Talk:Sikhs/Archive 2

Can someone check Frank?
Can someone with access to the refernce material check whether this recent diff is in line with what Frank says in the cited ref? Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Sentence
"The thought process and actions on the world plane are to be so that veil of the five evils, lust anger greed, ego and lust is dispelled and the soul can be united with the creator." This needs to be rewritten by someone familiar with the material. I note 4 evils + a repeat, for one thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.79.114 (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

sikh musical instruments
in the section about Sikh music and instruments it says that the Guru Har Gobind (1595-1644) has developed or encouraged the development of musical instruments like the Sarangi or the Taus. Do you have sources for that? It says in quite many books, that for example the Taus (which is also called by the Hindu name Mayuri) is a quite young type, developed in the 19th century. One even stated, that the first time it was mentioned was in 1856. How do you know that it was the Guru Har Gobind who developed the Taus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious31 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice info thanks
Nice. --82.46.199.25 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There were no Siks in Punjab Haryana, It was the policy of Sardar patel who used the siks in 1947 to genocide muslims. IN 1947 killing millions of muslims looting their property and their women went on in Sonipat, Panipat, Haryana under instruction from Vallabh bhai patel. Thi swas the foundation of new Sonipat, Panipat, Haryana.

Punjab : The wealthiest state?
Lot of the facts in this article are without reliable sources. I dont know from which data source the article claim that Punjab is the wealthiest state in India(due to Sikh?). These are the lines from article "The Sikh majority state of Punjab is also statistically the wealthiest (per capita) with the average Punjabi enjoying the highest income in India, 3 times the national Indian average"

Check Facts here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_India_by_size_of_economy

Even haryana which is predominantly Hindu has much higher per capita income. This need to be fixed or the wording need to be changed to "one of the". On the one hand article say a Sikh control India's nuclear weapon on the other it says they are being discriminated. This article is full of biases. There are lot of non-sikhs living in Punjab. And Haryana & Delhi has lot of Sikhs. Such figures can be mentioned under the article Punjab but here they seem to be telling that Punjab is rich due to Sikh, undermining the contribution of other communities. I dont know what we achieve by such articles. No Disrespect to anyone.

--Mirja — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirjaJat (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Punjabi Sikhs
The article uses the term "Punjabi Sikhs" repeatedly. I know that not all Punjabis are Sikhs, but Im just curious to know whether all Sikhs are ethnically Punjabi people? If so, maybe this could be included in the article. ќמшמφטтгמ torque 09:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there are many Sikhs who aren't Punjabi but because Sikhism has historical roots in Punjab they play a prominent role in it's history--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias
This article is full of bias, I'm a Sikh myself, but it is clear that a bunch of people, ignoring wikipedia's standards, came in here and starting throwing things around like, "Sikhs have showed so much courage in the face of battle, without them, the British would have lost all their wars.", and " Sikhs are extremely important, without their supreme courage, India would collapse." There needs to be more neutral outsiders editing this. User:Wastedgrunt36 —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC). There is not much Sikh and Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.102.61 (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Really over the top
This article is full of nonsence. No disrespect meant to Sikhs, but this article is simply a one sided rant in praise of Sikhs talking about how brave they are. Most brave this and most brave that. True, Sikhs are brave soldiers. But Thermopylae? Give me a break! Thermopylae was important not only because of the fact that a few thousand Greeks of various city states lead by 300 Spartans used terrain to their advantage to defend against a Persian army that vastly outnumbered them, but what made that battle so important in the terms of the future was that Greek civilization was allowed to continue. The history of the world from that point on was determined by Thermopylae. We today would be the inheritors of Persian, rather than Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian culture were it not for that battle. To compare a minor fight, no matter how brave and respactable the heroes, to Thermopylae is the folly of a laughably amateur wanna be historian, probably around the age of 12. This whole article needs to be scrubbed of bias and self praise. - Ya'acov Ben Uziel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.201.224 (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are the "we" you speak of? Wikipedia is not restricted to any specific part of humanity. Judeo-Christian culture? That battle took place half a millenium ere Jesus Christ was born. 217.233.206.174 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever take a moment to think it was not the importance of the battle but the number. The author was speaking of the fact that in most to every battle Sikhs where outnumbered and outranked. Yet they still broke through. You also do realize that the Persians ended up winning the overall war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.46.147 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

5 Ks or 6?
I just visited this page to learn about Sikhism and was very impressed with the values described. Therefore, when I came across what I believe was someone who had made a prank entry, I was inspired to register with Wikipedia for the first time to be able to alert you to this. I believe there are only 5 Ks, not 6; yet someone has adulterated the text (see pasted below) to read "Six Ks" and has added a ridiculous entry "Kellogs, ... usually eaten with milk". I hope that someone with editing privileges can fix this. Best wishes

Six KsMain articles: Khalsa and Sahajdhari Kanga, Kara and Kirpan—three of the five articles of faith endowed to the Sikhs.The Five Ks, or panj kakaar/kakke, are five articles of faith that all baptized Sikhs (also called Khalsa Sikhs) are typically obliged to wear at all times, as commanded by the tenth Sikh Guru, who so ordered on the day of Baisakhi Amrit Sanskar in 1699. The symbols are worn for identification and representation of the ideals of Sikhism, such as honesty, equality, fidelity, militarism, meditating on God, and never bowing to tyranny.[37]

The six symbols are:

