Talk:Sikhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article Sikhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions

Sikhism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Sikhism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 17, 2006.

Sikhism is a selected article on the India Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Sikhism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

To-do list for Sikhism:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Long term These points are outside of the scope of the current article. Sub-articles are required to expand on certain topics. Further information on decision making in Sikhism Philosophy of teachings, major social changes in Punjab Sikh traditions, culture, family values and religious adherence. Relation with Hindu mythology - a sensitive subject but we need to cover it The concept of 'Sarbat da Bhala' (the welfare of humanity) is an important concept in sikhism and needs to be covered. Sikhism by country

Archives
December 2002 – May 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – July 2006

Contents 1 Sikhism is a featured article 2 Sindhis and Sikhism 3 No section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one? 4 My tuppence 5 Hinduization of Sikhism 6 Sikhism Wikiproject 7 Pls check history for Aryan818's original comment 8 2 highly questionable statements 9 Racism 10 Adding of Islam relationship section 10.1 Relationship with Islam 11 Removal of relationships sections 12 Passing through 13 Sikhism Website 14 Impressive site 15 Conflicting "facts" 16 Vandalism 17 Monotheistic/Panentheistic 18 Comment on 'human Gurus' 19 Sikhism Website 20 Observances and ceremonies section 21 Masterbation 22 Downloadable Bani 23 race 24 Request for expansion 25 Sikkism and women, Sikkism and politics 26 Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation 27 Stub proposal

[edit] Sikhism is a featured article

Well done everyone. Sikhism is now a featured article on the English Wikipedia! Now I'm trying to get it on the front page of Wikipedia. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to all those who worked on this! -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats indeed ! Gurm 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sindhis and Sikhism

Does anyone have any information on Sindhis and Sikhism? I've been reading how a large portion of the Hindu Sindhi population revered Guru Nanak and how Sikhism was quite prominent in the Sindh prior to partition. Any further expansion on this could be good for the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is an interesting article relating to Sikhism and Hinduism. Now this is sourced, so it could be a good way to begin to find information for a paragraph in the article: [1]. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one?

Im trying to understand something....THeir are many people in the past up til even today who dont believe that the Gurus were trying to seperate Indians into a HIndu & Sikh catagory...Meaning that HIndus and Sikhs are supposed to be united as ONE...NOw u people obviously dont agree...and thats your opinion...But why wont u allow for a one sentence link to the article that argues about what im saying....Its just one sentence....thats all it is....Their should be a link for those who are interested in learning about this....and one more thing.....Please do not respond to this message and say to me that the reason you are not allowing it is because I do not provide evidence...I mean I have been putting tons & tons of evidence for a few weeks now....and even if i didnt....WHICH I DID....But even if i didnt...ALl the evidence is on the page that I am talking about! The page that I am arguing for has all the evidence....So new excuse do u people have now? ARYAN818 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please don't be rude - even if you think other people have been.

Secondly, what is the sentence you would like included? Please type it out. Keep in mind that no assumptions (POV) should be borne. This Fire Burns.....Always 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please provide the sentence or sentences you wish to add to the page with suitable citation. If it doesn't have a citation and it goes along the lines of "some Hindus believe..." or "some Sikhs believe..." then it won't be included (see WP:WEASEL).

Secondly - and I'm not trying to have a go at you here - you may have noticed you've received a slightly hostile reception on Wikipedia. I think you should examine the tone that you use when discussing matters and try and understand why people can take things you say the wrong way. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link.....Hinduism and Sikh Panth.....And Sukh your getting the time frame wrong here....WHen I first debated u guys I was not sarcastic or mean in anyway....It was only AFTER people started calling me names and being sarcastic with me, that made me in turn act the same way....But what your doing is taking my comments out of context and saying "oooo look Aryan, maybe people are like this with you, becasue you act the same way with them...I know myself and I know what i typed....I didnt start it with them, they started it with me

