Talk:Ravidassia

Ravidasi discrimination
Ravidasis continually face discrimination because of their Dalit status, and Sikhs are continually undermining their own vailidity and unique history by focusing on the formal separation of Ravidasis from Sikhs in the 1920s.

Djalo24Djalo24


 * That's fair enough - but please don't remove the category. You can add additional categories too that show Ravidasis as a separate religion, but at the same time many scholar believe it to be a sect (which we must discuss whether you or I agree with it or not). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I appreciate what you are saying, but the Ravidasi Religion is NOT a sect of anything else because it has its own history. If certain scholars say it is, then we must also therefore recategorise Sikhism, because many scholars and Indian communitites see it as a sect of Hinduism, or simply a syncresis of Hinduism and Sufism.


 * Completely agree with you actually. That's why the article on Sikhism dicusses syncretiscm and shows that many people to consider it a syncretic religion.  It also clarifies that most Sikhs don't believe this to be true.  Similarily, this article shows that Ravidasis don't consider themselves Sikhs but that many people believe them to be a Sikh sect.


 * Although the key difference between the claims of Sikhism being a sect of Hinduism/Islam is that Sikhism does not believe or use the Vedas or Qu'ran. Whereas Ravidasis use the Guru Granth Sahib. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you know that there is dicussion within the Ravidasi community about whether to remove the Guru Granth Sahib and to replace it with the Ravidass-Deep?


 * I'll check out the article as soon as I have time. Please feel free to add more information on such minority topics (it's very interesting!).  Please make sure you don't use copyrighted images though because they will be liable for removal.  Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sukh: As far as Guru Granth Sahib is concerned, its compilation was never intended for a preexisting/potential religious group at the time it was compiled. It is ironic that it has been identified with sikhism so much while most of the rituals that surround Guru Granth Sahib or most of the visible sign of sikhism today have no mention in the Guru Granth Sahib. As a work, it is a compilation and compilation, well, is a compilation. Reason, it should have least to do with sikhism is that not all the saints, who sikhs have endorsed as Gurus over the centuries have their teachings in it (only 6 has). So it will be wrong to say that it belongs to or is a property of Sikhs. Since it is a compilation, anybody can and should be able to follow it. Sikhs have identified their 10 gurus but that doesn't imply that Ravidassis can't have their one guru and still claim it as their holy book. Ravidassis respect it as mush as sikhs do and if they don't follow certain rituals that sikhs follow, that shouldn't upset the sikhs. Had Guru Granth Sahib been specifically created by a sikh (by today's definition, since we are talking in present) and for sikhs, it could have been well argued that its followers should only and only be called sikhs.

Such a phenomenon exists in every culture i.e two religious groups following one reloigious book. As far as whether Ravidassis are sikhs, sikhs themselves have answered this question. They have the "Rehat Maryada" which rules out Ravidassis completely for the good of both religious groups. We (Ravidassis) believe Guru Ravidass to be supreme guru of our faith while sikhs by virtue of the order of their 10th guru, claim Guru Granth Sahib to be supreme and living guru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajusu (talk • contribs)

This is just the same bilge that is repeated by uneducated people. I have met some Ravidasias and they are (not surprisingly) very ignorant of Sikh Guru tradition and Sikh history. Nor do they actually understand what Guru Granth Sahib is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatanga1 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Guru Granth Sahib was designed as a book for all of humanity not only Sikhs. I can't say I'm a fan of the excessive possesive nature that Sikhs have over the holy book, nor am I a fan of the fanatacism imposed by some Sikhs as to how the Granth can be used/installed.


 * I respect the Ravidasi's beliefs and have no problem with them worshipping whatever way they please. However, there are even Ravidasis who consider themselves Sikhs and so it's not as simple as saying "Ravidasis" are not Sikhs.  Please remember that the definition of a Sikh is not the preserve of the SGPC's Rehat Maryada (contrary to what some may say).  Right-wing Sikh groups would be more than happy to say Ravidasis aren't Sikhs because of their belief in Ravidasi as their supreme guru, so please don't think of this an an imposition by somebody with an agenda.  The simple fact of the matter is that Ravidasis have very similar beliefs and practices to Sikhs and as such *may* be classified as Sikhs. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bless the Siri Guru Granth Sahib, and the grace of the naam and vibration of the words contained in the Great Granth as a reflection of the multi-faceted and multi-cultural spirit of the writings within. I would think it makes sense that discrimination be understood for what it is, a narrow minded approach, and a sure way to hurt and confuse oneself. Fascists of all religion can debate their POVs but the truth just keeps sitting there. The bani was meant to cut through all division, ego and classism to allow all to see and feel God through the vibration of the collected works in the SGGS. {There is no Sikh, there is no Ravidassi `Guru nanak.} Those can bicker endlessly about it, but I just have one little minor change to request. I don't need to change the world. So, please if this makes any sense, read this sentence in the Leaders section:



I'm just quoting this description and asking if it makes any sense to this article to leave in a statement like that which appears like an unnecessary and un-cited reference. If it is important to mention he was murdered at all, and somehow if I came here to know about Ravidas, it would be hard for me to relate to or understand why murder of this Sant was brought up, or how it related to someone being a Sikh – regardless if that the person was Sikh, and not Catholic, Hindu or whatever... None of this is actually cited. And to me, neither the murder nor the pertinence of the religious affiliation of any person doing such acts is related to Ravidas directly. So I would move to edit out and strike at the very least that bit about murder and Sikhs in relating to this Sant Rama Nand ji. Let's keep things focused on the actual topic. 66.65.62.138 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ravidasia
In my area (Moga, Punjab), the followers of Guru Ravidas are called ravidasiA. Note the terminal "A". (The capitalization on R was dropped intentionally for visual emphasis).Buntygill 07:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) FOR GURU RAVIDASS FOLLOWERS guru ji's bani is for all humanity.everyone pay their devotees to guru ravidass ji when they pay devoyees to shri guru granth sahib,guru ravidass ji bani is in guru granth sahib, so guru ji bani is not only for ravidasi sikhs,some ravidasia people think we should need separate granth only for ravidasia community, but it means they encourage the caste system.although guru ji fight for equlity in the society.guru granth sahib is unique and supreme granth in the world where all caste systems are nil.and equal prayer for all "sarbat da bhalla". guru arjun dev ji add guru ji's bani in guru granth sahib to kill all type of caste systems in the society,and guru gobind singh also distroy caste system by birth "khalsa". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.65.191 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion Pushing
It has been generally seen that this page is being religiously pushed by unknown users and mostly influencing the sikhism part. So it is not only to request but also warn anyone who tries to do religious pushing can be banned from editing at all. There is a seperate page for sikhism where topics relating to sikhism can be added. Thanks & Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.252.127.228 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ravidassia Religion --> Ravidassia: propose title change
There is no article "Ravidassia" (redirects here), so is the "Religion" in the title necessary? As a parallel, we don't entitle "Judaism Religion" or "Buddhist Religion", so why not trim the title down? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The word "Religion" should definitely be decapitalized, but from the usage in the article, "Ravidassia" seems to be basically an adjective... AnonMoos (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is vague, but I think I'm also seeing more gBooks hits for Ravidasia than Ravidassia. Does anyone have any defence of why the Wiki contributors are using the ss spelling vice single-s? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed to address POV
This article unfortunately reads more like an article for the Ravidassia religion than about it. The article has major tone issues throughout, which I've tried to slightly address by removing the constant "Shri" and "Ji" honorifics. I can go over the details in a bit, but just wanted to establish my initial concern, as I continue to remove some of the more obviously non-Wikipedia content.

I would strongly urge any proponents of the subject to take a look at WP:Conflict of interest and reflect on the absolute necessity of WP:Neutrality. As you add anything to this article, please reflect on how it would appear to someone who does not share your same religious beliefs. The topic should be addressed with scholarly seriousness, and should not be seen as an attempt to convert, glorify, etc. If folks are unable to prevent themselves and others from filling the article with fluff and "peacock" words, then at some point huge chunks of the article will have to be removed and re-written by those who can write neutrally. Advocates of a given religion/party/nation/etc do themselves no favours by trying to use Wikipedia to glorify, because a non-neutral article simply lacks credibility, and will lead neutral readers to despair of finding any factual, objective information about said organisation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, ran across a major concern: a huge portion of the gBooks hits I get on this denomination discuss them in the context of Sikhism, but to look at this article you'd never know they had any relation at all. Except the completely unexplained issue of why Sikh radicals have attacked their leadership; not at all that it's justified but presumably there is some motive of theological import. Again, this article needs a hard look from uninvolved people to ensure the article is not "cherry picking" what aspects to promote. In the short term, could someone please address the WP:Link rot issue by turning these news links into proper citations? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking into it further: so the Amritbani has been newly-adopted to replace the Sikh holy book used previously? See, this is exactly what I'm saying is a very concerning issue here. If that is the case, that's an absolutely vital fact that a reader should be given, and yet somehow it's not here, and has been added and removed from this article in the past. So you can understand why as a neutral editor I'm not a bit suspicious of what I'm being shown and not shown by this article. I'd really like to invite the editors who've been working on this article thus far to discuss this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to give my views:-