Kesh (uncut hair, usually tied and wrapped in the Sikh Turban, Dastar.) Kanga (wooden comb, usually worn under the Dastar.) Kellogs (cartboard box, usually eaten with milk Dastar.) Kachchhera (characteristic shorts, usually white in color.) Kara (iron bracelet, which is a symbol of eternity.) Kirpan (curved sword, comes in different sizes, for example in the UK Sikhs would wear a small sharp dagger whereas in the Punjab Sikhs would wear the traditional curved sword, from one to three feet in length.) Nancybiller (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions
I reverted these edits by User:Sharmalabs, since the first edit summary given: "those lines were hurting religious sentiments and were unnecessarily added" suggest the edit was made in an attempt to censor information (I can't make a judgement about the relevance of the sentence deleted since it is unsourced, my objection stems solely from the rationale given for the deletion which is clearly against Wikipedia policy). The second edit removed a number of persons from the "Notable Sikhs in the modern era", even though several of the articles of these persons mention their Sikh background.

Instead of going to this talk page to defend their edits as per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, Sharmalabs instead reverted my reversions with the edit summary: "Don't ever show this kind of bullying attiute ever, first do some research and then undo the edits" and then posted this harangue on my talk page.

Sharmalabs has still failed to come up with a reasonable explanation for their edits, so I propose reverting them again if none are provided in the near future. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let me tell you that i am not so free to reply you in 1000 words as you did. It seems like you have forgot what wikipedia is a community based project, it's not your personal property. If you are so much dedicated to remove my edits, then prove that what i deleted was wrong. Give me the reference for EACH entry what you are unediting from past 3 days. There is no place of bullying in wikipedia. I you think that you are right then prove it over here. - User:Sharmalabs


 * That is not how it works. And please this is the last time I ask you: Stop accusing other editors of bullying, as it constitutes a personal attack. This dispute is the first interaction I have with you as an editor, I have not in any way mentioned anything about you as an editor but only about the article content. This is a content dispute, and it is a normal process in Wikipedia, so you please do not take this so personally. Furthermore Wikipedia works as per consensus, the previous consensus was to have the persons listed (as well as the sentence "and is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by serving people of all origins the same (vegetarian) food" which you insist on removing). You were being bold and removed a number of persons with the rather vague rationale "fake/self named entries deleted", later exapnded with the equally vague "It's not a scrapbook to write personal details against notable member of community". A great number of the persons are included in the Sikhs category (or sub categories) or their Sikh background is mentioned in the article text itself, which leads me to conclude that at least a number of the entries on the list has been removed on insufficient grounds.
 * As such it is up to you to explain in a lot more detail why you want these entries removed from the list. "Fake" is obviously not true in all cases, and you have yet to explain precisely what it is that is written "against notable member[s] of [the] community".
 * Lastly please stop reverting, as it constitutes edit warring and is a blockable offense. You will need to achieve a consensus for your deletions before they are to be carried out. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments Shermalabs, please refrain from personal attacks or you will be blocked from editing. Focus on the content and not the contributor. If you know what Wikipedia is for, then you should also know the policies that support your reason for removing the content. Saddhiyama, per WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation". This part of the sentence "and is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by" is being challenged by Shermalabs. If you do not have reliable sources to support the material, you should not include it again. In fact, per WP:UNDUE, you should have significant reliable sources that demonstrate this is the mainstream view in India before adding it back to the article. I've protected the article for two days to allow discussion.--v/r - TP 14:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I acknowledge and appreciate the summation of the policy of verifiability. But we also have an editing policy which stresses that problems should be tried to be fixed before being deleted. This is a policy that is difficult to maintain when the editor that wants to delete the material does not want to provide a reasonable rationale for the deletion. This applies both to the quoted sentence and the entries in the list of notable Sikhs. Uncited material can be deleted, I agree, but the normal process is to add a "Citation needed" template and give other editors time to find a citation for the statement, unless it is a sentence that violates other primary policies like WP:BLP. Something I believe is not the case here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A cn tag can be used but isn't neccessary. The rest of that paragraph in the editing policy covers content that should be retained.  This editor obviously feels this specific sentence shouldn't.  Besides the grammar issues, it insinuates a negative connotation about a group of living people.  It's exactly right to remove it until a source of found.  The WP:BURDEN is on the editor asking to retain the material, not the editor wanting to remove it.--v/r - TP 14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I am not particular attached to that sentence either, however the removal of entries in the list is clearly problematic. As I stated a lot of the persons are included in the category or subcategory of Sikh persons, or it is mentioned in the article itself. I am looking forward to hearing the exact reasons for their removal from the list by the user formerly known as Sharmalabs but now styles themselves User:Sherepunjab. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, i am not entitled to give you all the explanations personally for whatever i do on wikipedia. Whatever i have edited i wrote the explanation in the space provided for the same. U seem to be keenly interested in all my activities on the wikipedia. Talking in wikipedia's language,only if you have citation for any one of the entries i have deleted, then talk to me regarding this matter. Moreover user Tparis( T), i am not afraid of getting banned. Go ahead if you want to, but you have to give reason for that. -User:Sherepunjab/User:Sharmalabs
 * I'll have a reason if your continue with personal attacks. Discussion is part of the Wikipedia-process.  If someone reverts your edits, you're required to discuss them on the talk page before restoring them.  You must use Wikipedia policy to support your edits.  If you cannot do this, then controversial edits are not likely to stick and you'll be wasting your time.  You are not entitled (read the definition of entitled, you used it wrong) to do anything here, you are obligated to explain your edits and not edit war.  Read this chapter Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Resolving Content Disputes.  Personal attacks are not how you resolve content disputes, we call that a battleground mentality.--v/r - TP 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the numerous requests for Sherepunjab to provide an acceptable explanation as to the deleted entries on the list of notable Sikhs has so far proved fruitless, I have restored those persons on the list whose respective articles clearly defines them as Sikh. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dagger
This is all that needs to be told † <--- REMOVE THAT SYMBOL FROM THIS ARTICLE. Chirstianity has no right to syombolise Religion in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frebra (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a cross, it is actually a dagger. The only cross that appears in the article is the image of the Victoria Cross. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Guru Nanak
Guru Nanak as the founder and as someone that had a revelation from GOD for three days should be included in first section of this page. This page has good information however does not flow properly to give a comprehensive introduction into Sikhism, it could be allot better.please could you inlcude this in the first part as many people are unawre of the important meeting between GOD and Guru Nanak that started sikhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.119.172 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Guru Nanak
Here is a reference I have found for the introduction of Guru Nanak.(THE MEETING BETWEEN HIM AND GOD)