You *cannot* use another Wikipedia page as a reference. You can link to it, but it's not a citation. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make what I asked clearer. All we need from you is: 1) The exact sentence or sentences you wish to add, with any wiki links you wish to add AND 2) A citation supporting the claims made in your sentence (preferably a book, but a reputable web site will do). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But the article has links...it has evidence...it has references...why am I going to put down references when the article already has them? Im not useing the article as a reference....IM just trying to make the page simple and easy to understand....so if someone clicks the Hinduism and Sikh Panth page then they can see the references for themselves!...What part dont u get? ARYAN818 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not be continuing this conversation any further unless you provide both the line or two you wish to add and a citation supporting any of your claims about Sikhism and Hinduism being one (there are authors who have wrote about stuff like this, so finding such a citation shouldn't even be difficult). The Hinduism and Sikh Panth article is a mess, and contains no inline citations to substantiate any of its claims. All you're doing now is wasting my time when I have better things to be doing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan, TELL US THE LINE YOU WANT TO INCORPORATE. Don't waste time talking about everything except that. This Fire Burns.....Always 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WAIT, the argument still stays, you said if someone dosen't belive that they are diffrent it wasen't up to me to remove it.

But the same could be said about you, if we don't buy it then why should you put it up? Besides your article is pretty one sided mabye you should equal it out so mabye we can put it up.

The article is one sided? Please explain to me what part of the article is not a fact...everything on their is a fact...no opinions...facts....anyway here is the sentence that i am trying to put up....It would say...."Their are a number of people that have always believed the Gurus were not trying to seperate people into a Hindu and Sikh catagory. They argue that Hinduism and Sikhism should be united and not seperated. For more information please see Hinduism and Sikh Panth"....NOw is that bad?...Doesnt take up room from SUKH's precious page...Doesnt say its fact or opinion...it just says if u want more information click this...why is that bad?? ARYAN818 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference which mentions that some Sikhs claim the religions are the same but the writer of the article is actually against the idea. [2]. It can be used as a source though there are probably better (I'm too lazy to look!) Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons are some of the dumbest I have seen, a name is no reason to claim their is a connection. A Christian family can name their son Pizzaro, so would that make them Spanish?

Same with your intermarriage claims, I could marry a white girl, would that mean my religion as a bond with hers? No (Your argument is about family values, not Sikh and Hindu familys in general!).

I have never seen or heard of a Sikh going to a Hindu mandir, show some PROOF! O focurse I have seen some HIndus coming to Gurdwaras when they need help. SHOW YOUR SOURCES FOR THESE CLAIMS

So if the son was Sikh and the family wasen't that means theirs a connection? WHERES THE PROOF?

Again this argument is on family values, how do you know those familys accepted it with open arms? Hey with that idealogy I guess I cam convert to into a Christian or what ever so 50 years after im gone people will look back and say my religion could possibly be linked to Sikhism!

12 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elven6 (talk • contribs).

Elven6, I must have asked you many many times - please sign your posts using ~~~~! This automatically converts to your name and the date/time you posted.

"I have never seen or heard of a Sikh going to a Hindu mandir" - I have. Plenty of Sikhs visit mandirs, especially in the Punjab. The situation outside of India is different, but inside India, Sikhs visit Gurdwaras, Mandirs and Sufi burial sites. Hindus too visit Gurdwaras and Sufi burial sites. Hindus and Sikhs get on *very* well in Punjab, contrary to what the media may say relating to the events of the 1980s and they still visit one another's places of worship.

