Talk:Sikhism/Archive 2

From May 2006 to June 2006

Peer review
I've archived all the previous discussion in preperation for extensive work on this article. Hopefully the peer review can help use on our way to FA status. I'll add my comments about what needs to be done shortly. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

New layout
I think we need a better layout, and this is what I propose (based on other religous pages):


 * 1) Etymology
 * Originating from Sanskrit (śiṣya or śikṣā) or Pali (sikkhā).
 * 1) Beliefs
 * One god - reference to what god is in Sikh thought, reference the Mul Mantra as underlying the characteristics of God
 * Thoughts on birth, death, reincarnation, karma - relation to dharmic faiths and crucially how Sikhism differs
 * Equality of people regardless of race, religion, caste etc,
 * 1) History
 * General climate in India at the time
 * The Sikh gurus; placing special emphasis on Nanak as the founder, and Gobind Singh as the founder of the Khalsa
 * The Guru Granth Sahib
 * Influences in Sikhism post-Gurus (famous Sikhs like Banda Bahadur and Ranjit Singh). Including influence of the British, and issue in independent India.
 * 1) Scripture
 * Guru Granth Sahib (creation of, layout and content)
 * Dasam Granth (and controversy)
 * Janam Sakhis
 * Other scripture
 * 1) Khalsa
 * 2) Sikhs
 * Five Ks
 * Punjab and punjabi culture and how it relates to Sikhism
 * Sikhism in the diaspora
 * New Sikh converts
 * 1) Institutions
 * Places of worship (Gurdwaras)
 * Harimandir Sahib, Akal Takht (spirtual and temporal - duties of both)
 * SGPC and other gurdwara administration committees
 * 1) Sects and groups
 * Talk about differing groups of Sikhs (including caste distinctions which still persist contrary to Sikh teachings)
 * Udasis, Nirankaris and others

In addition, we need to get rid of the mass of links at the bottom of the page, as well as the audio files which are not relevant on this page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and Table
I don't see the need in having 2 pictures of men wearing turbans. I think one of them should be replaced by a picture of one of the 5 K's or maybe even a picture of a Guru.

Also, I think the order of the columns in the table containing information about the Gurus needs to be changed. I think all dates should be read in chronological order, which means that the "Date of Birth" column should come before the "Guruship on" column. This to me is a more logical order. Mandy Kaur 16:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with your comments. We'll incorporate your commments in the re-write.  The dates of the Gurus also need fact checking and have been flagged for some while.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, all done. Please check the new picture. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a much better picture, thank you! There is something I am unsure about though and I hope someone can resolve the matter. In that table about the Gurus it says that Guru Nanak received his guruship the day he was born. Is this a widely accepted belief amongst the Sikh community? I ask because I had always thought that Guru Nanak became a Guru the day he emerged from the river Bain and said "There is neither Hindu nor Muslim..." and recited the Mool Mantra for the first time. I am not entirely sure though. Am I mistaken to believe this? Mandy Kaur 17:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It could also be viewed that as there was nobody (well, apart from God I suppose), to pass their guruship onto him, he was a guru since birth. I believe your way of looking at it is definately better and I will change it.  By the way, feel free to edit any of the articles on Wikipedia.  There are plenty of problems on the Sikhism-related pages and none were really written by scholars. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Styles
I'm a bit unsure how to proceed with general styling in the article.


 * Punjabi written in Gurmukhi does not have a complex set of consonant clusters so sometimes the inherent 'a' is dropped without it being indicated in writing. Should we transcribe with or without the 'a'?
 * Also, when should we transliterate formally or use less formal transliterations (waheguru vs. vahigurū)?
 * Should we refer to the Guru's as Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh, or just Nanak, Gobind Singh?

Any opinions? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, we need to standardise on the original Gurmukhi spelling of the Guru's names. There are so many English variations it's not even funny. :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd go with "Guru Nanak", etc. - that is, leave off final 'a' and append 'Guru'. Graft 21:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the less formal transliterations would be appropriate here, but only in the cases where one is more known than the other like Waheguru should be used instead of vahiguru. Also I think we should keep the Guru in the names as that is what most Sikhs call them by. It is most important to keep this in it.Gsingh 22:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, the way I've done it now is to initially (outside of the intro) refer to each Guru fully with appropriate transliteration ("Gurū Nānak Dēv"), and everywhere else referred to each guru directly by their name ("Nānak") unless the context determines that I should use the full form. However, this is a problem that needs unification and standardisation across all India pages, so I'll work on that too now (see Naming conventions (Indic)). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you should still use Guru in front of the name at all times, it would be disrespectful not to. Maybe use Guru Nanak as the short for instead of Guru Nanak Dev. Gsingh 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that Sikhs use long respectful titles for the Gurus, but that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Other editors have raised the issue before and I do agree that Guru is an honorific title.  I have no problem using it when initially introducing the gurus (i.e. stating that they are Gurus in Sikhism), but it's cumbersome and arguably not NPOV to carry on using it throughout the article. For example, if we take Muhammad as an example, you see that he is not referred to as "Prophet Muhammad" (unless distinguishing him from other people called Muhammad), nor is PBUH added at the end of his name.  This is not a case of being disrespectful, just a matter of maintaining a neutral POV.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why there isn't an article for "Sikhs"
I find it kind of surprising that "Sikh" redirects to "Sikhism". Ideally there should be two separate articles namely "Sikh" and "Sikhism", with the former concentrating of history and social life of Sikhs and the later focusing on religious philosophy and principles of Sikhism. Any opinions?