Cole, W. Owen; Sambhi, Piara Singh (1978). The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 9–10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh321 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Moghuls did not persecute Sikhs
During 16th Century Moghul Rule, The moghul army was sent the to fight and stop the looting and recovery of National treasure ( the land tax collected by Moghuls) which was looted by Sikhs during its way to Delhi.The Moghul army caught one of the Sikh religious leaders during fight with Sikh Insurgent army. Later he was taken to Delhi and was given death sentance by Moughal Court in Delhi as to stop the further sikh attacks on royal treasure.He was one of the Gurus ( Sikhism is not based on peace as been falsely stated their Guru preach to loot the treasure and kill the army)The final verdict was to bury him alive in red fort which was done by the Moghul Army. No restrictions were placed by Moghuls. Later their Gurus made all sikhs to take oath " sawa lakh se ek bhidaoon" meanin One sikh will kill 125,000 muslims. This statement is still written in all sikh religious books. which can be verified at any sikh temples in US, UK, Australia, Canada etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.102.61 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Moghul emperors treated people of india like slaves and there were many atrocities committed by them. One emperor named Ahmad shah abdali the Afghan ruler attacked india 17 times and each time he looted india and took slaves from india, there was no one to check his sinful activities. Only Sikhs were there because no one dared to stand and fight against him. Sikhs fought against moghuls. Many times sikhs died fighting against them and if they were captured by moghuls they were treated in the same way as taliban rulers treat people. The so called treasure were slaves and looted material by moghuls. " sawa lakh se ek ladaoon" meaning One sikh could dare to fight 125,000 enemies, was made to boost the morale of sikhs when they went to wars against moghuls as moghul outnumbered sikhs in wars.Sehmeet singh (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The moguls' horrible deeds have been well documented throughout India not just by the Sikhs but by a lot of people like the marathas, Europeans and others.They were slave traders ,killers, rapists,etc and power hungry you need to do more research on sikhs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh321 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

'sawa lakh se ek ladaoon' was used for boosting morale but it did not directly state it was to fight muslims,though they were fighting them at the time, it was used to state that 1 sikh can fight 125,000, The Gurus used to state a sikh will and can fight 125,000 enemies, where did the muslim bit came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh321 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2012
Guru Nanak as the founder and as someone that had a revelation from GOD for three days should be included in first section of this page. This page has good information however does not flow properly to give a comprehensive introduction into Sikhism, it could be allot better.I would advise to state at the top ,that Guru Nanak had a meeting with God that lasted for three days and that this started sikhism as this is one of the most important points about sikhism. This information can esaily be found online where it states its orign so it can be referenced.

Sikh321 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BURDEN, it is your responsibility to find a source to back up what you're saying. FloBo   A boat that can float!  (watch me float!)  13:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is not protected now, so no edit request needed. RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2012
Here is a reference I have found for the introduction of Guru Nanak.(THE MEETING BETWEEN HIM AND GOD)

Cole, W. Owen; Sambhi, Piara Singh (1978). The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 9–10.

Sikh321 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Expiration on this page expired, so you can make any required edits yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Reincarnation similar to Karma?
In the Teachings section it is stated that "The Sikh school of thought believes in a form of reincarnation similar to Karma." - This doesn't make sense; the aspects of Karma which are similar to reincarnation need further explanation. Although the term 'Karma' is widely used in the West, it is often only understood as a tally of good vs bad deeds. It might be more useful to compare the Sikh concept of reincarnation to Hindu and Buddhist conceptions. Tim flatus (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sikh concept differs from Hinduism and other faiths. I other faith Karma determines how you will be born in other faiths for example if you do bad things you maybe born a cockroach. Sikhism's view is there is no hierarchy amongst humans (i.e. caste system which is determined by Karma). Karma for Sikhs is more akin to whatever bad things you do now will affect you now. More akin to what goes around will come around. Thanks S H 10:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of merge of Mona Sikhs to this article



 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a Merge Proposal and Redirect–Move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the target talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request for the Proposal to Merge Mona Sikhs into this talk page's article was: Not Done: Article taken to AfD–cannot merge as requested.

