — Designate ( talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The lead of the article states "It is the fifth-largest organized religion in the world, with approximately 30 million Sikhs." But the source quoted, Religions by adherents, quotes 19 million - so currently the statement in the article is dubious and unsourced. Later in the article the section 'Sikh people' states 25.8 million, but is also unsourced. The Wikipedia article Sikhism by country indicates 23.8 million, again unsourced. Attention is needed! Apuldram ( talk) 14:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I propose that we delete the sentence in the lead "It is the fifth-largest organized religion in the world, with approximately 30 million Sikhs." Since the post I made above I have searched the web for information and evidence and now believe that it is not posssible to obtain a verifiable source. There are many guesses (called estimates). for example
this, but when I go into the detail of how an estimate is derived I lose confidence.
Does any editor have better information or strong views?
Apuldram (
talk) 11:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Here are some links,
The present source with 19 million Sikhs was published in 1998, so number needed to be updated. Thanks Theman244 ( talk) 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think it is necessary to identify the location of the Punjab region in the header. I have added the fact that it is a region of the Indian Subcontinent. If some of the editors here are not comfortable with the 'India' aspect of that label, we can change it to South Asia. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 21:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Sikh-history and User:Jujhar.pannu have engaged in a little bit of edit warring for some vaguely stated reasons. I would ask that this stop. I have added explicit citations to address that concern. As a general principle stripping out content simply because you have a concern is inappropriate, especially if citations are provided. If you have a concern, please discuss it and/or provide alternative wording.
I request that you restore my edits and engage in more productive editing.
Thanks.
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.252.138 ( talk) 02:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I know some Sikhs dont want to admit they are linked to Hinduism, but weather you agree or not it doesnt matter, becuase SOME PEOPLE (including Sikhs) Believer they were part of Hinduism and weren't meant to be seperate (Kushwant Singh inlcuded). Not try not to fight with me about this. This is a place for people to learn. And I was wondering if I could add that section? Who is the emporer of this page that makes these decisions?
Khalistna people, try to have an open mind to what im saying then.
108.23.228.249 ( talk) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree
While Sikhism shares some minor aspects with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I believe it is extremely different and should not be presented as a faction or even relative of any other faith. The fact that Sikhism discourages religious franchise, proselytizing, and superiority complexes which makes it hugely different. While Sikhs respect the virtues of all faiths, the vast majority are proud of their own independent faith. The 5th guru very clearly declared it an independent faith. Sikhs were persecuted by Hindus and Muslims, but we have already mentioned their political and military interactions in the article. I believe if one wants to learn about similarities between two faiths they can read to independent articles and draw their own conclusions. Consider Sikhism is also hugely related to Punjab and India does that mean that we need to give excessive detail pertaining to them and their relations. Believe me I am very progressive, and do not support Khalistan at all.
There appears to be one editor insistent on adding a overtly long and bloated WP:Lead. My suggestion is familiraise yourself with WP:Lead. Don't engage in edit wars, and WP:AGF. Thanks SH 10:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok I will assume good faith since this message is clearly directed at me, the contents of the "Summary Style WP:SS" were untrue directly because of the previous reversion by Sikh-history. This included the incorrect definitions of Manmut and Gurmat and also violated the NPOV because it states "'Sikhism' for the modern world" as if the Sikh world is not a part of the modern world.
In terms of the so called "bloating" most people are unfamiliar with many of the concepts and are reading about them the first time and thus writing them in a way that makes the thing clear without repeating information, and not requiring it to be read again or the reader to stop at certain sentences, is the basis of what every encyclopedia aims for. If you look at articles from an encyclopedia they are written in paragraph form with one idea transacting to the next unlike the weird and awkward form presented that fails to provide insight to the religion itself in the reversion in question therefore that was reverted again.
I don't know what you mean by dividing it into Sikhism and Sikh could you be more more specific and would be happy to accommodate the change. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 22:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you aren't a lecturer as you can't be spending enough time with your students if you are constantly on here!
I also think it prudent that as some sort of sikh, or hindu who has a interest on this topic, you're too close i. e. Conflict of interest POV pushing.