Sisodia 08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a discussion with Rama's Arrow before regarding this issue. At the time I felt there wasn't enough of a need for the article because there wasn't enough information on this page.  However, as we're fixing this page up now, there may be a case to distinguish the two.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

History Section
I've finally finished cleaning up and sourcing the history section. It gives a very basic outline and is very sparse. It need much more about the Gurus, aswell as post-Guru history. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Scripture
I need some help here distinguishing between Adi Granth (pronounced Aad Granth, not Adi Granth!) and the Guru Granth Sahib. The two terms are used synonymously all the time so it can get confusing. However, I'm thinking about making the distinction that the Adi Granth (the first book) will be the version created by Guru Arjan, and the GGS will be the version that Guru Gobind Singh made as the final Guru. What do people feel about this distinction? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Further reading of Gurinder Mann's "Making of Sikh Scripture", indicates that the elevation of the Adi Granth to an immortal Guru was what turned it into the 'Guru Granth Sahib'. Not necessarily the additions made by Guru Gobind Singh, but the actual act of making it the final guru was what turned it into the Guru Granth Sahib.  So, what's everyone's take on this? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guru Granth Sahib
I see on the article that Guru Gobind Singh is referred to as the last guru, maybe this should be changed to the last living Guru, as the GGS is now the last and eternal Guru. What does everyone else think. I'm referring to the picture in which Guru Gobind Singh is shown. Gsingh 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari Singh's Comments
I've just pasted these comments from my talk page: Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sukh and Rama's Arrow,

It is great to know that you are both working to make the Sikhism article of featured article calibre. If there is anything I can help with, please do not hesitate to ask – and thank you for the opportunity to give some input. I have had a quick look and the article looks quite good – I will have a better look in the next few days and make my comments in more detail on the talk page on Sikhism.

Just my initial thoughts and to make the article broad in its coverage - I believe some of the revolutionary ideas of our Gurus don't seem to appear in any detail:


 * More on the beliefs & practise, ie:


 * Equality of women – back in the 1500's - that pretty outstanding – don't you think? – see article Women in Sikhism


 * Equality of castes/race including the "untouchables" - when the rest of the world was trading in slaves.


 * Concept of Langar as propelled by the second & third guru; Etc


 * Personally I would prefer less history - but I will leave that to you or may be look at this point later.

Hey, you are doing a Great job - Keep up the good work!! --Hari Singh 00:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I haven't really looked below anything under the scripture section just yet and as such those sections are expected to be pretty rough! I agree with most of your points, however I think the history section is going to have to get larger!  :)  We haven't yet discussed much about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh - and they have been by far the most influential of the ten gurus.  We also haven't discussed post-guru Sikhism :)  I don't really want to go into great depth, but the issues need to be mentioned.


 * Please feel free to add or change anything that looks wrong or odd. However, please ensure that you add references to reliable third parties because we need these to get it to a featured article.  I'll take into account all your points and see what I can do as I work my way down the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

use of name Golden Temple
The name Golden Temple should be used sparingly, the name used should be Harimandir Sahib, which is the name that the SPGC has said is the only name that should be used. Gsingh 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have attached a link for your reference, link1 Gsingh 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PINSAC nomination
I have nominated this article for being an SA on Portal:India, as I feel it does exemplify Wikipedia's very best India-related work. Comments can be made here. Thanks. Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  03:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Rama's Arrow
I've copied these from my talk page and where they were posted by Rama's Arrow:

In order for the article to be comprehensive, the following questions need to be answered:

Sikhs deliberately don't have priestly order!!. Gurdwaras are managed by elected Management Committees (M/C). All G/W in Punjab under SGPC other have their own M/C Amrit Sanchar Birth - No Formal - but visit ro G/W + ardas; Marriage - Anand Karaj; Death - Antim Sanskar
 * 1) After the death of the last guru, who provided religious and spiritual leadership to the community? Who does that today (i.e. SGPC)? spiritual - SGGS; temporal - Panj Pyare
 * 2) What is the Sikh priestly order? Who is responsible for individual gurudwaras?
 * 1) Observations - rites of initiation (very prominent one, needs proper description), birth, marriage and death, festivals celebrated.

