Talk:Sikhism/Archive 5

What does Sikhism say about...?
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)
 * Hugh7, there are LGBT articles on Sikhism and Homsexuality in Wikipedia. Diet in Sikhism covers the pig meat issue (which is forbidden to Muslims and not Sikhs). Apostasy, Sikhs are not a missionary faith so are based on attraction, so if someone leaves it is up to them. See articles on Bhangra on mixed dancing. Sikhs have many mixed dancing group. However, vulgerness is not encouraged. Thanks S H 12:47, 27 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)
 * Sikhism has many sects, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Namdhari, Dam Dami Taksal, the vast majority however ttake their guidance from the Akal Takht, the temporal authority of the Sikhs. There are many stubs to this article. Please search them. Thanks S H 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh
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

Sikhism and women

 * As in many other religions Sikhism has no guidance for women, even though they do observe it of their own accord. I must enlighten my friends on this Wikipedia that Hinduism is often mistaken for Brahmanism, actually Hinduism is a much wider ideology and cannot be rated as a religion. I, by my studies, have come to a conclusion that Sikhism is a segment of Hinduism as other religions such as Jainism, Buddhism and Brahmanism and many more sects; we may deffer. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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))

Monotheistic?
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 agree 100%. Let us take "Mul Mantra" where God is described as Beyond Time and Space and also as Truth. In other sections as mother, father, teacher, air, water. etc etc. If you are going to change it, get a reference to back it up. Thanks--Sikh- History 08:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sat Sri Akal. Actually I am quite new to Wikipedia (as you can see by this post being out of chronological order compared with the entire discussion :P), I'm not too sure about changing to article myself, I was just bringing this up so that the moderators (if any), and community who assisted in writing this article may change it. Can someone more experienced kindly help to change this.--SatveerSinghBhullar (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok leave it with me. Thanks--Sikh- History 08:22, 9 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. " 93.134.196.70 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed the Sikh concept of God is different from Semitic faiths. The first line of the Sikh Holy Book reads, Ek Onkar, Satnam - There is but one God it's name is truth. God dwells within each and every one of us and it is for us to realise it. Sikhism does not say, IT is the only path, but says there are many paths to God. Thanks S H 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Editprotected request
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)
 * Christianity
 * Islam
 * Hinduism


 * Not done - Your request is far too vague. Please either make the request again with specific changes to be made, or edit the article yourself - I unprotected the page as it has been semi-protected for a long time. Nihiltres { t .l } 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism website
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)

Questioned external links
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)
 * SikhNet.com - community website
 * GGSSC.org - Guru Gobind Singh Study Circle - non-profit organization

The Last Guru Of Sikhs
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)

Request to add external link
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)

Semi protected
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)

Sikhism
Shouldn't that be the title? JTBX (talk) -Undated

Edit warring
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)
 * Do not accuse me of vandalism when you clearly do not even know what it is. I do not need to discuss an edit, when I'm rewriting the original POV that was in the article. The section was quite incomplete, as it did not even explain what Operation Blue Star was about. It also states that Operation Blue Star was initiated because of the government's accusations of inciting violence. This is not true. Blue Star was primarily based on the militant occupation in the Golden Temple. Also, your version only refers to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, but fails to mention other Hindu-Sikh conflicts, in which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus. There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go and read some history books before writing on history facts.There was no hindu-sikh riots.Everyone knows that 1984 riots were congress sponsored. what makes you edit something you have no primary knowledge about. What are you sources - obviously some internet site.Wake up my friend.Face the reality.If you have any doubts about the reality than make sure that you visit the office of national human rights commission of india. You are welcome to re-write but without your additions. Your tweaks and minor edits are full of personal viewsAjjay (talk) 20:23, 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)
 * When did I say I am not familiar with Operation Blue Star? Please, I have an extensive knowledge of Operation Blue Star. For crying out loud, I wrote the article on Bhindranwale! Also, you only referred to anti-Sikh riots, but there was also other Hindu-Sikh tensions, in which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus. You honestly think Sikhs didn't do anything in retaliation?? That's what I mentioned in the articles. It's one-sided to say that there were only anti-Sikh riots (and yes I know it was Congress-sponsored; it was backed by Gandhi's supporters), when there were also Sikh against Hindu violence. And please, my stuff comes from books. You can only find Sikh fundamentalist nonsense on the Internet, proclaiming that Bhindranwale was some hero. And don't make personal attacks. There was violence on both sides, but Hindu against Sikh violence was far more devastating. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you back up your claims with govt. sources. List the places where violence occured between sikhs and hindus.The number of incidents.Reports from Govt. investigating agencies.Where are you sources.Ajjay (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I never talked about violence in the article. 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). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your Sikh against Hindu violence, see Global Terrorism by James and Brenda Lutz here. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me towards the link.But, going by it, the violence appears to be govt. sponsored.Also spellings of Indira Gandhi are wrong.It also fails to mention the exact year when hundereds of militant groups sprang up. which was after Bhindranwala. Also where did he make an explicit demand for khalistan. Things like these are best left for politicians. People like us get a bad mouth out of it, sometimes burns tooAjjay (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of sources spell Gandhi as "Ghandi". I don't know why, but that appears the case. Also, I pointed you to the link because it talks about the Sikh violence against Hindus after Operation Blue Star (how could you forget the airplane bombing?). As for Khalistan, I already removed that from the article. 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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The airplane bombing was not against Hindus. It was directed against Govt. Also it was carried out by terrorists, and a terrorist does not belong to any religion. Also the canadian Govt. had questioned the role of RAW in that bombing. It is a vicious circle. i don't know if i can make an edit now or not. I will see and do waht i have to do tommorrow. I am tired. Good DayAjjay (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a valid point. However, the book does state that there were tensions between the Sikh and Hindu communities. As for Air India Flight 182, the bombing was orchestrated by Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh terrorist group (to my knowledge, there doesn't appear to be any non-Sikhs in the group) that wants to form a separate state. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 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)
 * Government source? Since when is the government the primary authority on any matter? Also, those actions (Blue Star and such) were of vital importance in modern Sikh history. My additions detail the conflict between Sikhs and Gandhi's Congress government. If this article is really about Sikhism only, then why do you have an entire section titled "Political advancement". My additions are perfectly legitimate in the scope of this article. Also, the book cited is reliable source. Each terrorist conflict was examined and thoroughly analyzed as a case study. Also note that the book cites a number of other authoritative sources, exclusively detailing these events. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:30, 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)