Ps I hope your employers don't see your bad spelling, poor grammar and especially poor argument construction as they might not employ you further.
Sakayriaz ( talk) 11:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Sikh-history has removed various key aspects such as in the liberation section the reference to the company of Sadh Sangat, and labeled it as 'superfulous'. The user appears to masquerading as a Sikh and posting various illogical, untrue, personal attacks, or vague general terms to describe his actions. In this latest revision he has removed referenced content and then wrote on my page to warn ME of removing content when I did not remove a single line. He has a history of ridiculous claims. He states he is concerned about the integrity of the page but to me it seems that he just doesn't want anybody adding anything to the pages he is monitoring, such as Diet in Sikhism, Damdami Taksal, Jat people. I advice an administrator to look at his behaviour and violations.
I apologize If I have misinterpreted the situation and I give Sikh-history the chance to explain why any of the lines removed from revision 584723030 made on 14:24, 6 December 2013: can be termed as 'superfulous'. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you aren't a lecturer as you can't be spending enough time with your students if you are constantly on here!I also think it prudent that as some sort of sikh, or hindu who has an interest on this topic, you're too close i. e. Conflict of interest / POV pushing.Ps I hope your employers don't see your bad spelling, poor grammar and especially poor argument construction as they might not employ you further.Sakayriaz (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakayriaz ( talk • contribs)
Guru nanak's view of God is often regarded to be Pantheistic. And Sikhism is also regarded as Pantheism as per few following sources. You think Sikhism can be listed on Pantheism? Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Most "isms" generally have various critiques. What about this? JDiala ( talk) 09:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As the reference states Simran comes under the overal practices of Rememberance of which there are several. Jujhar has a history of WP:Competence in articles and thetrefore may struggle to understand basic issues such as these. Thanks SH 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much in the article on gender roles. That would be a useful addition. Airborne84 ( talk) 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
THERE ARE NONE
Sikhism states that women and men are completely equal in all aspects. They are capable of holding all the same positions. Among the Sikh (Indian) population their is often issues with this concept. But I believe that is completely a cultural issue, and completely independent from the virtues of the faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.175.166 ( talk) 18:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Restorative Justice and fighting oppression are the same thing. The difference is one is a long winded way of saying the same thing. Thanks SH 18:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
NO
Restorative justice can be a method of fighting oppression. However, fighting oppression can be with violence, pacifism, petitioning, court, riots. Restorative justice on the other hand is a non-legal court where the offender attempts to reconcile with the victim. It is usually used for minors or small offences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.175.166 ( talk) 18:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone check this edit? I am not sure what is happening here... Super48paul ( talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The historical section jumped around in time quite a bit. I've tried to restore chronological order. It was a messy operation, requiring the merger of various texts, and the relevant sections may still need work. hgilbert ( talk) 11:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Please add more dates. There is one paragraph that spans the time from 1839 to 1947 with only vague dates such as "later" or "eventually". In particular, the current article says
-- The very model of a minor general ( talk) 13:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I was taught that Sikhism drew on Hindu and Muslim religious traditions, and formed a syncretic faith. We all know that Christianity blends Judaism, Mithraism and various other traditions, so why no mention of the roots of Sikhism in this article? Abductive ( reasoning) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In the Abrahamic family of religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism), the faiths all claim common descendant and share some major religious aspects. Most other faiths share far less characteristics. While Hinduism is nearly 5000 years old, Sikhism is only 500. Sikhism is a much more modern and progressive religion and shares no common descendence with Hinduism nor Islam. The monotheism of Islam and Sikhism is simply a coincidence, and Sikhism is as much like Christianity or Judaism as it is Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.196.129 ( talk) 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The sections need English headings to make the article less confusing. The inclusion of Punjabi headings makes the article confusing as well as the religious principles. We certainly don't need this to resemble as essay from "Lovely University" :) Thanks SH 17:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I tried changing some of the titles to English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.196.129 ( talk) 20:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I once again gave it a try, but some illiterate keeps changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.196.129 ( talk) 02:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've removed this principally because the language is very unencyclopedic and reads like a rather preachy advocacy of the religion. It is also far too long for the lead. An additional problem is that some parts of it are WP:COPYVIOs of the source, whilst other parts are rather flowery additions to what the source says (i.e. unsourced) although the intro to the section claims it to be what the source says. DeCausa ( talk) 09:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
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 Sikhism'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 "SGPC":
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 ⚡ 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeludedFan: your contributions and edits to improve the article are welcome, but why delete sources on Sikhism such as those from Oxford University Press and add back unsourced/non-RS sources as your did here? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Js82: What is your concern with including a sentence about Bhakti movement in the lead? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sarah Welch. VictoriaGrayson Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. @ Js82:, fundamentally Sikhism was nothing but Nirguna Bhakti Movement at its birth. Same was the case with Kabir Panth. However, Sikhism later turned into a religion. Guru Nanak said nothing new. All other Nirguna Bhakti Movement Saints/Gurus said the same things. Ghatus ( talk) 11:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I spent days writing a better articulated lead section, that does justice to this page. Why is Spacemann Spiff and Srikanth reverting my edits ?