Thank-you for posting a link DaGizza. I'll see if I can accommodate a line or two in the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's point is true On a visit last year to Bombay, I visited the Haji Ali Dargah and saw several Hindu and Sikh men and women paying their respects. This Fire Burns Always 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section "Relationship with Hinduism" in "Sikh people" (I'm not really sure where to put it). It's a bit rough at the moment. Please tell me what you think. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is only temporary. Please list your objections/comments so we can finalise the content, then we can mix the actual content in with the rest of the page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not saying that a name proves anything....it doesnt....BUT These are not regular names like CARLOS, JATIN, MIKE, OR JASPREET....THese are HARDCORE RELIGIOUS NAMES...When u name your son HAR KRISHAN...OR RAM DAS....OR RAM RAI....I mean come on thats pretty dam Hindu...Do u know what those names mean?....If ur a Guru and u name ur son HAR KRISHAN are u gonna say the Guru didn beleive in Krishna? If ur a Guru and u name ur son RAM are u gonna say the guru doesnt believe in Ram?....I mean this is not 2006 when u name ur son David....This is the time of the Gurus giving out hardcore religious names....Its like somebody naming their son PRAISE JESUS....are u gonna say the father didnt believe in Jesus?? ARYAN818 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think people pull names out of their rear ends? It was the time of course people would name their kids like that, after all their weren't many Sikh names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elven6 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a FUNNY argument to make for someone whose username reflects a neo-Nazi symbol... This Fire Burns Always 06:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan, I think this is where you say 'touché'. Also, please don't ruin the indentation of posts. It makes them difficult to follow. Also, I'm reverting most of your changes [3]. This is a featured article and we don't appreciate controversial additions without citations. None of the present sources agree with what you have added. Also, you've changed a direct quote from Khushwant Singh - this is VERY misleading. Do not do this please. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sukh u are the worst....I mean u finally put up a link for Hinduism and sikhism as ONE...U ask everyone to help out on it , since its not 100% fixed....Then I come in and make the most minor of changes...and u erase it all...I its ok if u didnt think that i did the best job...But why would u erase everything? I Mean some of the changes that I made were just changes such as the structure of a sentence.....Thats it....I mean did u have to change EVERYTHING?....U know its people like u that make wikipeida soooo frustrating...Its like u own everything ARYAN818 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change *everything* you wrote. If you cannot see why changing a quote is wrong, or why adding comments such as "Scholars such as Singh argue that the Gurus never intended to seperate people into a Hindu and Sikh catagory. That they were instead trying to unite everyone under God. " without reference to a single scholar who said that is wrong, then I cannot help you.

I have mentioned to you time and time again that your additions need to be cited. If you cannot provide references, I WILL remove them. And no, I don't own the article, but you seem to be unable to take any constructive criticsm. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic is pointless, in my last post to remove this garbage you said we shoulden't remove it because I say so. Well guess what I think you shoulden't add it just because YOU want it here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elven6 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To all concerned: The very premiss is extremely misleeding (i.e. that Shiksism and "Hindu"ism are one or different). The problem, like so many of todays problems, is in the terms. There is no Hinduism. A Hindu is an inhabitant of Hindustan. What I think you are refering to with this term is any or all of the polyglot religions of the Indian sub-continent, including Bhakti and other yoga's, Vaishnavism, Shiavism, Vedantic religion, Durgaism, the worship of Ganesha, etc. All of these religious traditions somewhat overlap to the outside viewer but be assured that the reason for this is the parlance and terminology of the continent. Many Chinese religions use the concept of Tao but to say Confucianism and Taoism are the same is ridiculous and the same holds true for India. The Vedantic religions of India would have absolutly no problem with accepting the Sihks as a wonderful path to truth, I cannot say where the Sihk stands on this, as it views all religions as a path to truth. To muddle the distinctions are not worth the effort as the reason for them are evident: to put a personal and a traditional spin on the truth. Thank you G-Money

[edit] My tuppence

I agree with This Fire Burns Always 's statement. As the "name" issue has been raked up, let me give some illustrations from the great Judaeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic tradition of the Middle East. It has been noted by theologians that the relationship between these three faiths is perhaps the most unique amongst organised religions of the world. Here is a list of figures common to the three:

1. Adam(Judaeo-Christian) and Aadam(Muslim)
2. Eve(J-C) and Havva(M)
3. Cain/Kane(J-C) and Cabin(M)
4. Avraham(Hebrew), Abraham(English) and Ibrahim(Arabic)
5. Lot(J-C) and Lut(M)
6. Ezekiel (J-C) and Dhul-Kifl(M)
7. Sarah(J-C) and Sara(M)
8. Hagar (J-C) and Hajra(M)
9. Isaac(J-C) and Ishaaq(Arabic)
10. Ishmael(J-C) and Ismail(M)
11. Jacob (J-C) and Yakub(M)
12. Rachel (J-C) and Raheel(M)
13. Joseph(J-C) and Yusuf(M)
14. Jethro(J-C) and Shoaib(M)
15. Jonah(J-C) and Yunus(M)
16. Job(J-C) and Ayub(M)
17. Moshe(Hebrew), Moses(English) and Musa(Arabic)
18. Aaron(J-C) and Haroon(M)
19. Joshua
20. Gideon
21. Caleb
22. Elijah(J-C) and Illyas(M)
23. David(J-C) and Dawood(M)
24. Solomon(J-C) amd Suleman/Sulayman(M)
25. Shimshon(Hebrew) and Samson(English)
26. Shimuel(Hebrew) and Samuel(English)
27. Gabriel(J-C) and Jibril(M)
28. Michael(J-C) and Mikaeel(M)
29. Alexander who is called Sikandar or Zulqernain in the Qu'ran
30. Daniel(J-C) and Danyal(M)
31. St. John the Baptist is Yahya in the Qu'ran
32. Mary(J-C) and Marium(M)
33. Jesus who is Isa-Ale-Salaam in the Qu'ran
34. Shimon(Hebrew) and Simon(English)
35. Zacharias (J-C) and Zakarya(M)

In spite of there being so many similarities, there is the paradox of the three: So intrinsically linked and yet so bitterly separated. Compared to these Abrahmic faiths, the relationship between their Dharmic counterparts (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism) has been much more peaceful.

As for the Hinduism-Sikhism controversy that has been raging on this page, here's my take:

Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, in their masterpiece, Freedom at Midnight have described Sikhism as:

"Sikhism was born from the impact of monotheistic Islam on polytheistic Hinduism on the warring frontiers of the Punjab, where the two faiths first collided."

I don't want to comment on the theological similarities between the two as I am not an expert. But being a Punjabi Hindu myself, and that too from the Arora and Khatri communities, I can very much say that socially the two were very close. No one can deny that. I myself had Sikh ancestors, though today my family is mostly Hindu. This Roti-Beti Ka Rishta is undeniable.

Personally, I hold extremists on both sides as culpable for the 'great schism' that has occured between the two groups socially.

However, whatever has happened has happened. Khushwant Singh in the newer editions of his masterpiece, A history of the Sikhs has noted that though peace has returned to Punjab, the relationship between its two communities has drastically changed and will never be the same as before.

It is the Punjab which has suffered. The divide of Muslim and Non-Muslim in'47 and Hindu and Sikh in '84. Religion has been the biggest bane and scourge of our province as in other parts of the Subcontinent.

Rajatjghai 09:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rajat - I think you overrate the "extemists." The fact is that Indian political and religious groups do not represent the communities of India as much as the media likes to think. While living in Bombay, I witnessed the 1992 riots, the Ambedkar riots and several other disturbances - I discovered that over 95% of people do not associate themselves, nor support the people creating all the hooplah - this includes the poor. This is one of the reasons that life in Bombay is normal even after the recent bomb blasts - the other reason is that 18 million people cannot be asked to sit on their bums for a whole day. People have to eek out a living, come hell or high water.

The Hindu-Sikh riots were caused by the conflagration between the Congress and the Bhindranwale militia - they should be accurately termed the "Congress-Bhindranwale riots." 98% of Hindus and Sikhs did not condone it, nor associated themselves with the perpetrators. Obviously there was anger over Indira Gandhi's killing and the storming of the Golden Temple, but common people weren't prepared to kill over this.