I do not believe the above-named article warrants its own article space, but rather than proposing it for deletion, suggest that it be merged into this one. b e s i e g e d talk 04:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed Karmos (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As discussed earlier Mona Sikh should be merged with Patit. Mona means a person who cuts his/her hair and Patit is common Sikh term as well as legal term used for Sikh who cuts (dishonors) his/her hair, so it should be merged with Patit. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mona Sikhs should be merged with Sehajdhari. Thanks S H 12:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What I'm hearing here is religious-types excluding a group they don't like because they don't follow their rules precisely. You might as well be claiming that Protestant belongs under Heretic instead of under Christian. Just because your religious sensibilities are offended does not mean that these people are not Sikhs, because they obviously consider themselves such. A religious law definition does NOT adequately describe this group of people, nor their culture, and to try to shoe-horn these people into an article space which leaves no room for statements other than "we don't like these people because they don't follow our rules" is disingenuous at best, and I believe that both this article and this merge request need the benefit of a neutral subject expert. b e s i e g e d  talk 18:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably you really don't know what you are talking about. I know what i am talking about. It's not about like or hate. Even I was born in Sikh family and i don't keep hair. There is not something like different groups. Patit/Mona are only terms used for those Sikhs who cut their hair like me. Sikh is Sikh. Khalsa is used for those who gone through Baptism, Sehajdhari is used for a person born in non-sikh family and wants to be a Sikh/doing ceremonies etc according to Sikh tradition and Patit/ Mona is used for those persons who cut or trim their hair or do other prohibitions, so there is no difference between Patit and Mona. You can also say that these (Patit and Mona) are two different names of same thing. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be a special sect, and should be treated as such. The Mona Sikh article needs considerable expansion and sourcing-the present treatment is totally inadequate even to someone who has relatively little interest. The Mona Sikh article needs, just as importantly, rewording,. The use of "true sikh" to describe those who follow only some of the traditional practices is highly derogatory; a more neutral term can be found. (The article sometimes uses "tradition", which I would think both clear and appropriate.  But I am not willing to make the change to Orthodox without knowing if either group involved would consider it inappropriate.  I have made one or two changes for clarity.
 * Similarly, I am not sure about the use of mona Sikhs as opposed to Khalsas. The first sentences says that this group regard themselves as within the Khalsa Sikh tradition in spite of their departure from some of the practices, but later sentences imply otherwise. I think it possible that the two groups regard this question very differently. We need some sources.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 20:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A copy of this template can be found here.

Sikh Music and Instruments
The article says that the (musical instrument) "Taus is the Persian word for peacock." Why would Sikhs use a Persian word? India was never part of the Persian Empire. Persian is also not among the languages listed in the table.


 * OK, so the influence of Persian probably came in with the Mughal Empire; should there be some explanation? Ileanadu (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph in this section starts out talking about "Sikhs" but ends up talking about "Singhs." I assume it's the same group, thus the article should stick with "Sikh." If "Singh" is a synonym for "Sikh" that should probably be mentioned somewhere at the beginning. Otherwise, in the article "Singh" is only used in names. Ileanadu (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Persian is a major language in Sikhism. Sikhism has no holy Language. Gurmukhi is the font that is used to write. The language spoken is called Sant Bhasi, wich means language of the Saints. This includes: Punjabi, Sankrit, Persian, Arabic and Brij Bahsa. All of the Sikh Gurus and almost all of the Saints have been fluent in Persian and they have composed many poems in Persian. 84singh84 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sikhs are referred to as Singhs to by many South Asian countries. I personally do think that it should be changed to Sikh. Only Sikhs abd South Asians will understand when it says Singh and I understand how hard it gets for someone who has no idea of the similarities and gets confused. 84singh84 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkey
Really, there are two Sikhs, that is 2, in Turkey. AND thats a significant population? Also the source, 2013 Turkey Census (PDF) doesn't provide a link, sounds like bullshit to me. 108.175.230.14 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Propoganda in the article
There is a lot of propaganda in the article utilizing links from similar propaganda stuff available in the internet. The Congress initiated riots is termed as Hindu. The BJP's and Sangh's action during the riots which included the rescue of Kushwant Singh and many other Sikhs is not even mentioned. Kushwant Singh himself has explained this that when he felt in Nazi Germany it was the Hindu Sangh that came to his rescue. So its time to remove those anti-Hindu version and put the things in right perspective.Politicalpandit (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the answer is to say what reliable sources say. If the sources portray two or more versions of the events then it is our role to say so, without adding our own assertions as to what is "propaganda" and what is the "right perspective".  At the moment the issue that you mention cites a source, so the first thing is to check that the source has been accurately represented in this article (see below). If it has then it has the right to remain, albeit so do other reliably sourced versions. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

dude,whatever the first guy said is right.The BJP and the sangh did take protective action, this has even been said even by Khushwant Singh.59.180.142.138 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, find a source that says that, and put it in the article. It is not up to you to say what is propaganda, it is only up to you to provide sources. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source that BJP and RSS helped Sikhs during Riots straight from the mouth of the Horse :). As per Khuswant Singh : : R.S.S. is a communal organization and dangerous to the country's secular fabric. Look what they did to Muslims in Gujrat. However, they take a different approach with the Sikhs. During the 1984 Sikh pogrom, they did save many Sikh lives. R.S.S. volunteers participated during the tercentenary celebrations of the Khalsa in 1999. They consider the Khalsa to be a military wing of Hinduism and their savior.

http://www.sikhtimes.com/bios_021503a.html —(talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Khuswant also said

J.S.T.: Some Sikhs say we are discriminated against in India. What do you think?