(1) What place does Hindu mythology and Gods such as Rama have in Sikh life and theology, as the pic suggests that Sikhs celebrate Diwali? Hindu "Mythology" is part of Sikhism - various sakhis apprears  in verses of SGGS and in Dasam Granth (2) What about the tradition that the first male child of every Hindu Punjabi family became a Sikh to protect the religion and community? Here, Khushwant Singh's comment that Sikhs are kesh Hindus needs explanation. Have no direct knowledge of this Please explain in more detail this query - Hindu-Muslim rivalry amongst the believing communities to me this does not make sense - sorry. I thought it was the other way - Gurus asked for harmony amoung the different religions? agree will try and re-visit with suggestions, I hope!
 * 1) Connection with Hinduism - I've worked to clarify the philosophical link of Sikhism with Hindu philosophy, but there are practical life connections that need explaining. I.e,
 * 1) Social reform in society - Nanak's new order brought major social changes in the Punjab, with the elimination of caste distinctions and Hindu-Muslim rivalry amongst the believing communities. What exactly are these principles? needs a sub-section in "Philosophy and teachings."
 * 1) Sikhs, Observances - somehow I feel that these two sections are not complete. There needs to be more information on Sikh traditions, culture, family values and religious adherence.
 * Right, I'll attempt to deal with your comments one by one!


 * Well, the Guru Granth Sahib provides the spiritual leadership to the community. However, in terms of Sikh personalities, I believe it would have been Banda Singh Bahadur, then the misls, then Ranjit Singh.  Although none of these were spirtual figure heads, they were community leaders/warriors.  The SGPC is merely responsible for the the administration and upkeep of gurdwaras in the Punjab.  The Akal Takht is responsible for matters relating to temporal (non-religous issues).  The Harimandir Sahib is reponsible for matters relating to spirtual issues.  I'm not in a knowledgeable position when it comes to such issues, but a good place to start looks like this:.
 * There is no priestly order. Anything that holds a Guru Granth Sahib is considered a gurdwara.  In Punjab, historical gurdwaras are controlled by the SGPC.  Other gurdwaras around the world are controlled by individuals or communities.
 * Observations - yes need to add all that you've written there.
 * Sikhs celebrate Diwali as "Bandi Chhorh Divas" and it's not celebrated for the same reasons as Hinduism (see the Diwali article for further details). Hindu Gods are readily referred to in the Guru Granth Sahib; sometimes as direct references to the avatars themselves, or as a broad reference to God.  Most of the followers of Sikhism were Hindus (as were the families of the Sikh gurus), and so naturally terminology that they would have found useful is what was used.  It is definately true that traditionally the first male of many Hindu families in the Punjab was raised a Sikh.  However, I'm not sure about the specifics of this nor when/how it started.  I have read somewhere that it may have been heavily influenced by the fact that it was a huge economic incentive to raise a child as a Sikh because then they could join the British Army (Sikhs were heavily favoured over other groups). You're welcome to research this further.
 * Yes, we need this section.
 * Yes, this needs improvement too.


 * I'll add what needs to be done to the to do box above. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to confuse yourself about Sikhism/Hinduism and their connection, please visit . I make no claims as to the accuracy of anything written on the site though! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

- I removed an off-topic message to Talk:Sikhism/Off topic messages. See talk page for guidelines for talk pages. Please use this talk page only for messages to improve this article. Andries 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are doing a great job. Please look at the History of Sikhism as I have added a bit here--Hari Singh 05:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
To Goethean and Andries: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As things stand, both of you could be blocked for WP:3RR. I am off on a vacation for a few days, this may be my last edit of today. Please find a way to resolve this without deleting comments in talk pages. IMO, only Personal attacks can be refactored, and only refactoring the attack itself and not the whole comment. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think that only personal attacks can be re-fractored then what would you do if I posted here 100k of completely off-topic material here? Clearly off-topic material can and should be removed too. Andries 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight -- you are just making this policy up? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are walking a very thin line, Andries. Of course that posting 100K of off-topic stuff can be easily removed. But your deletion of another editor's comment, because you believe it to be off-topic, may not be as simple as that. I would assume that the editor whose comments you removed will take this up with you. And now, to my well deserved time off. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will make a request for comments about what I see inappropriate use of the talk page. Please note that if the verdict of this request for comments is positive then I will also make off-topic announcements on article talk pages to recruit sympathetic contributors to push my POV. Andries 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You already did. See . ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The dispute is about archiving off-topic messages, not about deletion of off-topic messages. I archived it here Talk:Sikhism/Off topic messages Andries 08:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You effectively hid and therefore attempted to censor my post. Sfacets 08:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will promise never to do it again as long as your posts are in correspondence with talk page. Andries 08:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot violate policy, Andries, because you believe another editor did. And you cannot promise a behavior that is expected of you, based on the behaviors of others. This is not a children's playground, you know? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull;

@ 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, what policy did I violate? Andries 15:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How weren't my edits in accordance with talk page?