The version you guys have written is grossly inadequate, and at some places, inaccurate. You cannot promote your own view of one of the major world religions. It has to be based on sound logic and the true and most important principles of the faith.
What are your issues with my introduction. Let's hear them here and debate. Scare block warnings and messages, where all of you jump together on to me are not a sound tactic. If you want to persist with them, be my guests. I would get out of here and you guys can keep propagating your own hidden agendas on your website.
Js82 ( talk) 08:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the lead section. I have provided references, and also written in my own words (except where explicitly quoted and referenced), as per Wikipedia policy. If you have any issues, I can discuss them here with you.
Js82 ( talk) 09:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
User Savonneux has jumped in with his gospel "Take it to the talk page" and UNDO. Did he bother to read this section that I have started since yesterday actually taking it to the talk page ?
I have already explained above the reasons for the edits ("a better articulated introduction, that presents a holistic view of the principle beliefs and teachings of one of the major world religions"). If you have any issues with what I have written (again, referenced material, in my own words), please mention here, rather than blind UNDO with your high handed messages like "take it to the talk page", which only add to the commotion and disruption.
Js82 ( talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
First off, I protest against your autocratic functioning style. I neither have the interest nor the time to file complaints here, but I hope some of the admins would take note of this. On the edit summary, you did your Gospel "Take it to the talk page", which conveys zero information. Then, even after I took the initiative to ask you specifically what your problems are, you gave a vague "readability" response, and then just disappeared. Only after Neil has come in, you have bothered to respond in detail. Who are you ? A superman who would respond only as he wishes ? Advise you to get off your high horse and learn to respect others, if you want to do a good job here.
Now coming to your points:
I have already edited for boldface and better readability issues. It can be checked in the edit I did at 23:24, 25 August 2015.
As to the other issue, concluding that "consensus was against the change" is completely inaccurate. Only 1 user (Mr. Shrikanth) was engaging in edit war, perhaps because the edited article goes against his own POV (his own perceived view of Sikhism). As I said, the current version is completely inadequate, as it does not clearly articulate the foundation, the major principles, and the key attributes of the religion, which is what the lead should focus on. It is perhaps written by a non-Sikh person, who perhaps has limited knowledge of the religion.
Now, maybe you can explicitly state what your issues are with my text, which give you the impression of NPOV.
The basic points I make in the article are: Sikhism is based on the spiritual revelations of the Sikh Gurus.Guru Granth Sahib is the scripture, considered by Sikhs (and stated by the Gurus themselves, supported with a reference statement) to be the word of God. Also, the scripture is written and compiled by the Gurus themselves, which is unique compared to other texts (supported with a link to a British Historian.) Next, I go to the core principles of Sikhism. Finally, as per the information provided by SGPC (the de-facto authority on Sikhism = Sikh Vatican), I list the basic attributes of Sikhism, and provide some explanations on them.
What is not neutral here ? Eager to know. Thanks.