 * thats it! That is why there are so many editors are going haywire to edit it. To get it off FA.Go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajjay (talk • contribs) 06:11, 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
 * Why the govt. sources of a Democratic country like India are not trustable.
 * Read WP:RS. Scholarly works, like books, are clearly acceptable. I never said govt. sources are not unnacceptable. I only asked why you considered the government the primary source, when there's many scholarly works covered by noted historians and other individuals.
 * Why is he using books and not The judicial process and police action, which is first handed.
 * Material on Wikipedia is usually attributed to books or other scholarly works. First hand accounts are fine, but they need to be relevant. There are no specific details of incidents in the article, so first hand accounts are not necessary.
 * His claim regarding hindu-sikh riots is vague and does not cite the reports of Law enforcing Agencies, of the place where it occured.
 * I said there were Hindu-Sikh tensions. Tension means a strained relationship. This is definitely the case between the Sikhs and Hindus, after Blue Star and the Gandhi assassination. The book mentions these tensions, thus corroborating my statement.
 * Is he stating that he has no faith in the Judicial Authority of India, and it has no value.
 * You have been misrepresenting everything I have said, and now you're making accusations. What does anything I say have to do with the Indian judicial system?
 * He should provide the names of places and subsequent police reports, wherever the clashes occured.
 * Why? You said this article isn't supposed to go into specifics. Police reports and places of clashes are very specific.
 * Why is he unduly lenghting the section when seperate aricles exist for the matter.
 * Why is length a problem? I am adding material that is neutral. The previous versions are either biased (glorifying Bhindranwale, for example) or they were incomplete (no explanation as to what caused Gandhi to order Operation Blue Star; you just stated that the govt. accused Bhindranwale of inciting violence). Nishkid64 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Politics of Gandhi's government? Blue Star is an army operation, which resulted in the anti-Sikh riots. Without this information, people are going to ask what cause these riots. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * I'm going to set matters straight, because it appears you fail to see the issues with your edit. 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. It was not a result of the government's accusations of inciting violence. There is no transition to Gandhi's assassination. You mention Operation Blue Star and then you go straight to her assassination. Articles are supposed to be thorough. They should be clicking wikilinks to find more information about a particular subject, not because they are absolutely confused what the relevance of the subject is in the context. I provided a short description about Blue Star and the result. I then went to the assassination of Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. After that, I wrote that the chain of events led to the anti-Sikh riots and Hindu-Sikh conflicts (it's common knowledge that there have been tensions between Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab; these events just furthered these tensions). Nishkid64 (talk) 07:52, 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."
 * What happaned inbetween


 * The thoroughness can be explained in Operation Blue Star, not in Sikhism.
 * Indira Gandhi's name should not be mentioned. Her role is also equally controversial. You can mention her as the prime minister of the country.
 * The descriptive phrase is too long. It should be short and not long, as is in it's present state.
 * Bhindranwale was arrested, but released by court.(no need to mention)
 * He did not fortify Golden Temple because of this Murder.(-SAME-)
 * He was accused / Suspected / charged by Govt. for violence in Punjab. (-SAME-)
 * You can say there was army action against sikh extremists, who were held responsible for violence in punjab, resulting in operation blue Star followed by assassination of prime minister and anti sikh riots and unconfirmed reports of sikh Hindu clashes as aftermath.



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)

Muslim
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)

ISI propaganda
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).

Problem with reincarnation
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)
 * (conflicted) The frase has got a reference, so it may be real. MOJSKA   666  -  Leave a message here  11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sikhism rejects re-incarnation of God or of God in human form or any other manner. It believes in re-birth of humans, but that can be changed with grace of Guru, a person becomes free from all bondages of karma, destiny etc.Shalimer (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe something is to be found here. Austerlitz -- 88.75.201.69 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with reincarnation
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)
 * (conflicted) The frase has got a reference, so it may be real. MOJSKA   666  -  Leave a message here  11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sikhism rejects re-incarnation of God or of God in human form or any other manner. It believes in re-birth of humans, but that can be changed with grace of Guru, a person becomes free from all bondages of karma, destiny etc.Shalimer (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe something is to be found here. Austerlitz -- 88.75.201.69 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sikhs believe in nothing but (Lord)TRUTH ( encompassing all GOD/Allah / Crist etc).

Sayth Nanak1
The very first two lines of Adi Granth (Sti Gur Bani) outright reject Reincarnation.


 * Ikk O Angkarrrrrrrrrrrr stinam krqa purkhu nirbhau nirvyyr.akal muurqi ajoni syyBhng gurprsadi. Jpu. aadi schu, jugadi schu, hyy bhee schu, nanak hose bhe schu (gurmukhi script using english alphabet)

''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.''

Sayth Nanak2
5th Sikh Guru(Nanak) says in Aadi Granth( Sti Gur Bani / True Ideas' Language)


 * "kirqam nam kthyy tyry jyhva stinam tyra bla purbla...." (Gurmukhi Script)

 " 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)

Caste in Sikhism?
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)
 * Spend some more time with you sikh friends who are not prejudiced. And jatts, khatris, darjis,ramghari, rajputs etc are ethnic groups and not caste groups.Shalimer (talk) 06:49, 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)


 * Besides if you would like to go in theory, then only an amritdhari sikh is a [true] sikh. Rest are not [speaking theoretically], whatever they like to think. Shalimer (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are indeed castes in the Sikh community. You are very much right correct. In fact, the caste system in India appears in all religions in some form or another. What we need to do now is to find reliable sources that can support this fact about Sikhism. You can be bold and remove that wrong statement yourself if you so desire. GizzaDiscuss  &#169;</b> 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The castes in some sikh communities is already mentioned, in the section, [Sikh People]. Shalimer (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (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))
 * Go and read some good books on Sikhism. I am not a preacher. Besides if you want to talk about hinduism and sikhism there is a seperate talk page Hinduism and Sikhism. When you talk about caste system in India, there is a seperate artcle as well Caste system in India . And you really amaze me when you say jatts and rajputs are not ethnic people, see Jat people Rajput. About matrimonial ads, they are about people who want to get married and not on Sikhisms practices, it is by a group of people, which does not apply to whole community. Besides prefference for getting maried to a particular ethnic group (caste??) is a matter of choice, not related to religion. When you talk of caste it goes deeper. Getting married according to choices wont make sikhism a caste based religion. For example, hinduism is also called varna ashram Dharam. Do you know what varna is see Varna_in_Hinduism and Jāti. And this time don't search online, read some good books such as [Encyclopedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh ISBN-10: 8173802041] Shalimer (talk) 03:09, 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))


 * I dont have a lot of knowledge, only some of it. If the theory is one and practise another, it means those have deviated from the path of gurus [mentioned in article in section {Sikh People} in end]. I would recommend 'The Sikhs in History' by Sangat Singh ISBN-10 8172052758. You might find the reason why there is a difference between theory and practise and whether it can really be considered as such and the reasons. Plus the book uses lot of references from previous historians. Shalimer (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In all of India different ethnic groups tend to also be different castes and vice versa. Within each ethnic group, there may be sub-castes, but that is another matter. Because there is a strong correlation between caste and ethnicity, they can almost be considered synonyms. It is also probably why all the non-Hindu religions still have the caste although to a lesser degree. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well an interesting fact that I know from real life experience is that particular Sikh castes would prefer marrying the same caste but Hindus than different Sikh caste. For example, Khatri Sikhs would prefer marrying to Khatri Hindus than to other Sikhs. Not sure is this phenomenon has been written about in any books though. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Information to be inserted?

 * SikhSangat :Austerlitz -- 88.72.3.48 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this image inappropriate?
OneBlood30 has twice removed this image:   (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)

Minor edit
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)

Killing muslims
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)

citations reuired
"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.

Correction
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)

Help needed for article on Sikh Rajputs
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

 * "Realisation of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is truthful living".
 * "Realization of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is truthful living".

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)
 * , as detailed at WP:ENGVAR Wikipedia does not have a preference between American English (-ize) and British English (-ise) for topics like this that don't have any particular tie to either country - we simply keep it consistent within the article, and don't swap between the two. This article seems to be entirely written in British English (barring one instance of an -ize word which I shall change shortly for consistency) so I think we should leave it as "Realisation". Thanks for the suggestion anyway! ~ mazca  t 12:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sikhism does have a particular tie to India, which uses British English.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Guru-da-Gaddi
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)
 * That article is wrong, I'm going to see if it can be deleted--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol
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) <font color=Blue>mlwr bwxI Bgq rivdws jI kI]</font Color>

Malaar, The Word Of The Devotee Ravi Daas Jee: < siqgur pRswid ] An Upright PenPallllllllllll Now writes further through the grace of SatiGurBani

<font color=Blue>nwgr jnW myrI jwiq ibiKAwq cMmwrM ]]</font Color>

O humble townspeople, I am obviously just a shoemaker.