Sfacets 09:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They were not in accordance with the stated purpose of the article talk page i.e. "The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question.". Your comments here did not try to improve this article, but another article. Andries 09:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Guru criticism
The article Guru has become a haven for criticising gurus, regardless of the religion the Guru teaches. By extension, because Sikhism features in a large section of the article, the very foundations of the Sikh religion are being called into question. This is especially true when a user clicks on 'Guru' and is forwarded to a critical article.


 * I invite Andries to use Common Sense and to not make up Wiki policy (and apply his fantasies) as he sees fit.

Please have a look at improving the article. Sfacets 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My two pence
I have come to this page in view of a message received, and my response thereto. I would like to state that I shall surely give my comments and suggestions, if required, to improve the contents of the page so that it may be upgraded to the status of a FA. However, for the time being, I am presenting below exact extracts from a book (namely, Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend (ISBN 0500510881) by Anna Dallapiccola. These extracts were originally written by W. H. McLeod in 1977.


 * QUOTE

The reformist movement was founded by Guru Nanak (c. 1469-1539), son of a village accountant of restricted means, who from his early years showed religious interests. Although he lived like any normal Hindu boy, he started questioning the the orthodox tenets of his faith and soon grew critical of the Caste and priesthood. He married quite young, worked along with his father, but after the birth of his second son, left home and became an became itinerant mendicant. According to legend, at the age of thirty-five, while meditating, he heard a voice enjoining him to spread the teachings of the true faith. For the next forty years, Nanak wandered singing religious songs and spreading his doctrine. To his disciple, or Sikhs, Nanak was guru. Shortly before his death, Nanak appointed one of his disciples, Guru Angad, s his successor. This tradition of Guru-ship lasted until Guru Govind Singh (1666-1708, proclaimed guru in1675) the tenth in the line of succession, abolished it. Originally, Sikhism was a pacifist religion, but by the time of Guru Govind Singh it had assumed a militaristic form, and his teachings was far removed from the tolerant message spread by Guru Nanak. From then on, the history of this movement became filled with conflicts. Eventually, the Sikhs founded their own state and ruled over a substantial part od north-western India. On the death of their great leader, Ranjit Singh in 1839, and after two bloody Anglo-Sikh wars, the British annexed the former Sikh territories in 1849.

The bible of the Sikhs is the Adi Granth (also known as Guru Granth) or the ‘original Granth’, to distinguish it from later Granth. It is a collection of compositions by Guru Nanak also contaning writings and aphorisms of various saints, reformers and gurus pre-dating him. These are in various languages such as Old Punjabi, Old Marathi, Old Western Hindi and Persian. The Adi Granth is thus repository of the earlier Bhakti poetry. The teachings of Sikhism originate mostly from Guru Nanak who, in turn, was greatly inspired by Kabir. The latter gurus only contributed additions. Over time Sikhism went a number of doctrinal change and took many Hindu features. The teachings of Guru Govind Singh, collected in a separate Granth or ‘tenth Granth’, reflect his militaristic strain and the violent age in which he lived.

There are many groups among the Sikhs with various levels of strictness and different religious traditions. Orthodox Sikhs are distinguished by the ‘five k’s’: the topknot (kesh) - true Sikh never cuts his hair – short drawers (kachha), the iron bangle (kara), the comb (kanga) and the short sword (kirpan). The honorific Singh is usually appended to the name after a formal initiation, but this is no longer strictly the case. Since the 16th century, the most important place in Sikh history and culture is Amritsar (Panjab), celebrated for its Golden Temple, the holiest among the Sikh gurudvaras (Temples), where the Adi Granth is kept and read.
 * UNQUOTE

I find the above write-up informative, except that it requires re-wording and re-phrasing at several places as the words like “militaristic” and some other points may require modification to align with the generally accepted position. If possible, I would try to re-word and modify the contents before certain points are incorporated in the main article. However, I would request other editors to assist in this task.

As regards, my comments and suggestions, pertaining to the current contents, I shall come back shortly, say within two-to—three days. Right now, I find the contents quite comprehensive, albeit someone may do a copyedit of the same. If possible, we may try to find a still better photograph as the lead photograph, that is, the first image, namely this one: Image:Amritsar-golden-temple-00.JPG. The image is ok for the time being - I think on second thoughts.

I am also searching the data base of Smithsonian Institute, as may be available on the WWW, and if I find some images suitable for incorporation in this article and other articles related to Sikhism, I shall be happy to upload the same and provide links here.