The situation during partition was different because more than 20 million common people were displaced in violent and high-pressure circumstances. Bereft of their homes, heritage and homeland, people turned to violence. I don't blame them.

Cowardly mobs only attack unarmed civilians - if they attack police or each other, they'll find out the true meaning of violence. Common Hindus and Sikhs were distressed at what happened, and mostly people are anxious in these situations only because of fear of the mobs invading their neighbourhood. When raving lunatics parade through a street, the people in homes obviously get anxious. This Fire Burns Always 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sir, we can only hope and pray that what you say is true. Like Lincoln said after Appomattox, "We have won the war. Now we have to win the peace; the hearts and minds of the people."

Actually, by extremists I did not mean Bhindranwale and Co. and the Congress, who indeed would take the lion's share for the whole problem. I was hinting at the Arya Samaj (of which I am ironically a member), which on its formation in 1875 in Bombay by Swami Dayanand, became immensely popular among Hindus of the Punjab and the United Provinces.

Swami Dayanand fired the first salvo, by calling Nanak a dambhi(hypocrite). To him, only the Vedas were the Supreme Truth. His followers followed suit and attacked the other Gurus and the Granth as well. Dayanand in his book , "Satyarth Prakash" also attacked the persons of Jesus and the Prophet. The Arya Samaj followed all this with an aggressive Shuddhi campaign across the province.

Phir Kya tha. The hawks on the Sikh side joined in the party. The coming years would see the formation of the Singh Sabhas, the Chief Khalsa Diwan, revival of interest in the Punjabi language and the Gurmukhi script, the rise of eminent authors such as Bhai Vir Singh who saw language and script as being cognate to religion and of course that watershed work by Bhai Kahan Singh of Nabha - "Hum Hindu Nahin."

This of course was the first phase of the division. The second phase came during Partition. Demands for a sovereign Sikh state were first floated because some felt that, "The Hindus got Hindustan and the Muslims got Pakistan. But what did we Sikhs get out of it?" However, Nehru and the Congress Party assured the Sikh leadership of equal rights for the community in an independent India and hence the demand stayed as it was. But not for long.

The Sikh leadership wanted a state with a Sikh majority. When it was decided to reorganize the Indian map on a linguistic basis, the leadership first floated the idea of a "Punjabi Suba" to be carved out of erstwhile East Punjab which comprised of Haryana, today's Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Himachal separated in the '50s while Haryana came into being in '66.

But the most negative fallout - Yeah, you guessed it right. Language being co-related with religion. Punjabi Hindus, coaxed by Arya Samaj leaders like Lala Jagat Narain (by sheer coincidence, a distant relative of mine), declared Hindi rather than Punjabi to be their mother tongue in the '51 and '61 Census so that the Punjabi Suba which would be a Sikh majority state did not come into being. This caused great heartburn to the Sikhs, who considered it as an outright betrayal.

And later came the Green Revolution with its prosperity, which in turn led to many Sikhs giving up the external emblems of their faith - their hair and beards and taking to smoking and drinking.

There was also the sensitive issue of being a minority group in an overwhelmingly Hindu majority country. The fear of being "reabsorbed", the question of identity -whatever you choose to call it.

The problem of the Sant Nirankaris, who had recognized a living person as their Guru and thus violated the most basic commandment of the faith.

The bickering between the Congress (read Mrs. Gandhi) and the Akalis - leading to the row over sharing of river waters, the issue of Chandigarh and transfer of Punjabi-speaking areas in Haryana back to Punjab.

And in the midst of all this, appeared a lean, tall rustic preacher by the name of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale from the village of Rode, who had studied from the seminary of Damdami Taksal.

You had it all. Only a spark was needed. That came in the form of the beheading of Baba Gurbachan Singh, the Guru of the Sant Nirankaris in '78 or '79 (I don't remember exactly). But since that day, the whole state saw and bathed in red.