Js82 ( talk) 02:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I read the NPOV details: Avoid stating opinions as facts : None of what I said above is my opinion. All are facts, supported with appropriate references.
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts : Don't believe anything is contested, let alone seriously contested. Those who are contesting can answer this.
Avoid stating facts as opinions: Facts have been stated as they are. None of it is my personal opinion.
Prefer nonjudgmental language : Again, have not pronounced my judgments on anything. Only stated facts supported with references.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views: Not sure what the opposing viewpoints are. Those who have any should point them out here.
Js82 ( talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And although not related directly to the topic, I do keep getting this same thought time and again about the viability of Wikipedia itself. Now, don't jump the gun again and take this in a negative way. This is more of a philosophical question to anyone who is interested. Taking this page as an example: How can someone who does not even know the basics of Sikhism be given the power to write a complete encyclopedic entry on it, which is precisely what Wikipedia does. You can of course go and read some chapters here and there, and try to put together an (uncoherent) piece based on what you understood, but that actually ends up doing injustice to the topic. A person who actually lives as a Sikh must be the one who describes what Sikhism is. No ? Now, I would generally not care much what you think of Sikhism, but the stakes here seem quite high to let all this go unnoticed. I hate to say, but it is unfortunate that Google returns the Wikipedia entries as the topmost search results most of the time. As a consequence, the Sikhism page here is the default window to the world for information on the Sikh religion. Just as I would not like to poke my nose into articles that I do not know all that much about, it is not unreasonable to expect people who are not fully familiar with the Sikh religion to be more open and accepting, when someone who actually is aware comes in even tries to revamp a page, unless of course it violates a rule.
Again, this is just an example, but these issues keep nagging me about the purpose that Wikipedia serves.
Js82 ( talk) 07:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
First a friendly suggestion for Sarah Welsh, if you are "struggling", and that too with the very first words of the article , just hold off rather than going ahead and still editing the article (and making it, as you did in this case, almost impossible for anyone to comprehend). This is not someone's personal blog, but a page with more than 2000 daily views. So please act with discretion.
Second, your allegation that my edits "distorted and misrepresented the sources such as Nesbitt's OUP book" is a complete LIE. I did not even bring in the Nesbitt book. So, again, as has been found out on many prior occasions, don't mislead people and please show some civility. Rather, it is you who removed reliably sourced content that did not comply with your own biased views, while you were on your massive blind spree to undo all my edits. For instance, I had quoted directly from Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, that I had referenced when mentioning word of God "The Granth presides over all congregations and represents the word of God in permanent form", which you blindly removed.
Coming now to the sentence in the first paragraph on the key beliefs, I had made an edit a few days ago. You again made modifications to them. I suggest you actually go and read the sources well. In any case, I have added another source, and all the beliefs I have included are now present in the three cited sources. Now of course, to make complete sentences and for improved readability, I have to add some of my own words. (e.g., key beliefs are "engaging in" selfless service, "striving for" social justice; rather than selfless service, social justice.) I urge you to exercise extreme restraint and caution from here on, rather than engaging in uncivilized behavior and/or edit-warring. Js82 ( talk) 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Response to @Js82 reply on 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply 18 September discussion
@Bastollah and user at 197.237.125.20: I have removed the unsourced content you keep adding. Can you identify the sources for your additions, rather than edit warring with @Kautilya3 and @DeCausa since October 11. This overview article is not the place to add unsourced offensive comments on Sikhism or any Sikh sub tradition, such as claims of drug consumption, adultery and others. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 16:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Bastollah:: please stop adding unsourced or offensive content "scum of the Sikh society" such as this into this article. Once again, can you identify reliable sources? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 14:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sikhism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a problem with the wording n the intro where it lists Sikhism as a Indian minor religion. Sikhism was developed hundreds of years before India even come into existence in 1947. Sikhism is one of the major religions of the world and it is not owned by a country. Saying Sikhism is a Indian minor religion sounds dumb as saying Christianity is a major American religion. Do you see my point? I suggest that instead it says Sikhism is one of the major organized world religions. That is how my religious studies textbook in America describes Sikhism. Saying Sikhism is a Indian minor religions sound demeaning because so many Sikhs are not Indians but rather Americans, British, etc. Also, India is not central to the Sikh faith so it does not make sense to put it as a Indian religion. Dr. SanjitKaur ( talk) 02:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Js82: I have moved diff the revelation-related discussion into the main article, presenting the two theories. Many editors and I have previously disagreed with you on this. You need to get consensus before inserting this back into the lead, per WP:BRD. A discussion of revelation belongs in the article, but it is undue in the lead or the opening sentence. Similarly, I have moved the new theory on what guru means, to some Sikhs, that you just added, into the main article. It is undue in the lead, as many scholars disagree with that interpretation. The lead should only include something that is discussed in the main article, and summarize the main points, per WP:LEAD. If you disagree, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
long post
|
---|
|
long post
|
---|
References
|
@Js82: You are misrepresenting some sources, and misreading many others. The reference #1 is merely summarizing a hagiographic account. Such unverifiable stories cannot be the basis for suppressing scholarship by other scholars, and the same scholars, who state a different view. FWIW, we have already summarized Cole and Sambhi in this article.