I wish all the best to Sukh, Rama’s Arrow and all other editors striving to make this article as a FA. Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Shree Akal. --Bhadani 07:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All redlines in article should be "inked" by creating stubs - even a stub of few lines shall be useful. --Bhadani 08:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is some good material at Sant Mat as well, in which the background on "Sants" is presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Expand on current spiritual leadership, akal takht, sarbat khalsa, hukamnamas
Mr. Sukh, I have begun a section titled "Temporal matters" in which I have included the Akal Takht, the Sarbat Khalsa and the Hukumnamas. I have just finished uploading material on the Hukumnamas from a site that I found on Google. Have a look. As it is, I am a little tired and would do further editing tomorrow. Regards. Rajatjghai 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's great. I've done some copyediting but there is way too much information on hukamnamas/gurmattas.  I think we need a paragraph at most detailing what they are, who they apply to and how they differ.  The rest should be in a separate article. I'll see what I can do to improve it.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Banda Bahadur
A section on "after the Guru's" that does not mention Banda Bahadur ? Also the article does not mention that the Sikh Kingdom got taken over by the British "after" the death of Maharja Ranjit Singh and seems to allude that he lost to the British. Haphar 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've addressed both these points. Please take a look.  Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Akal Takht
I've tried to improve this section but I cannot find reliable sources of information. I'm not sure how the role of the Akal Takht has changed in time and different web sites I've read say different things. What I've written is very bare and sketchy - if anyone has more information, please improve it. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Their should be a section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one
I know that this is a sensitive subject but their are many people who dont believe that the Gurus were trying to seperate people into Hindu & Sikh. If you look at the teachings of the Gurus, their beliefs, their names, and what they did for all of India, it is fair to at least argue that they wanted everyone to UNITE under one god...Not seperate into Hindu and Sikh. Please be fair and mention this

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.54.199 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources that describe this? If so, please add. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well actually the religion was not just restricted to Hindu but also Muslims, there were first borns from both religions who would be Sikh, and the Guru's preached that there is No Hindu or Muslim but just one god. So if one needs a mention it is that it was to unite religions and not just Hinduism. Haphar 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A mention of syncretism already appears in the article. If you wish to expand more on the particular relation with Hinduism, see Hinduism and Sikh Panth. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The user Haphar is wrong when he wrote that it was to include Islam as well. Politcally yes he was trying to unite others. But remember Nanak Dev was also against Orthodox Hinduism, (Caste for example) and was trying to help low class Hindus learn the Vedic teachings of Karma, Dharma, and so forth. So yes he was saying thier is no such thing as Hindu because yes he was trying to unite Hindus with his teachings. Remember in those days most families didnt seperate themself into Hindu & Sikh. They had the entire family stay Hindu while the eldest son would be a "Sikh"....this was not done with Muslims in general...So the user Aryan818 was right when he said that Hinduim & Sikhism should be mentioned as being one...Islam has completely different teachings 204.102.210.1 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Caste system
Id just like to clear something up, Sikism dosent follow a caste system but this article claims it does. So I think we should remove it to reduce confussion. Sikhism was formed to obolish the caste system not create it, some people might follow it but that has nothing to do with religon, just stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, the article needs to make it more clear that the caste system was rejected by the Gurus. However, we would be kidding ourselves if we said that the vast majority of Sikhs in India don't follow the caste system.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well im gonna clear it up because its kinda offensive, the next thing you know someone might use this false information against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)


 * What false information? I'm pretty certain the article itself doesn't assert that Sikhism condones Castism.  Feel free to cleanup anything that seems misleading. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Hindu mythology - reverted
I've reverted the recent change by Elven6 because it was uncited and contrary to the title did not discuss relations with Hindu mythology. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add to it but someone got rid of it, I had to leave on some urgent business so i coulden't finish it.

When I decided to finish it up it was gone!

Page split
I'm going to split this page into two now, because there is already far too much information and I cannot add all relevant stuff without making it too long. So, I'm going to remove the redirect from Sikh and create a page detailing Sikhs as a people. That is culture (Punjabi, generally), emigration/immigration, appearance, recent converts and other details related to Sikhs. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. In fact as time progresses, there will be a need to create separate articles for almost all section mentioned in the article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sikh sects
In preparation of the final section, I've found a useful link: and. After this section is done, I will do a final reduction in page size and copyedit and then put it up for FA. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hs Khalsa Recommendations
I have several suggestions for how the Sikhism page can be improved. I plan to list them below, one at a time, allowing time for comment on them before making the relevant changes. After a suggestion has been considered and approved or rejected, I will move on to my next suggestion.

1) "The followers of Sikhism are ordained to follow the teachings of the Ten Sikh Gurus and the select works of fifteen earlier bhagats as scripted in the Gurū Granth Sahib."

Problem: I feel this sentence is misleading. As you know, the writings of only six Gurus are included in Guru Granth Sahib. Perhaps this sentence is not meant to suggest that all ten Gurus are included. However, a second issue arises because there are more authors than just fifteen bhagats included in Guru Granth Sahib as implied by the second part of the sentence.