K.S.: No, not at all. They are making progress all over the country. They are in the mainstream of Indian life. They are now found in almost all political parties, even the R.S.S.

K.S.: That is correct. Sikhs are kes-dhari Hindus. Their religious source is Hinduism. Sikhism is a tradition developed within Hinduism. Guru Granth Sahib reflects Vedantic philosophy and Japji Sahib is based on the Upanishads. http://www.sikhtimes.com/bios_021503a.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirja (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

this above is all hindu propaganda. sikh are definitely discriminated against in india they are killed in fake encounters. that is a long history of hindus going after sikhs to raze their history and heritage. this is just another attempt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.135.176 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol Khuswant Singh is a Sikh as far as I know. Moreover a sikh is the prime minister of India. Which world you live in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MirjaJat (talk • contribs) 04:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That was vandalism that had happened 2 hours before your comment, 76.65.21.64. It has been reverted. AtticusX (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up - the number in 'countries with significant populations' is just over twenty million (and there are so few by the end of the list any others are negligible), but the total is given as thirty million - either some of the sources are very out of date or the total is a major exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santokh Singh Ahuja (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)41.185.138.201 (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ik Onkar
ik onkar means one god — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.165.194 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What is a "Significant Population"?
The list of countries with "significant populations" of Sikhs is rather long and it ends up taking up a lot of space. Just for fun I did the math on the significant population in Ireland. This significant population of 1,200 people is 0.026667% of the population in Ireland and 0.004444% of the global Sikh population. Can we agree that less than 1/10th of one percent does not equal significant and remove all the countries from Kuwait to Ireland?DouglasCalvert (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Error in Philosophy section
The current article reads "The guiding principles of the Sikh faith are Truth, Equality, Freedom and ." I don't know if this is a grammatical or meaningful error, I hope someone can correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.184.0.170 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert
My addition to "see also" of a reference to an article on jokes about Sikhs was reverted with edit summary "This is hardly needed". This is a wikipedian's personal opinion and not a valid reason for revert. On the contrary IMO it is needed for better understanding the topic for a person who is not familiar with Indian life. These jokes are clearly a notable controversy. Telling people that they don't need to know something is censorship and not allowed in wikipedia.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean any censorship. Sardarji Jokes are notable(thats why they have their own WP page) but then so are many other things much more notable. "see also" section is for linking other articles for better understanding of that topic or articles on different topic but sharing some common defining characteristic with the subject. I don't think that Saradarji jokes or for that matter any ethnic jokes reflects anything about that particular community and so may actually help for better understanding about that community. By definition these are not supposed to give one the real information or knowledge. Another minor reason is that these are not really original, a large number of jokes are just imported from section of jokes about other communities. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A community does not stand in isolation of the outside world. Therefore perceptions of others about the community is important in understanding of the interaction of the community with others. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And how does jokes tell about the perception? Does other communities actually believe that something happens to Sikhs at midnight or that they are actually naïve, inept, unintelligent, unclean? Coming back to the point of linking the article in See Also, I will say again that concept of Sardarji jokes is not very notable in the understanding of Sikhism or Sikh people, and is a minor topic.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  04:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Does other communities actually believe" - a good question. Did you read the article 'Sardarji joke' with some critical thought? I did, and I found the explanation of the origins of the joke actually speaks of certain aspects of Sikhs in the Indian society  and actually complements this article.  Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I did read. Thats why I wrote that statement after the question mark in my previous reply. It is a very small dot in the entire sphere of information about Sikhs as an ethnic or religious group. We can not link everything related to Sikh in see also and from what I understand the purpose of "See Also", much more relevant topics which could be linked there are for example Sardar, or other ethnic groups which may have historical connection with Sikhs.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of Sikh
°°== Origin of the word 'Sikh' == Sikh is a Punjabi word, derived from the sanskrit word Shishya meaning disciple (of a Guru or teacher){shishya→shish→sish→sikh}Santokh Singh Ahuja (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your reliable source we can cite for that? -- Neil N   talk to me  12:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The lede currently says:
 * The term "Sikh" means disciple, student, or .
 * This means that the term "Sikh" has three meanings:
 * disciple
 * student
 * So what does  mean?
 * I suspect, because of the presence of the parens around , that it was meant to be the Sanskrit word for student, and that the line should read:
 * The term "Sikh" means disciple or student (Sanskrit:).
 * Alternatively, if  means both disciple and student and is therefore the IAST transliteration of the same word of which "Sikh" is the transliteration (using some other system), then it should read:
 * The term "Sikh" (Sanskrit:) means disciple or student.
 * Also, the Infobox contains a footnote: "† Estimated figure as of 2004." which is not referred to anywhere (i.e. there is no dagger anywhere else in the article).
 * Help? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 00:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Help? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 00:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A translation of a hymn from SGGS p 305 appears in the article which says "lord- Har" while the Guru used the word Hari and not Har as stated.Pl refer to the original from SGGS for clarification.Santokh Singh Ahuja (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any Sanskrit dictionary will tell you that the word śikṣa (also pronounced Shiksha) means teaching and not disciple. Equivalent for disciple is Shishya.Santokh Singh Ahuja (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote in the lead
There is a big quote in the lead, which I think is not required. It is the definition of a Sikh taken from Guru Granth Sahib. First lead section is suppose to summarize the rest of articles, so the quote should be kept somewhere else e.g. in Philosophy section. But there too, it can be given in form a summary. So if no one has an objection. I like to remove that text from the lead. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You probably meant "to move from the lead to a more appropriate place", right? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually want to totally get rid of it. But moving to some other sections is the minimum I wish. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also this article is about Sikh as people. But a whole lot of text in the article is about Sikhism (religion), which is just duplicated in article Sikhism. I will like to clean that also.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it should definitely not be on the lede. Especially since it has no context as to why it is there or its importance. I also think it should probably not even be in the article. Secondary and tertiary sources should be used to outline Sikh beliefs. 212.64.67.52 (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello User:‎Jujhar.pannu, per WP:LEAD, lead section is suppose to summarize the rest of articles. This big quotation, is discussed no where in the article and there is not suitable for the lead. If you are interested in keeping it in the article, please tell which section, it should be moved to? -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the very beginning of Philosophy? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here it was pointed that quotes need to be verbatim, and this one is not. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 22:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed quote looks acceptable now Jujhar.pannu (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do u know what verbatim means ? -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to reply? Either discuss properly or leave this topic. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Amritsar
Speaking of "historical" facts, why is there no mention of the attack at Amritsar ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.226.149 (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Amritsar
Speaking of "historical" facts, why is there no mention of the attack at Amritsar ? http://www.amritsar.com/Amritsar.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.226.149 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111006124130/http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/british/churchill-sir-winston-dp1.html to http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/british/churchill-sir-winston-dp1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Original and archived link checked. Both found to be dead. Link in article marked as dead. Apuldram (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition
I feel that the definition of Sikh (the very title of this article) from the Guru Granth Sahib deserves a place in lead section. Yes there is a definition already in first paragraph but that is as per Sikh Rehat Maryada, which states, among other criterion that a Sikh must believe in the Guru Granth Sahib. So it would be but natural to follow this and next state what the Guru Granth Sahib actually defines a Sikh to be (in what is an abundantly clear definition). Please state your objections if any. Sisu55 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A long quotation is not appropriate for an article's lead section, which is a summary of its most important contents, see WP:LEAD. The lead could contain a summary statement, such as: "A poem in the Guru Granth Sahib sets out the daily routine of a devout Sikh". Apuldram (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.overseasindian.in/2007/jan/news/25n3.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/statement.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/british/churchill-sir-winston-dp1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.overseasindian.in/2007/jan/news/25n3.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/statement.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/british/churchill-sir-winston-dp1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Apuldram (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs
The article is quite comprehensive regarding the clothing aspects of the Sikh religion - such as uncut hair, turbans, cotton undergarments, blade, bracelet, etc. More information about specific religious beliefs, other than their monotheism and how they start their days, might benefit the article.