You allege reference 6 is Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion, Volume 2 is published by Wiley, New York. It is not. It has been published by Gyan Publishing House, a publisher that has been demonstrated by wikipedia admin @ Utcursch to be plagiarizing from wikipedia. What is troubling is that you are misrepresenting the publisher to be Wiley. Why?
Your reference 3 by Lepel Griffin is from 1901, too old. Even Griffin and other sources, use "reveal" not in the sense you have been wiki-linking and using. When someone opens a gift box by tearing open a wrapper, they thus "reveal" the gift inside that box. The word reveal then means, and most of your sources, "divulge, show, make known". Such usage is not about "hearing voices from God". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Your reference #8 must similarly be rejected as a possible source for this article because it claims Sikhism started in 14th century, on page 287, which is before the birth of Guru Nanak. It has numerous other errors, such as wrong year of birth for Nanak (page 288). It is a poorly researched, unreliable source. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I have been diligently going over the new Js82 list, one by one, assuming good faith. Many sources appear as unreliable sources, because there is not a single review nor has any scholar cited many of @Js82's sources. Two exceptions, so far in my review, are Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh's books mentioned above without page numbers. Here are some notes after completing review of her books...
Nikky Singh cautions that hagiographic primary sources on Nanak such as Janamsakhi are not chronological or geographically accurate. Nanak did not write them, nor did he dictate them to anyone. They are myths written by Nanak's followers.
Quote (Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh, Sikhism: An Introduction, pages 2-3, abridged):
Quote (Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh, Sikhism: An Introduction, page 8, abridged):
The Janamsakhi literature of Sikhism deserves a mention in this article, and there is already a section on it. But we can't present or restate myths as historical facts, or pick one version of the mythology and reject the other three Janamsakhis. If and where Janamsakhi-drived claim on revelation is made, the mythological source needs to be identified, and a note of Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh's conclusions on their historical inaccuracy needs to be included. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 11:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, firstly, I do not see any consensus on the material you had put in. Next, you are citing the Janamsakhi as a source supporting revelation. That pertains to only the very first quote in the list of quotes provided by JS. What is hundreds of times more crucial to the argument here are the quotes that are coming "directly from the scripture" (GGS (Guru Granth sahib)). Almost all of the quotes that I see above are directly from the scripture, so the Gurus have themselves spoken those words. The Janamsakhi only forms a very small piece. So the arguments for revelation are not founded on stating any myths (even assuming they are myths) as historical facts as you make it seem. On the contrary, they are verbatim from the scripture.
You also mention that some of the sources are not reliable because of no citations. Now that I looked up, Ref. 2 has 13 citations including authors such as CK Mahmood, Mcleod and Fenech, who have been quoted widely on this article. Ref 3 has 3 citations (Mcleod), Ref 4 has 6 (Mcleod and Fenech), Ref 14 has more than 30 citations (under different links, including Mcleod, Nesbitt, etc). I did not look up the others. However, the one source you are using actually has no citations. Further, it is coming from Hemkunt Press, the same as reference 9 in the list which you consider unreliable ? And finally as had been pointed out before, even that source nowhere questions the divinity of the revealed words but rather only supports it at many places.