There is still a lot of resentment in the minds and hearts of certain members of the Sikh community. It may not appear on the surface but it still simmers underneath. All of us who hold the interests of the Punjab and India dear, can only wish that never again should such a vicissitude be perpetrated on us Punjabis, who have been at the receiving end for over five millenia.

As it is, the state is today completely reabsorbed into the national mainstream. Now is the time for a redressal of other pressing social problems: a skewed sex-ratio, large scale-migration from the Hindi belt, which some believe could cause a demographic change and lastly, farmers' suicides (Yeah, I am sure all know that farmers even in the country's breadbasket are killing themselves like their counterparts in the Deccan). Rajatjghai 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And the lack of industrialisation of the state, the infrastructure mess ( Haryana learned from Chandigarh, even villages in Haryana have better roads, sectors and bus stands than the towns in Punjab.Huda is now ensuring that even smaller towns of 50000 + population are planned, and people cannot make houses arbitrarily but have to follow guidelines) One should see the condition of the main bus stands in Ludhiana, Jalndhar or Amritsar. Or the lack of planning and roads in all of these towns. This for a state that was the first to take roads and electricity till the village level. Apart from Pratap Singh Kairon none of the Chief Ministers have built infrastructure in Punjab. Haphar 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Also alongside the agricultural sector, you have Gurgoan and Faridabad, satellite towns of the National Capital allright but BPO hubs nonetheless. So you already have a nascent Services sector in the making in Haryana.

What's more Hooda recently made a master-stroke by inviting Mukesh Ambani to set up shop and SEZs in the state.

Compare this with Punjab. The manufacturing (Hoisery and others) sector is in doldrums. Services have appeared. But only in Chandigarh's satellite town of Mohali. Proximity to Chandigarh rather than individual enterprise is the cause.

And finally, the agricultural sector - I don't need to speak more about it.Rajatjghai 12:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduization of Sikhism

Ok so I decided to let the guy put his article up, if he could put one up about how the two are the same then could I put one up about the Hinduization of Sikhism? Their both contoversial topics that are threating the Sikh way of life.

Elven6 July 14 2006 UTC

[edit] Sikhism Wikiproject

Hi,

If there is enough support, I'm thinking of starting a Wikiproject for Sikhism. If you are interested in joining, please say so below! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Rajatjghai 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
2. This Fire Burns Always 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (as per nom!)
4. Haphar 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
5. ARYAN818 Id love to help out all the people who never read Hindu scriptures & yet have opinions about Hinduism!

   Aryan818's original comment was "Id love to join my Khalistan friends!" [4]. You're welcome to join this WikiProject, but if you wish to "help out all the people who never read Hindu scriptures & yet have opinions about Hinduism!" then it's probably best you join the Hinduism WikiProject. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

   Prime example on why I have a problem with Wikipedia members like SUKH...Yes I did orignally type in the Khalistan comment (which im probably right about anyway)...But then I realized it was wrong for me to put that, so right away I erasesd it and changed my comment....I basically did the RIGHT THING...But SUKH decides that he has to tell the whole world that my orginal comment was about Khalistan....See why I have a problem with users like SUKH? ARYAN818 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'm glad you considered that comment was wrong. But you should be sure about a comment before you commit it. Once it has been committed, if you later retract that comment, you can strike it out using <s> like this. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Elven6 July 15 2006 (UTC) Sure im up for it, Aryan its not a Hindu wiki project!

Right, I've set up the basic framework at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism. More coming soon! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Take me off of the Wiki project, their are too many Pricks and trolls on the Sikhism wiki pages like Ramas arrow.

Elven6 July UTC

[edit] Pls check history for Aryan818's original comment

+ a lot of Assumptions made in both the comments. Haphar 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything wrong, care to enlighten us?