I came to the page to find out what the Sikh believe, but remain ignorant, except for the points noted and their history and challenges. Do they have so-called commandments that they follow? Does their religion oppose lying, stealing, adultery, eating certain foods, pre-maritial sex, certain technologies, equal rights between genders or sexual orientation, etc.

The article helped me better understand what a Sikh looks like, and empathize with the challenges and persecution they have faced - but what does their religion teach, condone, oppose, and support? Did I completely overlook these sections? If so, I apologize. Tesseract501 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The information you seek is in the article Sikhism. The second sentence of the lead from that article could well be incorporated here. What do others think?  Apuldram (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate the info.  I always thought the religion was called Sikh, not Sikhism.  No wonder I didn't find what I was looking for before.  Thanks again for helping me out. Tesseract501 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

september
something happened. it be done.

ASG 171.48.65.120 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeated attempts by Hindus trying to claim their last name is a derivative of Sikh nomenclature
Hello,

I've noticed a two IPs repeatedly trying to insert their Hindu name as Sikh, see here and here for two recent examples. I've noticed a similar behaviour by muslims who attempted to sneak their faith into a name whose nomenclature is derived from the Sindh area (drop the n and you'll see). Given the shared land and historical aspect of this area, this was less of a surprise than Prajapati and Kumar trying to pretend they are Sikh.

As a pure-bred who is proud of his heritage and the INNUMERABLE (MILLIONS) who have SACRIFICED for ALL SIKH people, from Anglo-Sikh Wars to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, to World War I and World War II, I am getting increasingly upset that the hindu people continue to try and sneak their names in hopes of being respected in the Commonwealth Realms, as if they have fought side-by-side for centuries with the "white man" they so often deride when among their own kind.

Some of the ALL TIME (Gerard Lake, 1st Viscount Lake, and by extension: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, among others) greats put their neck out on the line for us, undertaking us as a lofty civilisation project that they were aware would need attention long after their own passing. I do not take hindus and muslims trying to hide under our (EARNED) banner lightly.

First the Mussulmans orchestrated Operation Blue star, going so far as allowing one of their own to be adopted by Mahatma Ghandi so that Nehru could be perceived by the uneducated hindu masses as the second coming, followed by an unwarranted attack on our temple which resulted in her own death. From here, they decided that attacking approximately TEN THOUSAND sikhs (1984 anti-Sikh riots)) was the right course of action.

If that wasn't enough, they went even further by planting a muslim (Reyat is a muslim last name) who APPEARED to be Sikh (similar Turban styling etc) to bomb Air India, which was blamed on us.