Given all of these, the content you put in without any consensus is completely inappropriate and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docxx ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I do apologize for the apparent personal attack. That was never my intention. It really was a question to understand if the "two theories"-theory has been taken from some source ? From [71] ?
Thanks for copying the text here. Now, I am really interested in understanding what the two "competing" theories are ? Is the 2nd theory a contradiction of "Nanak's teachings and Sikhism were a revelation from God, and not a social protest movement nor any attempt to reconcile Hinduism and Islam in the 15th century". If yes, is it a contradiction of all of this ? Or pieces of this ?
And, of course I meant "undo the reverts to my two edits". That request remains based on my arguments above. I hope Ms Sarah Welch would honor it as a gesture of good faith. If not, I am unlikely to pursue this discussion further and would leave it in the good hands of both of you, until I feel there is a genuine need for me to come back and share my views/knowledge. Docxx ( talk) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been reading the revelation related content in the article and all this discussion and cited sources for last few days. I agree with the comments that no source mentions any 2 theories. This is own research from Sarah welch who is misleading all by showing reference 71 as a supporting source. Many of the statements from sources above need to be included as well. Will someone unlock this article for editing ? And can some experienced person point me to appropriate dispute resolution mechanism ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:428:E1BB:0:49:32B2:3F01 ( talk) 20:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Apuldram:, @ Kautilya3: The last sub-section on Partition in Sikhism history section is unclear and poorly sourced/dead link. The paragraph before that sub-section, about history of Sikhism during the British colonial rule, has the same issue. Would you have the time to improve it, or know good recent reliable sources? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Pinsi281: You are edit warring and re-inserting text that is neither supported by the sources, such as "The development of Sikhism was influenced by the Bhakti movement, which occurred during 14th-17th centuries in India...". Per WP:BRD, please explain and discuss. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 16:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I find it unnecessary to mention in the lead section that writings of 13 Hindu and 2 Muslim Bhagats are included in Guru Granth Sahib. If we start doing this numerology, we should also specify the number of Sikh Gurus and also all other people included. Very important then to also specify the percentage contributions respectively. But all this is absolutely impossible given the space constraints.
Please justify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinsi281 ( talk • contribs)
Anybody who knows Sikhism knows that Sikhism came from India. But not here on Wikpiedia. No. They don't like India on wikipedia. So they don't write India they write South Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:2483:af00:544e:d865:b3fa:1454 22:07, 25 January 2016
I am going to give you a logical answer to this and I don't expect you to give me a logical answer back, becasue usualy anti India people dont have logic...but here goes.......India is an old ancient country. Paksitan is a new country. So the correct term would be that Sikhism is from India. THere is no debate. Thats the correct term.
Now, lets say you really believe that its not right to put India. Ok, then why is there a wiki page that classifies Sikhism as an Indian religion? And why on Indias page does it say Sikhism came from India? And yet here, it doesnt say India.
This is what I mean. There is no logic from you people here on wiki. People jsut write whatever they want! And they contract themselves. I mean if u want to put India fine. If u dont want to put India then be consistent. You cant claim on one page its an Indian religion and it came from India and then put South Asia instead of India. And now you have Punjab region. Sigh.
By the way, it is anti India. Lots of Sikhs who dont like India, dont want to use the word India. THey dont consider India an old country. They claim, like some Pakistanis do, that India is a made up country that used to just be kings and was never united and that's why on many pages they don't use the word India. They use South Asia sometimes because of that. Some people want to change the term Indian sub-continent to South Asian Sub continent. Some want to change Indian ocean to South Asian Ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:2483:af00:544e:d865:b3fa:1454 ( talk • contribs)
@ Jujhar.pannu: I checked your changes, find it unverifiable on the pages of the sources you cite. The summary in this article must faithfully match the sources. Perhaps we are looking at different editions, so in good faith I ask you recheck. It will help if you embed quotes from the source into the cite. @ Apuldram: please check, are you able to verify? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@
Ms Sarah Welch:@
Jujhar.pannu: I find nothing in my edition of Grewal's The Sikhs of the Punjab, Revised Edition (published 1990, reprinted 2003) to support the sentence that starts "The purpose of the religion is . . . ". Not on page 31 or anywhere in Chapter 2. To me it looks like unsupported opinion. Jujhar Pannu do you have more information?