16 July 2006 Elven6

Elven6 the reference was to what Sukh subsequently pointed out above. [5] When I put the remark in, sukh had not put it on the discussion page. Haphar 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 highly questionable statements

I have merely perused this article and will read it more in depth when I have time, but two statements jump out at me, one as wildly implausible and the other as biased.

1) Sikh religious philosophy has roots in the religious traditions of Northern India.[3] While Sikhism has been viewed as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam, Sikhs maintain that their religion was directly revealed by God. Many historians and scholars agree that such a description of syncretism is incorrect.

2) Sikhism is professed to be a more difficult personal pursuit than Bhakti.[4]

statement #1 is fine until the last sentence which is both unsourced and implausible. the syncretic hypothesis is, I believe, well supported by the majority of historians and scholars who are not themselvess sikh devotees. statement #2 is seriously problematic. first of all, what criteria are being used to judge difficulty. second, sikhism is "professed" to be more difficult ? professed by who ? Perhaps I might be brought around to agree with this statement if more argument and support are given, but as it is, clocking in at just one short sentence, all I see is bias.

merc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merc misfire (talk • contribs).

You make some valid points. I will remove the first statement because it's difficult to prove that either way.

I'll see if Rama's Arrow can clarify the second point.

If there's anything else you find that is questionable, please do state it. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The second statement means that Nanak demanded strong discipline and spiritual genuinity, not to be substituted/replaced by outwardly practises like idol worship, ceremonies, singing and dancing. This Fire Burns Always 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not know if there is anything against "dancing". But singing is definitely not banned like idol worship. In fact even in Guru Nanak's time there was Mardana, . In fact Gurbani is still sung by raagi's and it is called kirtan. Haphar 09:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Guru Nanak did not ban or depreciate the arts - his emphasis was that a true Sikh must practise intense spiritual devotion and not be comfortable with just outwardly observances. This Fire Burns Always 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Understand that, (in fact I think the very things he preached against are part of the "ceremony" in the gurudwara's now, in the name of maryada a lot of ceremony are there in a gurudwara now, but that is besides the point). Overall was just saying that kirtan somehow seemed to be a part of reaching spiritual devotion. Not proscribed like idol worship and ceremony, not prescribed either but it seemed to be something he was comfortable with.

[edit] Racism

I hate to point fingers but I have read what ARYAN818 has said (e.g. calling Sikhs "Khalistanis" and then following up that comment with "I know you probably all are"), he is obviously racist against Sikhs (and is probably a member of those RSS idiots.) Sandeep S K 19:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandeep - whatever issues ARYAN818 may have, you must definitely not take the same path. Please go through WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I don't think you should speak of the RSS as "idiots" or accuse somebody of being "racist." If his comments are prejudiced, he's already been reprimanded for that. This Fire Burns Always 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This Fire Burns Always is right. I said the wrong thing which may have offended other users and I have broken the rules that you pointed out. For that, I would like to apologize to you and anyone else that I may have offended (including ARYAN818 and the RSS). I would also like to retract the whole sentence of "and is probably a member of those RSS idiots" as it was out of line.

Sandeep S K 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem - most users here have and still make this mistake quite often. I still lose my cool a lot frequently than I would like. Think no more about this - happy editing! This Fire Burns Always 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Im racist against all SIkhs?...I never said all Sikhs...I said that for the people who are obviously biast on Sikhism and Hinduism...These guys have done little or no reading on Hindu scripture and yet form opinions...and most people who do this are people who want Khalistan...thats a fact....but hey I said sorry and i apologized....and by the way...i go to Gurudwara so please dont say im racist against sikhs...read everything i type instead of picking apart a few sentences ARYAN818 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know of anyone on this page who wants Khalistan. And the accusation was made when Sukh, Rama's Arrow and myself had enrolled on the Sikhism project. So as per Aryan all or some of us are "Khalistani's". The comments on not reading scriptures and having an opinion- that can be applied to a lot of people who have an opinion on Sikhism and Islam too. Haphar 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding of Islam relationship section