History has shown that James Mill was right, and regardless of what the Hindus want to argue, their names will never be Sikh and we do not want them. We are not interested in a high population or converting those who are not born Sikh. Asking thirty million (if that is the number. it seems high) to acquire sufficient education to appreciate our faith is difficult enough as-is, we do not need others trying to hop on the bandwagon.

I already have enough difficulty accepting there are some "Sikh" people who allege that baptism doesn't require abstaining from consuming meat (outrageous. of course it does!), as this is clearly not true. Those raised as Sikh would understand how things like this are prone to manipulation when the likes of "Prajapati and Kumhar" want to be considered Sikh: fond of our reputation but not the discipline that's apparent among legitimate communities.

There has been attempt to systematically degrade and weaken the meaning of our religion, and hindus and muslims attempting to live in the Commonwealth is no small representation of this reckless behaviour.

Cease and desist, immediately.

Thank you. 187.217.189.229 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

what happened yaar
some r wearing turban and making bribes with britain?

do something yaar?

i am loyal to gobind rai.

223.225.190.103 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Kaur Prince or Princess?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaur Claims that Kaur means Prince, and has a long explenation for why, (gender equality)

while this article claims that Kaur means princess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.243.125 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, compiled by learned scholars and published by the Punjabi University, Kaur means princess: "KAUR, from Sanskrit kumārī or kuṅvārī meaning a princess, young girl, or virgin, is a suffix which, by tradition and under stipulated code of conduct, is added to the names of all Sikh females, so that like their male counterpart, Siṅghs, they all have a common surname." I would trust the Encyclopaedia and the University.  Wikis are not acceptable sources, see user generated sources. Apuldram (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sikh nationalism
I've deleted this section. Using a dictionary in this way is original research. The 2nd source is the American Congressional Record. I can't read it but I suspect it was something entered by a member of Congress and not an official statement. The third source is good, but it doesn't argue that there is a Sikh nation, it discusses the problems of Sikh nationalist claims. By all means use it and other sources to discuss it, but from an NPOV perspective and with better sources. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Kindly explain how you are claiming your edits enforce NPOV. Sikh nationalism can definitely be discussed, and indeed it has been under the history section. However the deletion of the section in question is justified and consistent as per WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Salma Mahmoud The topic could be developed further, but apart from that, it meets all the requirements to be considered an WP:NPOV. The reliably sourced topic is not WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. All claims are backed with multiple reliable sources by multiple scholars. Peeta Singh (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're using WP:IAR to WP:EDITWAR shows that you're unwilling to follow due procedure and policy, despite being addressed on multiple occasions by multiple different users.
 * You have not addressed how the section is WP:OR? The sources discuss the merits and problems of Sikh nationalist claims, they don't state that Sikhs are a nationality because of said definition of what a nation is - as you've inserted into the article. --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Salma Mahmoud, using WP:BRD to remove the content was inappropriate and disruptive. It prevented from improving Wikipedia; therefore, it was ignored.

Please see the references in the Sikh nationality section. The section does not violate WP:OR, there are reliable, published sources about the topic that are cited in the section. The reliable sources do define the a Sikh nation as inserted into the article.

Peeta Singh (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It violated OR to use a dictionary definition that doesn't mention Sikhs to define Sikhs as a nation. If you disagree, take it to WP:NOR. It appears you copied it without attribution which is, by the way, a copyright violation. Being used in another article doesn't make it not OR.

Deleted text
Although the Sikh homeland; Punjab, has not for centuries been an independent nation state, but rather a province within India and Pakistan, the Sikhs may still be regarded as a "nation" according to the definition: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory".ref>

Note that I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as Sikh nationalism - I've added a section about it, or that there aren't claims for a Sikh nation. But those need to be discussed in the article, not asserted as fact.

Sources for a Sikh nation need to discuss a Sikh nation. An American Congressman is not a reliable source for this. Nation and migration can be used to discuss Sikh nationalism, but not in this way. The author isn't claiming there is a Sikh nation, he's reporting claims by others. And using it as a source for the statement that it may be regarded as a nation without pointing out that the author also says "To make their case, however, Sikh nationalist rhetori cians are perforce required to ignore or explain away such uncomfortable facts as coresidence and intermarriage with Punjabi Hindus, the existence of Sindhispeaking Sikhs and EuroAmerican Sikh converts, and long standing caste, regional, and sectarian differences among Sikhs.7 The entire thrust of such nationalist rhetoric, with its neady bounded and differenti ated social units, flies in the face of much that we know about the social history of Punjab over the past five centuries. Nevertheless, given that nationalist discourse has become a dominant political discourse of the contemporary world, it is hardly surprising that Sikhs might represent themselves in its terms to advance their claims." is a violation of NPOV. I don't think you understand NPOV. The same goes for the rest of the academic sources. There is clearly something called Sikh nationalism and claims that Sikhs are a nation, but that needs to be framed as a discussion. And you absolutely should not use a snippet. Again, snippets have no context - what this shows is simply that there are these arguments - maybe the next sentence shows that others disagree, and you'd have to include that to represent the source fairly. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Quotations from Guru Granth Sahib
I have removed the quotations in the section Castes, as their relevance to the section is not clear. They appear to be random quotations, all with the same reference. The first sentence of the section, that Guru Nanak said in Japji Sahib that all souls are to be treated with care and respect, is indeed relevant to the section, but needs support from a verifiable reliable source. The quotations don't provide that. Apuldram (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

_______________________________

@Apuldram Please explain why the reference I have placed was random and irrelevant. West India has major issues that is causing anti-nationalism. Sikhism is there to help to be inclusive of all people. How would you like to see this paragraph corrected?