<font color=Blue>irdY rwm goibMd gun swrM ]1] rhwau ]]</font Color>

In my heart I cherish the Glories of the Lord, the Lord of the Universe. ||1||Pause||

<font color=Blue>sursrI sll ik(r)q bwrunI ry sMq jn krq nhI pwnµ ]]</font Color>

''Even if <font color=Red>wine</font color=Red> is made from the water of the Ganges, O Saints, do not drink it.

<font color=Blue>surw ApivqR nq Avr jl ry sursrI imlq nih hoie Awnµ ]1]</font Color>

''This <font color=Red>wine</font color=Red>, and any other polluted water which mixes with the Ganges, is not separate from it. ||1||

<font color=Blue>qr qwir ApivqR kir mwnIAY ry jYsy kwgrw krq bIcwrM ]]</font Color>

''The palmyra palm tree is considered impure, and so its leaves are considered impure as well.

<font color=Blue>Bgiq Bwgauqu ilKIAY iqh aUpry pUjIAY kir nmskwrM ]2]]</font Color>

''But if devotional prayers are written on paper made from its leaves, then people bow in reverence and worship before it. ||2||1296

<font color=Blue>myrI jwiq kut bWFlw For FovMqw inqih bwnwrsI Aws pwsw ]]</font Color>

''It is my occupation to prepare and cut leather; each day, I carry the carcasses out of the city.1297

<font color=Blue>Ab ibpR prDwn iqih krih fMfauiq qyry nwm srxwie rivdwsu dwsw ]3]1]]</font Color>

''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)

Across the World
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)

why the animosity?
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,


 * Sikhism does not believe in any xyz Religion. It believes in nothing but One religion (Lord)TRUTH for all humans. Sikh faith encompasses the universe & the universes beyond. e.g. Sikhs will support beard because beard is a (Lord)TRUTH given Truth.


 * Nothing but 'Language of True Thoughts' leading to 'TRUTH alias True God alias True Guru alias True Mother alias True Father alias True Relatives alias True Friends alias True Politicians alias All True objects alias every True thing ....is the Religion Sikhs believe in.


 * True Language of True Thoughts leading to Lord (TRUTH) was, had been, is here & now at this very moment & will ever remain the faith of Khalsa (Sikhs). The Term 'Khalsa' itself means Flawless Human being who dwells in the realm of (Lord)TRUTH reflecting & radiating Thy virtues for Humanity to emulate.

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.

Ordains True Thoughts’ Language

 * Never ever get entangled in fruitless discussions.


 * Do not do things which need not be done.


 * Listen to everyone but speak nothing but Thy Name (True Thoughts)


 * Believe in nothing but 'Language of True Thoughts' which leads one to True Humans.

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’

Current events in Punjab and Austria.
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)

Fifth-largest religion?
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)


 * US CIA "world fact book" (caveat)- "Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)"
 * Wisconsin State Journal 2001
 * "The Book Report" 2002 Looks like 5th.- sinneed (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA) 2001
 * Dallas Morning News 1999
 * Newsweek 2008

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)

Should this page be semi-protected???
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 <font color="Navy">Talk to me!  11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Holidays...
...are not mentioned on this page. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't their be a section that explains the links and relationship with Hinduism?
I tried putting that and it got taken away. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And no one is helping here on this. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ther are links to other articles. Regards--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 08:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question in Second Paragraph

 * Does anyone know why the word "MAYA" appears in parentheses in the second paragraph? Is this a term of art that perhaps could be defined or cross-linked?  Or, is this misplaced vandalism?  Context does not provide any clues.  Thanks.  Saebvn (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is indeed defined, and an important concept in Sikhism; see Māyā. Not vandalism, but perhaps the "ALL CAPS" confused things. I've fixed it, although because it seems to me that it would be awkward for the next mention of the term not to be wikified, I've left both instances as links.  I think it works better that way, but if anyone thinks that is a problem, I'm certainly not offended by further efforts to copyedit. Steveozone (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Two last gurus?
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)

Vandalism
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)

Vegetarianism?

 * Why are this page and the Sikh page linked to vegetarianism? Sikhism in general has nothing to do with vegetarianism, consumption of meat is allowed. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_religion#Sikhism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.195.236 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you read the article, in order to have WP:Balance we have included for the fact their are some vociforous and loud (although small in number), sects that wish to make Sikhism into a Vegetarian offshoot of Vaishnavism. You are correct, that Vegetariansim really has nothing to do with Sikhism. I have changed the template to Diet in Sikhism Thanks --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 08:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental Connections With Islamic Teachings
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)

Sikhs in the British Army
I've removed this section, which was recently added to the article for several reasons:
 * 1) The section contained original research, in that it made claims that were not supported by the references. For example: "The Battle of Saragarhi is considered one of the greatest battles in British military history..
 * 2) Incorrect information. Example: "Sikhs accounted for over 25% of the British soldiers who fought in WW1 and WW2". A scan of available references suggests that Sikh's were about 22% of the Indian Army.
 * 3) Lack of citations. For example, the previous statement lacked a citation, as did several other significant claims.
 * 4) Incorrect citations. Example: "Sikhs of the war. Abel." Should be: "Arjan Singh Flora Lions of the Great War. firstworldwar.com"
 * 5) The article is about Sikhism (the religion). Not about the military history of Sikhs.

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)


 * After removing the material above, what is left in the article is in the section on "Growth of Sikhi and Rise of Khalsa". It needs to be re-written (bearing in mind that the article is about Sikh religion) and properly referenced. I've added "citation needed" tags. Sunray (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Verification needed - Sikhism and cannabis
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)
 * Hi Fellow editor, I don't think it matter whether it is an anon IP. The only thing that matters is that it is a WP:Verifiable source they have added. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 16:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sikhhistory, No, the other way round, I added the verifiable sources which say Sikhs do not smoke cannabis. The IP was just writing text claiming Sikhs do smoke cannabis. Anyway a different IP has now deleted the entire section, which I think is probably right. Can you Sikhhistory, or others, perhaps please add the page to your watchlist in case the IP returns? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fact or Aspiration?
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)
 * Read page 19 of this. See what you think. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 14:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H. 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)
 * I was not commenting either way. I personally think it's an aspiration and something that Duggal confirms.On a side note, I didn't think Duggals book was that bad. It has some very good references.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 13:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making the change in the article, <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H — I think you are knowledgeable enough to do so confidently. Of course I would still like to see a citation to the sources of this and the entire paragraph. If you can find this information in the book by K. S. Duggal, please cite that book and page. (I did take the time to look up Duggal, and whatever reservations I have about The Philosophy and Faith of Sikhism, Duggal has many works on Sikhism to his or her credit.) I read most of what was available in the Google preview, specifically pp. 19-31 which include the entire chapter 3, "The Saint-Soldiers" and I saw neither footnotes, inline citations nor any references to the sources of the stories recounted at all, other than a citation of a creation scripture from the "Holy Granth" said to have been quoted by Guru Hargobind. Perhaps the book has endnotes with page numbers linking source citations to the page on which each item is recounted, but if so, I did not see those.  In looking for scholarly sources I discovered that there is an English language Encyclopedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh that was published in 1992 by Punjabi University. That might be a good place to look up the statements in this article that still require sources, though the list of sources used already in this article is itself quite extensive. —Blanchette (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"sightless"
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)

Counting
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)


 * Looks like the introduction has been updated to use "over 30 million" in both places now, but if you follow the citation for the first use of the figure, it's from an article on Adherents.com, that references a 1998 article in the Christian Science Monitor. Especially since the second point in the sentence (that it's a fast-growing religion) is from 2010 (and cites a dead link), we should probably find an updated number. Kasanax (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Waheguru vs. Vāhigurū
This article uses both spellings. One spelling should be selected and the other removed. —Designate (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How many Sikhs?
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)


 * proposal implemented. Apuldram (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you've had a conversation by yourself and implemented your own proposal? Instead of deleting why not find a WP:Reliable source? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 14:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sikhism is the fifth largest organised religion in the world. Total number anywhere between 25 to 30 million.