Firstly, Ravidassia Religion isnt really the part of either hinduism or sikhism but follows some of their similar traditions makes them involved with these religions also and because they were not having any seperate identity in the past and they kept following their own as well as other religions name on themselves and it made them become the part of these religions to follow. Ravidassias are low caste people of India particularly from Punjab, UP, Haryana and Delhi and spreading all over India. Because of their low caste status they dont come forward openely with their voices and concerns because of getting discriminated by other religions and some ignorant people for their own benefits and that has been going on for years silently. Secondly, Attack on Dera Sachkhand leader was due to the silent conflict going on in Punjab between Sikhism and Ravidassias. The idea of the attack was: From Sikhs point of view:Ravidassias are disrespecting their religion by touching the feet of their leader in front of Sri Guru Granth Sahib (their holy book) From Ravidassias Point of View: Sikhs are jealous seeing the growth of Ravidassias and establishment of their Religious temples and they argued if touching feet is disrespecting then how come shooting in front of Sri Guru Granth Sahib (holy book) is not disrespecting their religion. This led to protest in Punjab (which sikhs termed as riots) and led to the formation of new religion as well as new holy book to avoid any future conflicts. While i found Ravidassias act as entirely moving towards peaceful and on the other side sikhs try to make it conflicting with their extremist views. This also implies that mostly sikhs are extremists and keeps the views like what muslim terrorists are trying to do and keep same ideology in mind as kept by the killers of Sant Ramanand Dass. Thirdly, Ravidassia is now entirely a seperate religion with seperate followers and seperate holy book. So we cant add sikhism and matters in Ravidassia pages because of being entirely distinct and seperate because if we will add it then it will defeat the purpose of it and will arise further conflicts. You can refer to more information on about here first link here and here second link here which explains all.McKinseies (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that u have deleted the slogans entirely pls put back as "Jai Gurudev" is announced salutation while "Jo Bole So Nirbhey....." slogans are commonly spoken in Ravidassia Gurudwaras u can verify that from the above linked documents too.McKinseies (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not incumbent upon me to go track down footnotes, it is incumbent upon whomever adds to the content to properly source their work. If there is a source (preferable a WP:Secondary source vice a WP:Primary source like a Ravidassi religious site) that explains these slogans and their significance, and explicitly ties them to the Ravidasi religion, by all means write up a section on that and include proper footnoting. I was about to remove the section on Festivals too, since it is massively WP:UNDUE in length and of a promotional vice descriptive tone. It has sourcing, but I'd have to look at the sources to see to what degree the section actually drew from the sources, vice someone just typing their personal views and just pasting up some newspaper articles about the event as an afterthought.

Fundamentally the article has an issue with too many editors having a personal stake in the subject, and/or being unable to take a step back and look at the subject from a detached, objective perspective. WP:Neutrality is an absolutely fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, and material which diverges from Neutrality should be deleted wherever it is encountered. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you try finding sourcing at GoogleBooks for such info as the slogans, symbols/flag, etc. The following book has a lot of great information from an unaffiliated (neither Sikh nor Ravidassi, and not even Indian) scholar: Sikhs in Europe: Migration, Identities and Representations. By Knut A. Jacobsen, Kristina Myrvold Pg 291. Note that if you ever want to footnote from a GoogleBooks link, you can use the website reftags.appspot.com to instantly create a properly-formatted Wikipedia citation. Just copy the URL from your browser while you're inside the book itself, and past it into the empty bar at RefTag. Note that if you are viewing a book page in "Snippet view" (the partial view of the page) you have to manually enter the page number and hit the "make citation" button again. When using GoogleBooks, it's far better to have full-page views than snippet, so you can click the "Preview available" option in the left margin to see books where you can read full pages at a time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed "Slogans" again, as it's totally uncited. Furthermore, a random listing of slogans does not do much to educate the reader, while a scourced explanation of the cultural/religious significance of the slogans and their use would. Particularly in terms of what slogans Ravidassias do or do not share with other religions, what makes their slogans distinct, etc. Again the key audience here is the world at large, and this article has a great problem with being written to the Ravidassia as opposed to about them. This is not a place for the Ravidassia to portray themselves from their own perspective; they have plenty of their own websites to do so. This is a place for all interested parties to combine the best available resources into a neutral explanation of the topic.