Solution: "The followers of Sikhism are ordained to follow the teachings of the ten (lowercase 'T') Sikh Gurus, as well as (no 'the') Guru Granth Sahib which includes select works of numerous authors from diverse backgrounds."

If this is not detailed enough, perhaps all relevant authors could be listed. In any case, just stating "fifteen earlier bhagats" is factually incorrect.

I also propose removing 'the' from in front of Guru Granth Sahib. Guru Granth Sahib is not a thing. It is not acceptable or appropriate to call Guru Nanak Dev - the Guru Nanak, or to call Guru Gobind Singh - the Guru Gobind. Similarly, Guru Granth Sahib is a Guru of equal stature. I know writing "the Guru Granth Sahib" is extremely prevalent all over the Web, but we at Wikipedia should consider the merits of the case and hold ourselves to higher standards rather than just going with what is most popular. Thanks for considering my post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hs khalsa (talk • contribs)


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you're taking an interest in improving the article.


 * I definately agree with what you are saying and the introduction is misleading (even though I didn't even pick up on it!). Maybe the term "diverse religious backgrounds" would be better than just "diverse backgrounds" which is a bit vague?


 * I think the issue with 'the' might be a bit contentious. I think not using 'the' is misleading to readers and sounds odd in English.  I completely agree with you that Sikhs believe the Granth to be the embodiment of the Guru's teachings but as a neutral encyclopedia I don't think it is good for Wikipedia to elevate the status of the Granth to anything more than a book of the Guru's teachings.  Wikipedia should state that views of Sikhs on the issue (which it does), but should not necessarily subscribe to it itself. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and also for your welcome. I sincerely hope to work with you and others to improve various topics on an open basis.  Your points regarding 'the' are well thought out.  I agree that the 'the' in front of Guru Granth Sahib is not a particularly important issue, so I will drop that change.


 * Regarding author backgrounds, the authors of Guru Granth Sahib came from different religious traditions, different areas of India, and even different levels of wealth and professions. So I will go ahead and make the change with "diverse socioeconomic and religious backgrounds".  Others can feel free to further edit my change or to post their thoughts regarding this topic after they visit and read my above post. I will now move on to point two. --hardeep 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

2) "Sikh scriptures are written in the Punjabi language, and the most sacred institutions are located in the Punjab region now divided between India and Pakistan."

Problem: Guru Granth Sahib is written in multiple languages, not in Punjabi.

Solution: "Sikh scriptures are written in Gurmukhi script and primarily in the Sant Bhasha language, and the most sacred institutions are located in the Punjab region now divided between India and Pakistan."

Sant Bhasha is extremely similar to Punjabi, but it is considered a different language. Also, Sant Bhasha is not the only language used. For example, Persian is another language that is included. --hardeep 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is actually clarified further down, so it is contradicting what is already written.  I'll change it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Simar's comments
An anonymous user left these comments on my talk page: Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked out the Sikhism page after a long while, and was kind of shocked to see all the changes. I understand your efforts to make the page more in line with other pages, but in all your heavy editing, you took out a lot of what made the original page great.

I am a practicing Sikh in graduate school in the midwest. I recieve questions about Sikhism every day of my life. I found that the original page, what it was in May, 2006, was an excellent reference to which I could direct the curious. It was written from a perspective that made it easily accessible to those who want a basic understanding of Sikhi's tenets. For instance, the now omitted "Religious Philosphy" subheading was quite excellent, and very pointedly answered many questions by those who know nothing of Sikhi. There is nothing on the new page that addresses these points. In fact, there is very little discussion of general beliefs - in a clear, concise manner - on the new page at all. And these general beliefs are what the page should be highlighting before it gets down into the nitty gritty that you seem to most enjoy discussing.

Another qualm I have is the emphasis on the word "God." It shows up in just about every other sentence, in what I find to be an extremely dense explanation of Sikhi's evolution and beliefs. The problem I have with the frequency of it's use is that the very definition of God is not dilineated from the Abrahamic defnition of God, which how most readers at Wikipedia will immediately associate the term. After studying Sikhism somewhat extensivly, reading interpretations of Baani since i was a kid, I find that God in Sikhi, while in line with mool mantar, is more similar to how Buddhism defnies the abstract sense of truth. This is the very essense of the Dharmic religions - not the personified, vengeful image of God common in the West. However, when most Sikhs dont understand this, I think it will be very difficult for Westerners to make that dilineation unless it is laid out in front of them....very clearly.

ANYWAYS - i appreciate your efforts, but to be perfectly frank, I think this new page is quite dense. While it is excellent to have the information there, sourced out and all, I will not use this as a point of reference for friends who have no understanding or knowledge of Sikhi. And I am sad that I lost that source.

So, my two suggestions? Please try to include a simplified and bullet-pointed "religious philosphy" section, and please cut down on the over use of the word "God."