Here are some links,
 * The Washington Post.
 * Huffington Post.

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)


 * Great. Congratulations for finding sources.  Apuldram (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Location of Punjab region
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)

Edit wars
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)


 * Please do not accuse other editors of edit warring when you are doing the same yourself. A clearer and better (more comprehensive) phrasing is already contained in two sentences in the section on Baptism and the Khalsa. Also, User:Jujhar.pannu has made some constructive suggestions for you. I suggest you let the matter drop for a while. It's not an urgent priority. Apuldram (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There should be a section about the relationship with Hinduism
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.

Wikipedia : Summary Style WP:SS
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 <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 10:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok the Lead is now divided into a precise and concise summary:


 * 1) What and Where? - Sikhism
 * 2) Who? - Sikh
 * 3) When and What? Sikhism.
 * Note superfulous wording and information have been removed and can be incorporated in the main body. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 14:15, 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)
 * Your approach is wholly wrong. I've made the point aboit your WP:COMPETENCE before, and other editors agree with me. You clearly have not read WP:LEAD. You've tried to rewrite the lead with no WP:Consensus. What you are doing is making the articles even more confusing. If I as a University lecturer cannot understand what you are writing or talking about, the layman has no chance. The problem is not the definitions are incorrect, but your command of the English language is poor. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 21:31, 15 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)

Removal of referenced content in details section.
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)
 * Your WP:Personal attack is our of order. If you persist with this behaviour you will end up permanently blocked. Rather than attack me and engage in WP:Edit War's, state here what you are trying to say and maybe I can write in a manner that is legible. Your written English is pretty poor and past WP:Competence issues have caused me and other editors concerns. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 12:07, 7 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)

Sikhism and Pantheism
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)


 * Approaches to History: Essays in Indian Historiography
 * 

Criticism section?
Most "isms" generally have various critiques. What about this? JDiala (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * JDiala, you never visited Criticism of Sikhism? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then this article should have a section on that with a summary of the main article. This will adhere to featured article criterion 1.b., where the article "neglect[s] no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Airborne84 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Airborne84, you should give a try then. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I get some time perhaps. Airborne84 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Remembrance
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 <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Gender roles
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
Restorative Justice and fighting oppression are the same thing. The difference is one is a long winded way of saying the same thing. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 18:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please engage with me on this talk page rather than just doing tit for tat edits. Read Pashaura Singh's excellent paper on restorative Justice and divine justice. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 10:41, 21 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)

22 may 2014 edit
Can anyone check this edit? I am not sure what is happening here...Super48paul (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Chronology
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)
 * After the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839, the Sikh Empire fell into disorder ...
 * ... eventually  when? fell on the shoulders of his youngest son, Maharaja Duleep Singh.
 * Soon after, when? the British began to attack the Sikh Kingdom. ...
 * ... The Empire was eventually when? annexed by the United Kingdom, bringing the Punjab under the British Raj.
 * A quarter of a century later Please give a year, Sikhs formed the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and the Shiromani Akali Dal to preserve Sikhs' religious and political organization. Of the violence that accompanied the Partition of India That was 1947, right?, historians Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh write: ...

Influences
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)

English Headings
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 <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 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)

Removal of lengthy SGPC section in lead
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)


 * Please clarify explicitly which policy of Wikipedia has been violated ? Please clarify the "unencyclopedic" language aspect. I am not sure if there are any limitations on the length of the lead section. Are there ? I am sure there exist pages with longer lead Sections. I understand your comments on WP:COPYVIOs, I would try to improve the text on this count. As to the unsourced flowerly additions, I can certainly add sources for each one of them, I just thought for improved readability, Wikipedia typically does not recommend too many source citations in the lead. In any case, I am quite sure that many of those have already been mentioned in the later Sections. Js82 (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And do note that whether someone may like it or not, all of removed information is factual, and crucial. If you believe the language is "unencyclopedic", please contribute positively by making an effort to improve it, rather than blindly taking the whole thing down. Js82 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * js82, the removed content is too detailed for the lead and is not included in the main body. The lead should summarize content that is include and supported by reliable sources in the body of the article. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sikhism
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":<ul> <li>From Guru Granth Sahib: </li> <li>From Guru Gobind Singh: </li> <li>From Gurdwara: "Historical Gurdwaras", Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, Punjab, India, www.SGPC.net, 2005. </li> <li>From Guru Nanak: </li> <li>From Guru Tegh Bahadur: http://sgpc.net/ten-guru-sahibs/guru-tegh-bahadur-sahib/</li> </ul>

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)

Deleting reliable sources?
@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)

Bhakti movement
What is your concern with including a sentence about Bhakti movement in the lead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To say anything of the Sikh Gurus taking any inspiration from Bhakti movement is fallacious. Sikh Gurus included the writings of other saints in the Guru Granth Sahib. Implying that as taking inspiration from them is completely false.


 * From Parasaraprasna, Kapur Singh, Guru Nanak Dev University Press, Amritsar


 * Thus those who see in the origin and contents of the Sikh movement anything of this VaiSlJavism or the historical Bhakti movement of the Middle ages, which was based on this VaiSDavism or cognate propositions, show a complete lack of understanding of the real nature of Sikhism. Beyond the fact that Sikhism is of historical proximity to this Bhakti movement of the Middle ages, and that it somewhat partakes of the atmosphere and temper of VaiSDavist climate, it has not much in common with the latter. Among the principal features of this climate are its anti-Brahmanical attitude, its preference for vernaculars26 over Sanskrit, its total surrender theory, such as Lokacarya's marjara27 doctrine, its stress on devotion through image-worship rather than through knowledge, and its own peculiar forms of ritualism, such as caste-marks. It is easy to demonstrate that similarities of Sikhism with some of these features are not so intimate or fundamental as to suggest any direct or indirect borrowing.