Guru Nanak has mentioned in his first composition of Jup Ji Sahib which is recited daily by all practicing Sikhs that all souls are to be treated with care and respect as God is the Giver of all souls.

"The Guru has given me this one understanding: there is only the One, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him!", Guru Granth Sahib, 2

Guru Nanak also said that blessings are rained down when the lowly person, regardless of any background are cared for.

"In that place where the lowly are cared for-there, the Blessings of Your Glance of Grace rain down." , Guru Granth Sahib, 15

Guru Nanak also has spoken we need to prize humility above all and thus caste is not an issue.

"One who takes pride in wealth and lands is a fool, blind and ignorant.

One whose heart is mercifully blessed with abiding humility,

O Nanak, is liberated here, and obtains peace hereafter." [Granth Sahib, 278]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2017‎ (UTC)
 * The section is about castes and your first statement, that everybody is to be treated with care and respect, is relevant, but needs support from a verifiable reliable source. The quotations you provide do not give this support. The first quotation (GS2) is an exhortation never to forget God. It doesn't mention castes or the treatment of everybody with care and respect. It is not relevant. The second quotation (GS 15) refers to a place where the lowly are cared for.  Again, it doesn't support your initial statement, and is not relevant, The third quotation (GS 278) refers to those who take pride in wealth and lands and to those with humility.  Again not relevant.
 * You need to find a reliable source that explicitly states that Nanak said that all people are to be treated with the same care and respect.
 * Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Apuldram (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

____________________________________________

@Apuldram: The first quote, Guru Nanak mentions God is God of ALL mankind. God is not just one or two but all. This is where Guru Nanak justifies the equality of castes because God giver of all is God of ALL. Unless, you are an atheist, please explain why you think "God of All mankind" is only "God of a few" and why what you say matters when this about Guru Nanak and not about you.

The second quote is absolutely relevant. That's in an important point to participate in God's blessing by caring for others. Please explain why this has nothing to do with caste or treating others well when there is a need with the lowly regardless of their background according to Guru Nanak. Do you think Guru Nanak is wrong about caring for the lowly or that it doesn't refer to spiritually poor or low castes?

In the 3rd quote, humility is important in treatment of others especially people of different background. Why do you disagree with Guru Nanak and why do you think humility is not needed in treatment of others, including people of different castes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2017‎ (UTC)


 * Nowhere in "The Guru has given me this one understanding: there is only the One, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him!" is there any indication that everybody is to be treated with care and respect. That is your personal interpretation, and constitutes original research. You have also added your own words to the second quotation, expanding "the lowly" with "regardless of their background", implying that it applies to everybody.  That also is original research. The third quotation advocates humility.  Humility is having a modest opinion of one's own importance. It is not the same as treating others with care and respect. Three irrelevant quotations are not a substitute for one good source. You still need to find a reliable source that directly supports the statement that Nanak said that all people are to be treated with the same care and respect. Original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. No original research is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Apuldram (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Apuldram: I beg to differ with your interpretation of these scriptures as they were written in Gurmukhi and not English and I read Gurmukhi in its original form. I feel you have a strong bias towards atheism. In Q1, God is the giver of all souls. Does God not see my actions towards others when I ask God for my blessing? God of all souls certainly sees my actions and judges me. In Q2, Please help me understand who is lowly in your opinion. How is my interpretation not correct? In Q3, humility does not equate to low self-esteem. Humility is honoring others before self. We can honor others while also think well of ourselves. And God sees the honesty in our souls.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment No comment on the interpretation but do note that the Guru Granth Sahib is a primary source and should not be used as a citation support for anything in the article. Please look for scholarly interpretations before attempting to restore the text (which I am reverting). --regentspark (comment) 21:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@regentspark : What the Guru says is part of Sikhism? Without Guru Granth Sahib, there is no Sikh. The quotes are directly from Dr Sant Singh Khalsa from its published source. I am happy to take out my interpretation but not the quoted translations from Guru Granth Sahib itself.
 * True. But please see WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources require interpretation and, surely, there are many scholarly papers on Sikhism? You should be looking at those rather than quoting and interpreting the Guru Granth Sahib. --regentspark (comment) 21:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@regentspark: I think other source are not reliable as the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Therefore, I believe what all Sikhs believe as reliable source for Sikhism rather than secondary references from different individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's not how wikipedia works. You need to read WP:PRIMARY (as well as the entire WP:NOR). Like I said, primary sources are open to interpretation, which is why we use secondary sources instead. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@regentspark: Dr Sant Singh Khalsa is translator and interpreter of Guru Granth Sahib and is a trusted source which is also then a secondary reference.
 * This is not good 76.14. A translation is not the same thing as a scholarly paper. You're going to have a hard time here if you can't get that straight. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@regentspark: I am not running anywhere, feel free to keep bringing it here. Dr Sant Singh Khalsa is NO DOUBT A VERY GOOD SCHOLAR and he has interpreted it and his work published online and in pdf. What else ARE YOU PERSONALLY looking for?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050318143533/http://www.ik13.com/online_library.htm to http://www.ik13.com/online_library.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010042708/http://sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html to http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715132020/http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/22588/38/ to http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/22588/38/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)