 * Honestly, the article is almost entirely missing (and before I came utterly missing) any explanation of how Ravidassia developed alongside Sikhism, and then was declared a "new religion" following 2009. For Pete's sake, I haven't even read The Tribune articles used as sources, but even their titles are all about it being a new religion, asserting its independence, etc. That's a vital part of the story, and is given short shrift in this article in favour of having multiple paragraphs describing one single festival.


 * These are my concerns, so can we come to some agreement here on the need for neutrality, primarily non-Ravidassia-written sources (scholars, newspapers, etc), and for this to be written in a way that makes sense even to people who had never previously heard of Ravidassia? It just feels like this is written for people who already have all the context, in a way that just reinforces what they enjoy hearing, and thus doesn't give the full picture to people who are new to the topic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How many people?
How many people are Ravidassian, and where are they? This is a basic thing included in other wiki pages on religions --22:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@77.103.218.108 and other IP edits
User, and other IPs: Not only are you edit warring with multiple editors, you are inserting your opinions before cited source such as the one in book published by Cambridge University Press, and thus misrepresenting the source. Please don't do this. Do you have a reliable source for what you are adding? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch Yes there are vast number of sources. There are claims that in this content that is not true and twisted to undermine our Ravidas community by the Dera Bhallan. E.g. as previously discussed in this thread there is cherry picking a nd assumptions. The majority of temples including gurdwaras and bhawans in UK and abroad have not removed Sri Guru Granth Sahib and replaced with Dera Bhallan Amritbani this article suggests it has, this is what the Dera Bhallan want people to think for their own cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.252.14 (talk)
 * Hello @213.205.252.14, thank you for discussing this with us. We need reliable sources to support changes to the content.  You say there are a vast number of sources, would you please link us to sources that support your assertions? That way we can work together to improve the article. Thank you in advance! Chrisw80 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there a number of big inaccuracies and assumptions made, the Dera Bhallan have tried to split our community. EG to say all temples have replaced Sri Guru Granth Sahib is not correct. Only a small minority have. You can Google and search on Facebook, YouTube new York Ravidas gurdwaras is a good example, and Derby leceister temples too. Also another example is the following of Dera Bhallan majority do not follow. 2016Ram (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I've moved your comments to the current discussion (instead of one that is four years old) to help the conversation along. I ask that you please source your assertions before continuing to make edits to the article.  It is considered un-constructive editing and is very discourteous to the other editors here. User:Ms Sarah Welch and myself have been trying to have a discussion about this based on verifiable facts. Please provide your sources for this information so we can evaluate it and discuss it. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Will do Thanks, 2016Ram (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As politely reminded again, you must "please source" your changes. I studied some recent changes and removed what was unsourced. If you have reliable sources, please add/provide them, and we will help you incorporate it into this article and make it more neutral. Please do not insert "Sikh" and "Hindu" labels anywhere without a reliable source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Single-S or Double-S?
I would like to initiate a discussion regarding a consistent usage of either single-S or double-S. Single-S for the person Ravidas is the established standard on the Ravidas article and is 10x more commonly used than double-S Ravidass on articles in general. However, double-S for the religion Ravidassia is more 5x commonly used than single-S Ravidasia on articles in general. Instead of trying to make both either single-S or double-S, I think it would be most natural to consistently use single-S for Ravidas and double-S for Ravidassia. Another option is to establish double-S Ravidass as the standard for Ravidassia-specific articles. I believe having a consistent orthographic convention would improve article quality. –2b (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)