 * Js82 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Js82: I reworded it and embedded quotes to help verify. The content you added had issues: neither of the two sources you added directly supported what you added, your addition therefore seemed like OR, and one did not have page number(s). We need to rely on peer reviewed sources for this overview wikipedia article on Sikhism, and we must avoid personal opinions that are not peer reviewed, or that are fringe or undue. We must also explain all sides from recent reliable sources, not take a side, for NPOV. Please do not delete summary from recent scholarly references such as those from Oxford University Press. If you have objections, don't edit war, discuss it on this talk page for consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah Welch.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. Sourced info versus POV-pushing. It may be hard to swallow for the faithfull that gurus can be inspired by other people, and not only by God, but Wikipedia is a secular medium, not a manual of faith. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your source is not contradicting the claim that Sikhism had inspiration from the Bhakti movement. It does in fact say that Sikhism had "historical proximity" and it "partakes" the atmosphere of such movements. That suggests inspiration to me.
 * I also have doubts about the reliability of your source. Even though you have claimed that the publisher was the "Guru Nanak Dev University Press", the Google Books listing just says "Department of Guru Nanak Studies, Guru Nanak Dev University". The web site of the Press itself says that it was set up to "highlight the achievements" of the University itself. So, it counts as self publication. It is ok to take factual material from such sources when nothing better is available, but you can't use it shoot down books published by the world's leading academic publishers.
 * Finally, as per WP:DUE, all scholarly views published in reliable sources should be represented according to their prevalance in the sources. So, your source, if valid, can at best be used to state a contrary view in the article, but it cannot be grounds for suppressing the other scholarly views. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol at casting aspersions on an authoritative text, coming from the press (check the book) of one of the most reputed Universities in India and the world, and written by the only professor ever accorded the title of the National Professor of Sikhism.
 * Lol also at inferring historical proximity and partaking (=joining-in) as being an inspiration ?? Especially when the author clearly says that doing so shows a complete lack of understanding of Sikhism.
 * At least you tried to raise some seemingly logical concerns. The comments from the rest of the mob above are not even worth responding to. Yes, it is a despicable mob, and nothing else. Anyone with an impartial point of view reading this discussion would understand it. The mob can keep writing whatever it wants. No wonder Wikipedia enjoys zero credibility ! Js82 (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding University rankings:
 * Guru Nanek Dev University: Ranking Web of Universities: Ranking Web of Universities: 2708 worldwide, Times Higher Education: no mention
 * State University of New York: Ranking Web of Universities: 1639 worldwide, Times Higher Education: 351-400
 * Oxford University: Ranking Web of Universities: 13 worldwide, Times Higher Education: 2 worldwide
 * If you think that everyone who disagrees with you is a "despicable "mob, which can be ignored, then you can better start your own website. The credibility of Wikipedia won't be improved by POV-pushing, but depends on the sources that you want to inore. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Mr., 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)

Better articulated lead section
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)
 * Do you have comments? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. I reverted due to MOS:TEXT MOS:ACCESS and WP:NPOV issues. It was on recent changes, the last version looked good. Quick glance at the edit war going on showed that consesus was against the change. I reverted and recommended they talk it out.--Savonneux (talk) 01:10, 26 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)


 * @Js82: Your edits to the lead neither summarized the main article nor were based on WP:RS. They also distorted and misrepresented the sources such as Nesbitt's OUP book. I have reverted parts of this article's lead back to the version that existed before your waves of unexplained edits in recent weeks. Per WP:BRD, I ask that you get consensus from other wiki contributors before making such major changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've only recently become interested in this article, and wasn't aware of the wording of the lead prior to the recent edits. Having now seen it after your revert, I concur that it is better written and a better summary of the article than what it subsequently became. However, I do think the opening sentence ("Sikhism is a monistic monotheistic (panentheistic) religion.") would be somewhat off putting and difficult to digest for the average reader. It's packing a lot of complex potentially unfamiliar concepts in too few words and too early. I recommend something simpler, and combining it with the 2nd sentence, such as "...is a monotheistic religion founded in South Asia in the 15th century." DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa: Indeed. I too struggled with that opening sentence, either as "panentheistic" or "monistic montheistic", and favor something simpler for this overview wiki article on Sikhism. Your suggestion is well supported by the source and the main article. I will make the change, moving the monistic part elsewhere for the more technical reader. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:07, 18 September 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)

Lead language
Response to @Js82 reply on 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply 18 September discussion


 * @Js82: Please no personal attacks and hostile lectures such as "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)". Also, please include edit diffs when you make suggestions, question edits of other wiki contributors like me. Contrary to your beliefs, you did add here two references which did not support the content you added with those two references. If it did support the content, identify the page numbers in those two references you added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bastollah edits
@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)


 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015
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)


 * Welcome to wikipedia. Please review wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:V and WP:RS. The term Indian religion is a well accepted scholarly classification based on origin of various religions, such as in this Encyclopedia Britannica article wherein Sikhism is listed as an Indian religion. The "Indian religion" classification does not mean that a specific religion is limited to India or any geographical area in the modern era. This wiki article already acknowledges that Sikhism is "spread out around the world" in the lead's first para. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ In scholarly usage, "India" refers to the land of India and its people from the beginning of history. See History of India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Dr. Sanjit Kaur. Although I do not contest the term Indian religion per se, geographical origin characterizations for religions hardly carry much value. Further in this scenario, it does tend to confuse the ordinary reader who is far from being a scholar. And even further, the Buddhism page also does not mention the Indian religion term in the lead.


 * I believe till some time ago the first paragraph concluded as "With over 25 million adherents.....Sikhism is the 5th largest organized religion in the world", and then it was changed to major Indian religion, from where it became minor Indian religion, and now it became Indian religion. I propose to change it to the original stable version.  Docxx (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The existing lede is clear and has a neutral pov. The statement "with over 25 million adherents" is already still there (10:00 4 November). I don't like "The 5th largest ..." Why include competition between religions? Apuldram (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Revelation again and WP:BRD
@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)


 * The first issue here is use of use of the word "revealed" religion, which was completely well sourced, but you have reverted (and again, you have also done some massive modifications without any consensus at all), to show some two theories. Your whole argument is based on one sentence from one source, while I would provide several additional references below (in addition to the reliable sources already include). But, before that, your (one) source does not even contradict it being a revelation !!


 * From your own one source:


 * Page 78: "...Guru Gobind Singh's work is best understood as the fulfillment of Guru Nanak's revelation. The Sikh organization had taken on the semblance of a State during..."


 * So your own source is describing it as "Guru Nanak's revelation". Now, my addition was well-sourced, and I can add here tens of other sources. But, I believe, at this point, there is no need to even share them, since your own source agrees with revelation.


 * Next, you keep quoting the sentence on "not being Prophet, but illumined soul". As per your own definition, "Prophet is one who utters divinely inspired revelations, believed to have come from God". In this sense, since your own source says revelations, it is completely fringe and weak to consider the "non-Prophet" aspect as reliable. Especially when there are 10s of other reliable sources (in addition to the reliable sources already include) that also use the words "revelations" and "Prophets". And further, again, even in your own source, when describing "Guru", we have


 * "On account of his divine prerogative and attributes the Guru, though human in form, is godly in spirit. God speaks to humanity through him. God enlightens the seekers of truth through him and his word."


 * The author also states, "Guru Gobind Singh tells Bhai Nand Lal .... (Guru is) the Light which is eternally God and represents God's Being in pure form. It is because of the consummate perfection, that God is in the Guru and the Guru is in God."


 * So, I have not even brought it any of the other 10s of sources (in addition to the ones that are already included), and your own single source is so weak (rather, on the contrary, it actually supports "revelations", "God is in the Guru" "God speaks to humanity through him"). As I had said before, it is you who needs to get consensus before your massive unexplained edits that you keep performing.