Best, simar

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.175.42 (talk • contribs)


 * If anyone has any comments to make, please do so. I will leave my comments when I've had time to look at the issues in more depth (I'm slightly busy atm). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm using as a reference to the old version and thus my comments pertain to that version only.


 * One of the peer review comments suggested that the original article was too list-weighty. It merely listed a list a dos/donts with little context or scriptual backup.  We have tried to correct this, but it has resulted in an article where it's much more difficult to pull out facts like that list.  Maybe we need to create a separate article that can have a list form of such points?


 * It's important to note that I've removed details of being a Sikh to Sikh, and left Sikhism as a religion and philosophy of life here.


 * I do agree with you that the article has become more difficult to read - but that's only because it has *all* the information there. I'm going to make it easier to read by removing the ISO transliterations (that's transliterations with the funny diacritics on Latin characters) on everything but important Sikh ideas.  So, niraṅkār will remain, but Hari Kriśan will revert to Har Krishan.  In addition, I will be trimming the article and checking it for readability issues.


 * It would be interesting to see other user's views on this so that we can come to some sort of consensus on what to do. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sukh veerji,

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I was just reading the page on Sikhism and wanted to share a couple of concerns with you. It's obvious that you've put a lot of time and hard work into the information that you've posted, and that is appreciated, but I still have a couple of concerns.

The main intro seems a bit pedantic. Is all of that information really necessary to explain the core of Sikhi? Points such as "Some consider Sikhism to be a syncretic religion, although this is not a widespread belief held by Sikhs; the Sikh gurus maintained that their message had been revealed directly by God," seem extraneous. By adding this point into the main refernce for Sikhi will give credence to the idea- which I'm sure you know is highly disputed, controversial, and insulting to practicing Sikhs. I see that under Philosophy and Teachings, you've stated it as an incorrect over-simplification, but I still think it is misleading to have it in the main Intro and perhaps even in the Philsophy and Teachings.

I'd also be interested to know why you've chosen the authors and references that you have. Over half of your sources are not Sikhs themselves, and Kushwant Singh is agnostic (which I read somewhere on your discussion page earlier). Wouldn't sources who practice the religion have greater insight into the teachings, philosophies, and historical contexts? I understand that non-practicing Sikhs may have undertaken research projects which Sikhs themselves have not yet done, and some information from these may indeed be valuable. But do we really want to really so heavily on their interpretations of Sikhi? It makes me very uncomfortable.

At the moment, the series of definitions of minor details take away from the main beauty of Sikhi- the qualities that make it unique. I think it would be helpful to streamline it a bit more, and just provide links to more extensive details.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely, Puneet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.248 (talk • contribs)


 * A) Sukh raises an important point - others complained about the article having too many lists in the past, and now, somebody commented about it not having enough lists.  An easy answer to this dilemma escapes me.


 * B) The word 'God' as used in this article is a generic term.  Every religious name for God is acceptable to Sikhs.  Instead of confusing the reader by choosing various names of equal weight, a single generic term is used.


 * C) The authors and references include some of the most often cited Sikh resources, even within Sikh publications.  The facts included in the article are usually general and can be taken from any of several sources.  The specific reference used is not critical, unless the fact being cited is controversial.  There is no need to intentionally include offensive authors, if the fact being cited is common knowledge attainable from several sources.  I have read the books of these sources - some are wildly inaccurate.  Credence should not be given to these books by including them as authoratative references on Wikipedia.  I will begin replacing a few of the sources by tomorrow.  If a source by source analysis of the background of these authors and their controversial writings is needed, I am willing to participate in that discussion.


 * D) One of the traits this article needs in order to have any credibility is objectivity.  In other words, we are not to be biased, but to lay out all views along with the facts and let the readers come to their own conclusions.  The belief that Sikhism is a syncretic religion is widespread among non-Sikhs.  It is also a widespread view among non-Sikhs that Sikhism is a lesser religion than their own religions.  This does not mean these views are correct or deserve to be included in an article about Sikhism.  It is a scientific impossibility for a virgin to give birth, yet the viewpoint that Mary had premarital sex is not included when discussing the origins of Jesus in the Christianity and Jesus articles.  In contrast, when Sikhs know through meticulous academic study that the idea Sikhism is a syncretic religion is factually wrong, to include this view nevertheless appears to me biased.  I will revise the sentences relating to syncretism by tomorrow.


 * If anyone objects to my revisions in these areas, feel free to reverse them until further discussion can be conducted. I will not be offended.  --hardeep 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll address the points that Hardeep has raised individually. I will also address Puneet's points when they occur within Hardeep's points ;)


 * A) I'm not a fan of listy articles - they tend to look unprofessional. We could however, have a separate article that lists the information that was in the original article.


 * B) I agree with you Hardeep. Sikhism is based around God.  I don't feel there is a problem with having lots of references to God :)  I realise there is more to being a Sikh than just God, but that is the *core* aspect.