I see that the paragraph has been reverted by 172.56.39.126.
Apuldram (
talk) 12:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch: If there is any particular quote or concept you feel is incorrect I can provide evidence based on the Sri Guru Granth Sahib directly as it is written quite clearly and without obscurity and also can delve into a particular topic. I would never use my unsupported opinion and always use references with correct information so please have another look.
There is no justification for removing the other topics and back tracking all the progress due to 'edit warring' including edits of people not involved in the 'edit warring'. The diffs in the revision are quite simple so you can easily pick out the particular 'edit warring' you find wrong. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 18:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sarah Welch: please stop your constant editwarring with multiple editors and the personal allegations and attacks. You have now changed my edit related to proper attribution of source to one of Jujhar Pannu's edits (starting with "Guru Nanak indeed quoted...") multiple times now citing it as unsourced. Did you check the source ? The content is clearly stated on Pg 265 as noted in the citation. Please do not falsely allege and make such personal attacks on multiple editors.
For the other two edits made by Jujhar Pannu, a) striving for social justice for benefit and prosperity of all, with link added to (Sarbat da Bhala) article, I support this edit as there is already a Wikipedia article on the topic of Sarbat da Bhala. Kindly discuss and propose your changes here before editing the article. b) On the Bhagats related sentence I do not clearly understand what your issue is so for the moment I am restoring it to old version. Jujhar Pannu may want to comment further. Pinsi281 ( talk) 17:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pinsi281: See WP:LEAD for justification. Your version of the lead is inadvertently emphasizing what @Js82 was trying few months ago (see this talk page's discussions). You are past WP:3RR with this, that too with WP:Copyvio issues. Compare your version with the 2nd paragraph, page 116 of Singh's Hymns of Guru Nanak book. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Reply to Joshua Jonathan:
Yes, I would say it is complicated. What is the need for "but maintained that he was a teacher, was not a reincarnation of God or in any way related to God" ? This comes in very unmotivated, with the simple aim to prove that "See, Guru Nanak is saying he is not God". Nothing in the lead anyway mentions that he claimed to be God, all it said is "his Guru was God", which is the last consensus version.
Further, this is very detailed topic. And if we are to go into all this detail, we must state Sikhism rejects theory of incarnation of God outright (several sources cited here). But the lead can only say so much. So please justify. Pinsi281 ( talk) 07:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
2nd source of confusion/complication:
First it says: "the word Guru also refers to God, and God and Guru are often synonymous in Gurbani", and next sentence says Guru Nanak is not reincarnation of God or in any way related to God, which sounds contradictory to the common reader (as I said, it is a complicated topic). What I proposed is much simpler, restricting to "Guru Nanak had stated that his own Guru was God". Another alternative, which I had also put forth earlier was "In Sikh religious philosophy and in Gurbani (the sacred writings of the Sikh Gurus), the word "Guru" is also used for God, the divine preceptor, who was Guru to the first human Guru, Guru Nanak. [11] [12]" This also is at least clear that when "Guru is used for God", it is implying the Guru of Guru Nanak. Pinsi281 ( talk) 08:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pinsi281: See. I have reverted the copyvio issues you introduced in the main article and the significant changes you made to the lead. Both @Joshua Jonathan and I have reverted your edits. Per WP:BRD, you need to persuade and reach a new consensus. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 18:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest linking "[fifth] largest religon" in the lead to Major religions#Largest religions. I note that Sikhsm is number eight on that list. (Those things are obviously hard to make exakt. I guess that the difference depends on how to count separate religions, but I can't tell.) -- St.nerol ( talk) 09:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)