 * And finally, as a general advice, the fact that Sikhs consider the Gurus to be direct messengers sent by God, and the Guru Granth Sahib to be the word of God, is one of the most basic and fundamental beliefs in Sikhism. I am surprised you are not aware of such a basic and fundamental aspect. Js82 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Js82: You are interpreting and doing OR on sources. You are also arguing against a direct quote from Singha. This is not okay. We just summarize the sources. You used a "dictionary" as source. Dictionaries are a good source to understand the various contextual meanings of a word, nothing more. For this article, we need to rely on scholarly discussions, consider multiple reliable sources, and summarize the different sides with balance. If you have additional scholarly / reliable published sources that have not been summarized, please identify them with page numbers. We can then build a consensus version together. My other edits are primarily clean up, deletion of unreliable blogs/websites with unclear editorial oversight (WP:QUESTIONABLE), and removal of text for which citation needed request has been pending for a while. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop preaching the OR mantra repeatedly to me. I understand it well. It is you who is inserting your own OR by concocting up your own two-theories. I was just directly quoting material from your own one source, to tear apart your own fake arguments. As always, you continue to make massive OR based changes to the article, acting in such a haphazard manner without getting any resemblance of a consensus, and messing up the entire article.


 * And while we are at it, here are numerous more references that should leave no one in doubt regarding the revelations and prophecy aspects (many directly from the Guru Granth Sahib):


 * From "The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices By William Owen Cole, Piara Singh Sambhi", page 10-11


 * "Explaining what had happened he said that he was taken to the court of God and escorted into the divine presence. There a cup was filled with amrit (nectar) and was given to him with the command, This is the cup of the adoration of God's name. Drink it. I am with you. I bless you and raise you up. Whoever remembers you will enjoy my favour. Go, rejoice in my name and teach others to do so. I have bestowed the gift of my name upon you. Let this be your calling.' It is said that his first poetic utterance after this experience was the Mul Mantra (see p. 70) in which the concept of the divinity which he had experienced is encapsulated."


 * A passage in the Guru Granth Sahib (one amongst the many) is said to be another description of his experience:


 * "I was once a worthless minstrel then the Divine One gave me work; I received the primal injunction: Sing divine glory night and day! The sovereign called the minstrel to the True Mansion: I was given the robe of honouring and exalting; I tasted the food of the true ambrosial Name. Those who, through the Guru feast on the Divine food win eternal joy and peace. Your minstrel spreads your glory by singing your Word. Nanak says, by exalting the Truth we attain the Absolute One. (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 150)"


 * "The Gurbani is God and it is through it that humans attain union with God" (Page 39, GGS)''' ""


 * "The revealed word in the Guru Granth Sahib is called Bani or Gurbani ... Sikhism is not a product of history. It is based on its prophets' spiritual experiences ..'''""


 * "No Catholic ascetic has ever been more absorbed in the contemplation of the Deity than was the prophet Nanak when giving utterance to his rhapsodies.'''""


 * "...Significantly, in Sikhism, the claim of revelation has repeatedly been made by the Gurus themselves, and it stands authenticated in the Scripture compiled by the Fifth Guru...., Their revelations formed the basis of Sikhism, and the Sikh Gurus became its founders, .... The Guru is a messenger of God sent to enlighten mankind. .... (In the Guru Granth Sahib), Guru Nanak says, “O Lalo, I say what the Lord commands me to convey". .... Therefore, as a prophet of a new religion, he (Guru Nanak) once and for all made it plain that ...., Spiritual Experience Of The Gurus : Every prophet builds the structure of his religious system on the foundations of his spiritual experience of the Basic Reality or God ..., “Nanak says the word of Truth. He expresses only the Truth; it is time to convey the Truth.”..., “I have recited Thy Name only when You made me say it.” “I have no voice of my own; all that I have said, is His Command.” “Guru’s words are divine nectar; these quench all spiritual thirst.” “Consider the bani of the satguru the words of Truth. O Sikhs, it is the Lord who makes me convey them.” “The Word is the Guru; my consciousness is the follower and listening to the ineffable account of the Lord, I remain untainted by maya.'''" .."


 * "Sikh means disciple and the Prophets are called Gurus'''""


 * "Guru refers to one of the ten Sikh Prophets...'''""


 * "Wisdom of the Prophet Nanak and the Sikhs'''""


 * "It is said that..He (Guru Nanak) received a vision of God, who gave him instructions for his mission'''".."


 * "In Sikh religion the word 'Guru' does not denote a teacher, or an expert or a guide in human body. When God manifested his attributes in person, that person was called 'Guru Nanak'"


 * "The Divine Word in Guru Granth Sahib came to the Gurus direct from God."


 * "Shabde upje amrit baani Gurmukh aakh Sunavnia From God springs ambrosial Gurbani. The exalted Guru narrates and preaches the same to the world. (Majh Mohalla 3. GGS: Page 125) Ek akhar tin nakhia, Jin Jagat sabh upaaia This Word come from Him, Who hath created the World (Mohalla 4. GGS: Page 306)"


 * "Jeh bid sur updeshia so sunre bhaai Whatever the Lord hath instructed me, Hear, O my brother (Tilang Mohalla 9. GGS: Page 727). So Guru is also used for Gurbani, the Divine Word. Since Gurbani came direct from God, Gurbani is Guru too."


 * "Like Baisakhi 1699, Guru Nanak's revelatlon in the river is remembered by generations Of Sikhs as an irrefutable fact, and carries a profound significance."


 * "Guru Naak has authenticated his Revelation in his own words when he speaks to Bhai Lalo and thus communicates what God makes him see as the trance-inducing charm of the Cosmic Drama created and sustained by Him."


 * "As the Guru Granth itself proclaims: 'Know the Book as the site of the ultimate One —- pothi parmesur ka than' (GG: 1226). The revelation of the Gurus connects the Sikhs with the Divine."


 * ""implications of Guru Nanak’s revelations which they themselves compiled and recorded as the Sikh scripture, the Guru Granth", ... "Nanak is the first born in India who claims that the religion he preaches is a revealed religion. “I am completely dumb as I am and I speak as I am made to, by God.” “I utter and preach the Word just as it comes to me.” " "


 * "The Sikhs are bidden to accept the Revelation of the true Guru as true for ever and for ever, for it is God Himselfwho maketh the Guru utter it., .... It is explained that, the Revelation of the Guru is the Light of the World; through it God's Grace descendeth into the human Soul, .... It is asserted that as the Guru's Revelation pervadeth in the world, it redeemeth man through the Name of God."


 * 'More coming :-)





@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 @ 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)


 * Blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. "What I am saying is correct, what you are saying is false/incorrect representation/OR". This is Sarah Welch mode of operation.


 * I am having a good laugh at some of your above logic, but also sympathize with you, seeing how hard you are trying to refute a mountain of evidence, just to cling on. Also, This is what you told me above "You are interpreting and doing OR on sources. You are also arguing against a direct quote from Singha. This is not okay. We just summarize the sources" And now, I just gave a mountain of direct quotes from numerous references, and you are giving explanations about what a revelation is and not. LOL :-)


 * Keep Going an and you must refute each and every sentence in each of the references cited above. Once you do that, I will bring in as many more!.


 * On a more serious note, I would urge some of the other "neutral" editors to come in. This is nothing but a waste of time, to try convincing someone who is just not willing to learn and is only interested in pushing her own biased POV, even faced with a mountain of evidence, and even when their own single source actually supports the revelation aspect ("Guru Nanak's revelations", "God is in the Guru" "God speaks to humanity through him")). If all this does not prove "revelations" "prophets" conclusively, then clearly, this is not a place for me and any new editors, but just a place for a small coterie of people with their own biased hidden agendas. And if you are indeed a neutral editor, you should come in, before the rest of coterie jumps in with their blind approval of Sarah Welch's agenda ! Js82 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the serious note: "Blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. " is not a serious response. Please stick to the issue, instead of repeatedly attacking Ms Sarah Welch. Your behaviour is typical of POV-pushers who can't stand it that they are contradicted, no matter what religion they are adhering to: the pattern is always the same.
 * Ms Sarah Welch makes clear that there are different interpretations of both the status of Sikhism and the meaning of a guru. You want to present only one of those meanings as the meaning. It seems to that your pushing a faith-perspective. The fact that there are dozen of (primary) sources which take the same stance, does not alter the fact that there are also other stances.
 * As fas as I can see, various perspectives have been presented now in the text, which is in line with Wiki-policies. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:35, 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...