 * C) A lot of the odd references are from Google Books (http://books.google.com - a very useful resource!) and I don't have an opinion about them one way or the other. I think it's understandable that a lot of English language books on Sikhism are written by non-Sikhs - I personally don't hold the sources created by Sikhs any higher/lower than the sources created by non-Sikhs.


 * Sure, Khushwant Singh is an angostic (albeit with Sikh atire), but I don't think that in any way shape or form negates from his writings on Sikhism. If anything it gives him a more neutral look on things!  I know lots of Sikhs don't like his opinions on Sikhism and Hinduism, but I don't find them especially less valid than any other opinions.


 * If there are any points that are sourced that you feel are incorrect, we can look at them individually. It's of no use going through the referenced points and removing non-Sikh author merely because they're not Sikhs.


 * There are some authors that Sikhs might dislike, but some of their work is useful. Ernest Trumpp is one I personally don't like - especially his introduction on the Sikh religion which frankly I find quite bigoted and disparaging.  His Adi Granth translation is quite useful because it provides a rather literal translation with lots of foot notes along the way.  It's not necessarily correct, but it's still useful.


 * D) Hardeep, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you slightly on this point. I have no issue with removing the mention of syncreticsm in the introduction paragraph (because it is by no means a central part of Sikhism), but it is an essential topic of discussion within the body of the article.  It is a prevailing view amongst many in India that Sikhism is essential an syncretic religion.  Whether this is true or not is not for this article to debate.  All we need to do is mention this view, and then state that Sikhs don't subscribe to it (and furthermore, establish why Sikhs disagree with this view).


 * Overall, once we are finished look at content issues in the article, we should concentrate on streamlining it, and copyediting it. Once done, we can get it to featured status. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On a side note, I have to say that I'm very impressed with the sudden surge in interest in the article and discussion on its contents! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sukh, I agree with all the points you made above, with one minor clarification regarding the syncretism issue. As with the issue of Mary's scientifically certain premarital sex, the question is not whether the view is widespread among non-Sikhs, but whether the view is widespread among Sikhs.  Sikhism is by definition what the Sikhs believe, it is not determined by what non-Sikhs believe.  On other topics this is usually not the case, but with religion it is different.


 * The belief that Sikhism is syncretic is definitely not widespread within the Sikh community, although it is the prevalent view among the huge Hindu, Islamic, and Christian populations of India, all of which have claimed Sikhism to be syncretic for historical reasons as well as modern reasons in the promotion of their own faiths. However, there probably is a small but significant minority of Sikhs who do indeed believe Sikhism is syncretic, so I agree the issue should be mentioned (I don't have any poll figures with me, but this what I would expect based on my personal experience).


 * Many of the scholars and authors that I have read don't say merely that 'syncretism' is an oversimplification, but that it is completely wrong. The belief of many Sikh scholars is not that it is largely incorrect, but that it is totally incorrect.  Therefore, I suggest the phrase "and many historians and scholars maintain that such a description of syncretism is an over-simplification which is largely incorrect.  However, Sikh religion has strong roots in the religious traditions of Northern India." be changed to "and many historians and scholars maintain that such a description of syncretism is incorrect.  However, Sikh religion does have roots in the religious traditions of Northern India."


 * I believe this would be a reasonable compromise on the issue, since we are sticking to the basic facts and not trying to characterize their level of objection to the idea. --hardeep 08:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine by me. Hardeep, please take a look over the 'Decision Making' section.  I've tried to source reliable information on the Akal Takht, its exact role, history and relationship with the SGPC.  However, a LOT of what I've found is contradictory and I'm unable to sift through what is right and wrong.  Your help on this would be appreciated. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sukh. I will present my findings on that section in the next few days along with a few other suggestions I have.  I will be departing for India in the beginning of July for a stay of one month, so I will try to get my suggestions in before then and pick it up again in August.  I've also moved the sentence: "The Sikh gurus maintained that their message had been revealed directly by God." from the introduction to the main body, since it no longer fits in the introduction after we took out the reference to syncretism.


 * The Tasks list mentions a need to expand the Decision Making section, and that can certainly be done. If someone were to ask me how Sikhs make decisions in a single sentence, I would say, "The Guru Khalsa Panth makes all decisions in accordance with the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib."  We may want to discuss the history of the changing scope of decision making of the Sikhs over time.  For example, during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh as well as the British, the Sikh religion was not permitted to exercise political power, even though the Sikh religion desires to integrate politics completely into the faith.  During the Gurus' time, decision making rested in the hands of one individual.  We may also mention how, unlike in an American-style democracy where the "winner takes all" with a majority vote, Sikhs rely more on consensus, where a decision is reached through compromise that is deemed acceptable (or at least reasonable) by everybody - sort of like Wikipedia ;)  --hardeep 04:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)