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)


 * Been following the discussions here for some time; decided to get in. I have added content on Bhakti discussion to make it neutral. I have also removed the content on this topic till some consensus. The included content did not appear to be neutral. Concerns can be discussed here.
 * A full disclosure first up: This account is not from JS, although IPs are linked. Having read on the sockpuppet and meatpuppet issues, it is certain that one can get this account removed. So if someone wants to get an investigation done, you can just respond here first, so I do not end up wasting everyone's time further. Docxx.


 * @Docxx: Welcome to wikipedia. You need to offer persuasive answers to questions above. And why is it not neutral, when the article includes summary of the side(s) you don't like but has been published by multiple scholars in peer reviewed scholarly sources? Have you read WP:NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:25, 25 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)


 * How familiair this sounds... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Docxx: You allege that I "also mention that some of the sources are not reliable because of no citations." Where? My concern is different, it is whether Js82's sources are peer reviewed scholarship (plagiarized books by Gyan Publishing House are not), and that we must avoid websites with unclear / absent editorial oversight. One of the issues with your two edits is that by deleting content and sources, as you did here, you are removing significant and different views in scholarly publications, thus violating WP:NPOV. We cannot interpret GGS here, as it is a primary source. If there is a reliable source that does the interpretation and hasn't been summarized yet, please identify and we can work on it together. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I quote from your own post : "nor has any scholar cited many of @Js82's sources" as a reasoning for "unreliable sources"


 * You have been mentioning the "working together" aspect. But I am sorry to say your posts and conduct does not inspire much confidence that you would indeed work together. I am a very busy person in real life and would not be interested in spending time here unless there is some evidence of something concrete coming out. As a gesture of good faith I would request you to first undo my two edits. First edit was related to Bhakti movement and in accordance with what you have mentioned yourself, removing that piece removes the "significant and differing view" thus violating NPOV. The second edit had removed the content on revelations which has had no consensus and is absolutely inadequate, as I explained above.


 * I also do not understand at all what the two theories are. Have you quoted this directly from a source ? Or is this your original research ? Docxx (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edits have already been undone. Regarding the "two theories," you can read it in the article:
 * "There are two competing theories on Guru Nanak's teachings.[71] One, according to Cole and Sambhi, is based on hagiographical Janamsakhis,[72] and states that 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.[73] The other states, Nanak was a Guru. According to Singha, "Sikhism does not subscribe to the theory of incarnation or the concept of prophethood. But it has a pivotal concept of Guru. He is not an incarnation of God, not even a prophet. He is an illumined soul."[74]"
 * Please refrain from comments like "Or is this your original research ?" They are personal attacks, not tokens of "good faith." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:19, 28 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)


 * Since there is no response to my query on the two-theories, and the disputed content has also not been removed (I only asked for it to be taken off in good faith till some consensus), I am going to make some edits. My intention is not to edit war and I hope others would reciprocate; if this does turn into an edit war, I would not proceed further. I also urge some other editor such as (who seems to be an experienced and interested editor) to share their perspective.


 * At the risk of sounding repetitive once more: Essentially, I do not see any real source that contradicts the fact of Guru Nanak's revelation. The only one source that has been presented above as an apparent contradiction itself uses the words revelations (and also states/quotes that Guru is Godly in spirit, God speaks to humanity through him, God is in the Guru and the Guru is in God, ....). Hence, it is extremely hard to understand what exactly the author implies when he states Sikhism does not believe in Prophethood. Certainly, he is not contesting the revelations aspect (since he himself uses the words "Guru Nanak's revelations", God speaks to humanity through Guru, ....). (And although not essential to the arguments here, if we were to actually interpret the author, the only logical meaning one can derive, which seems justified if one also reads the text surrounding this statement is that, Sikhism does not believe that the Gurus followed in the "chain of Prophets that starts with Abraham and ends with Prophet Mohammed". In other words, it appears that the author is mainly trying to distinguish Sikhism from other religions, but not contesting the revelation standpoint). Further, one may note that this source has zero citations. As to the sources supporting revelations and referring the Gurus as Prophets, all the other sources listed above directly support and many quote verses coming directly from the Gurus to bring home the point.


 * Regarding the claim that Sikhism does not believe in exclusive revelation, I have no objections to that. Docxx (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I made edits on this topic. I spent good time trying to think through and capture the sources. I hope my efforts would be respected, and you would kindly refrain from edit warring. Please note I did not add the word "revealed" religion in the lead as of yet. If anyone has concerns on that addition, kindly share. In any case, I am open to discussing any and all issues one may have in a civil manner. Thank you. Docxx (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Docxx: Your edits and style remain disruptive and suffer from the same issues as @Js82. Can you explain your relation to @Js82 username, which you hinted at here? Since your have been reverted, per WP:BRD, you need to discuss before restoring your edits. Do not re-delete the same scholarly sources, get consensus. Once again, I repeat my October 25 offer above: "Is there a reliable source that states something different or does the interpretation and hasn't been summarized yet?, please identify and we can work on it together." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:00, 6 November 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)


 * Yes. In your case it's Sockpuppet investigations/Js82, which has been re-opened. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

History section
, 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)
 * The deafening silence this request has received so far does not mean it has been ignored, but it reflects the need for source research before the task is undertaken. Apuldram (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OR and editwarring
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)


 * Here is a 2nd attempt. You reverted my three edits, alleging unnecessary unexplained changes. You can find the explanation in the edit summaries, here, here and here. Please explain your action, give the edit summaries there. Welcome to wikipedia, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My one edit is attributing one source correctly to one of Jujhar Pannu's edits as he probably jumbled up the sources. Others, they again pertain to two edits he made which are fine for me. I do not agree with the changes you are making to them. may also want to share his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinsi281 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 11 January 2016‎


 * So, here we go again? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Number" of Hindu and Muslim Bhagats
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)


 * @Pinsi281: Indeed. The main article mentions 13 Hindu and 2 Muslim Bhagats, and the lead section need not. But the reason for this addition is to remove the WP:OR-synthesis in the following sentence that @Jujhar.pannu changed and you have been edit warring about, "The development of Sikhism was influenced by the Bhakti movement and the writings of these Bhagats are included in the Guru Granth Sahib." That is not what the sources state, and it is misleading. Bhakti movement started centuries before the birth of Guru Nanak, and its influence was not limited to those Bhagats. We must stick with the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of Wikipedia being anti India
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
 * Or perhaps a user did it. Wikipedia is not a person, nor are everybody on Wikipedia of the same mind. Jeppiz (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Guru Nanak was born in present-day Pakistan. Sikhism was born before the partition, so it is more neutral to describe its birthplace as South Asia or the Indian subcontinent or, as in the article, the Punjab region. That doesn't indicate a like or dislike. Apuldram (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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)


 * @2605:e000:2483:af00:544e:d865:b3fa:1454: Welcome to wikipedia. @Apuldram is correct, and South Asia etc is indeed the right phrasing. This article's lead had "Indian religion" wording before, someone changed it recently, and I have returned it to that phrasing with a source published by Cambridge University Press. On rest of your post, please know that this talk page is not a forum and wikipedia strives to follow certain policies and content guidelines. Please avoid using this talk page for uncivil commentary on @Apuldram, who is a neutral, hard working and a valued contributor to Sikhism-related pages of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 changes to the lead
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. please check, are you able to verify? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * Neither @Apuldram nor I can verify what you added in the sources. The 14th- to 17th-century claim you inserted in the lead, for Bhakti movement is not supported by the sources, is inconsistent with Bhakti movement history, and your OR. Your offer to "provide evidence based on the Sri Guru Granth Sahib directly", which is in good faith, but we cannot interpret primary sources in wikipedia. Yes, you can quote primary text exactly, and add a scholar's interpretation/translation of it - but you cannot add your own OR to this article. The content or conclusions or interpretation you propose for this article must be WP:RS. Since this is a major edit by you, that two editors are unable to verify, per WP:BRD you should discuss it here and get consensus. Let us start with your, "The purpose of the religion is . . . " - which page number(s) is this from? Or pick whatever you feel is fully supported, identify which page number(s) it is from. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, Sources I checked a second time, today, that failed WP:V – Sewa Kalsi's Sikhism, Grewal's The Sikhs of Punjab, Patwant Singh's The Sikhs, and David Lorenzen plus Louis Fenech on Bhakti movement. Please identify the correct page number(s) and we can work together to improve this article. Let us keep in mind that the lead should summarize the key points of the main article and WP:RS sourced. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is dangerous editing I would not revert again without justification. I agree with the Bhakti Movement timeline and now no time is included. I will look for more quotes for the '"..to unite the various religious peoples of different backgrounds on a common platform, and to fight social injustice and promote equality and unity of mankind."' I am concerned primarily about the internal Guru you removed and said couldn't verify. The McLeod book referenced includes defining the eternal one and supreme God as the Guru, found in Textual Sources for the Study of Sikhism Page 139. Is there anything else that you were not able to verify? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you miss @Apuldram's and my justification above? You are mistaken when you allege, "I am concerned primarily about the internal Guru you removed...". That is the only thing of yours I did not delete. If you study my edit more carefully, you will find I just moved it from lead into a main article section here. Rest of your edits are contested, justification being WP:V. I suggest you respect WP:BRD process. You choices are to either embed quotes inside the cites using "quote=", or provide page numbers on this talk page where your changes can be verified. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:49, 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)


 * I now have the 2007 edition. The last para reads "Guru Nanak's Guru was God Himself as he received his commission from straightaway. He, therefore, projected himself as His 'Bard' et al. When he blended his Divine Light with Guru Angad...." (exact quote). Is this WP:DUE for the lead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 discussion

 * I noticed you reverted the recent source addition with a rather strange edit summary. I have no idea what has "we discussed these changes...." got to do with this source addition. I have added sources to strengthen Jujhar Pannu's recent content addition. Mainly to get rid of the "states Surjit Gandhi", that unnecessarily makes the world believe that only one Surjit Gandhi believes so. These added reliable sources unambiguously state that actually "Guru Nanak said so". Please justify your actions. Pinsi281 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have been edit warring with this for a while now, in a manner similar to @Js82. See you January edits here and here, for example. You were reverted and the current version reflects the consensus version given the sources. Why now ignore all those sources? It is you who needs to justify the change, given what the various sources state. If you find a new source, it does not mean all other sources must be ignored. The new source, on page 116, states Nanak referred to himself as bard, slave, even a dog of God. Is adding that WP:DUE for lead? We need balance per WP:NPOV, and follow the WP:LEAD guidelines. Your changes to the lead need consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A summary from the new source is now in the main article. Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch I read your most recent edit. I understand where you are coming from but I feel we should strive to make the lead section succinct. Accordingly, I have simplified the paragraph. Now, it does not say anything more than what it said before my first change earlier today. I am hoping this is agreeable. As I stated, more sources were added to get rid of "states Surjit Gandhi" which falsely gives the impression that only Surjit Gandhi believes so. Mr. Apuldram is welcome to comment.


 * Could you please also just stop with your rather strange assertions and personal attacks. It is evident above that if anyone was edit warring unnecessarily in the past it was you, without even having read the sources. Pinsi281 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Pinsi281: Please don't copy-paste or excessively close phrase the text from copyrighted sources. See WP:Copyvio. You must also not do WP:OR by implying what majority of the sources don't. The belief in reincarnation, for example, has been part of Sikhism. See Eleanor Nesbitt's book published by Oxford University Press. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not copy-paste anything, rather you are not representing the sources correctly. Just stop with your childish mode of operation based only on unending accusations. And it is not human reincarnation we are talking about, it is incarnation of God as a human being, which is rejected by Sikhism, clearly stated in all cited sources which you just removed.
 * The second paragraph of the lead is too long and can be shortened significantly, as I proposed. Can you please justify why you reverted it ? Pinsi281 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 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)


 * I have no idea what my version is inadvertently emphasizing or deemphasizing, and what that has to do with any older versions from other users. If you have any concerns just state them explicitly and openly rather than going around in circles and casting aspersions.


 * The 2nd paragraph is too long, and can be compressed significantly without altering the content from what it was before this round of debates began. This is my simple version:


 * Sikhism is based on the teachings of the ten Sikh Gurus (enlightened masters). The first Guru, Guru Nanak had stated that his own Guru was God, the divine preceptor, and had projected himself as God's mouthpiece or God's servant. Before his death in 1708, Guru Gobind Singh, the last Guru in human form, decreed that the holy scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, would be the final and perpetual Guru of the Sikhs.


 * I would let other editors chime in and comment if they have any issues with it.


 * You also need to justify your inclusion of "not a reincarnation of God", "only a teacher", etc etc that you have added to the 2nd paragraph without any discussion.


 * Pinsi281 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Pinsi281: You just have to read the sources at the end of the sentences, and the Nesbitt source I mentioned above on reincarnation. Or just read Jaap Sahib, found at the start of Dasam Granth, which is a long devotional acceptance and recital of numerous Hindu god avatars (reincarnations) among other things. The names of the "reincarnations of (Hindu) God" are also reverentially included in Guru Granth Sahib. So, your edits violate WP:NPOV. I suggest you self revert, given you are past WP:3RR and your edit has WP:Copyvio issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Lead change
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: I concur with @Joshua Jonathan that your version of lead, for which you have been edit-warring, is less informative and a poor summary than this version restored by @JJ. The restored version acknowledges the role of Guru Nanak, the ten Gurus, and the importance of Guru Granth Sahib. If we mention "God's mouthpiece", we must mention "but maintained that he was a teacher, was not a reincarnation of God or in any way related to God" for WP:NPOV and because that is what the source states. Your version does not remove "alleged confusion / complication", it implies Nanak to be "related to God/prophet", which Nanak clarified he was not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know how it implies Nanak to be God. As I said, it just states "Nanak's Guru is God" (LAST CONSENSUS VERSION, without "states Surjit Gandhi"). By the way, for you, Prophet = God ? Pinsi281 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Pinsi281: You are misrepresenting your edit, because the latest version of the lead as you reverted @Joshua Jonathan, is not the "last consensus version". On your prophet question, this talk page is not a forum. See WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What ? I never summarized it as "last consensus version". Please stop lying. Pinsi281 (talk) 17:39, 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)

Largest religions-link
I suggest linking "[fifth] largest religon" in the lead to Major 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)