In Sikhism the influence of Muslim Saints such Kabir and Farid are considered great enough for their works and teachings to added into the holy Guru granth Sahib. I'm going to add this below, it has all be sourced and can be checked in the Guru Granth Sahib. --Sikh historian 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Islam

Sikhism's relationship with Islam is also both long and complex. The Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings, philosophies and beliefs of Islamic saints. The first Guru of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, was deeply influenced by the teachings of Kabir and Shaikh Ibrahim Farid a descendent of the renowned Sufi saint Shaikh Fariduddin Shakarganj of Pak Pattan whose works were integrated into the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikh religious philosophy shares some and strongly rejects other Islamic religious philosophy [6].

First off - Kabir is NOT Muslim (nor particularly Hindu...). Secondly, I don't think this article can accurately claim that Sikhism explicits accepts or rejects elements of Hinduism/Islam becoz - (1) the info on that is sketchy and (2) most Sikhs see their faith as a divinely revealed faith with its own foundation - Sikhism is not entirely syncretic nor is it different, it is linked to the Sant Mat, Bhakti Hinduism and some elements of Sufism. So the "shares some and strongly rejects other" perspective of this data is inaccurate, especially when the Quran/Shariat are one set of teachings. Thirdly, the history of animosity between Muslim kings/clerics and Sikhism is quite well documented - it is not thus fair to say that Sufism played an unduly major role, becoz it didn't. Unlike in Hinduism and Sant Mat, take some/leave some wasn't/isn't appreciated by most Muslims. This Fire Burns Always 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I strongly disagree with the idea of such subsections because it overrates and convulutes the question/data - too much of history, politics and theology are put together to hodge-podge a sketchy issue. If there is a particular Hindu or Sufi influence, just state it as a matter of fact and avoid making generalizations about one religion or another's influence on Sikhism - these 2 proposed sections sound like Hinduism/Islam is trying to claim ownership. Plus, why are Sikhism/Hinduism and Sikhism/Islam to be placed as sub-sections of "Sikh people"? This Fire Burns Always 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Guru Nanak was born in a Hindu family, when Guru Nanak started preaching, he did not preach a different religion, but against "customs" that he felt did not neccecarily get one closer to God. So he rejected the sacred thread, idol worship, he even spoke against praying facing a particular direction. He accepted the "good" non custom way of any prevalent religion. His constant companion was Mardana a Muslim. It was later that he got followers and then with a 2nd Guru a "sect" started. His son wanting the Guru's gaddi, and not getting it started his own sect ( Dehradun has a "dehra by this sect)which remains Hindu in it's outlook.

The granth was really collated by the 5th Guru ( Guru Arjan )at which time the Sufi influence was strong. Kabir was born a muslim and known to be a sufi- and he his words have a strong presence in the granth. Till the 5th Guru's execution by the Mughals, there were islamic and sufi influences on Sikhism, and some Mughal emperors, or claimants to the throne ( Dara Shikoh ?) did visit the gurus. Sikhism really came into being a religion by the time of the 10th Guru when they took on a different look ( the 5 K's) and fought for survival against the Mughals. At that stage the Hindu involvement increased and the Muslim decreased. So there is an influence and early Sikhism was more a sect with sufi influence than a seperate religion.Haphar 09:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to face facts that a lot of the Gurus and subsequent Sikh leaders said and did different things. No doubt I think that Guru Nanak, just like the Buddha, Christ and Mahavira wasn't trying to found a new religion. Thus neither Nanak nor anyone else really got involved in identity politics. The Sikh faith and community have changed a lot and come a long way since Nanak, and it is not the goal of Wikipedia to resolve this identity issue, but simply state the facts with minimal assumptions. This Fire Burns Always 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of relationships sections

I strongly agree with Rama's Arrow, about the Sub-section relationships with being unnecessary. As a Sikh I feel proud to have a fellow human being defend the Sikh faith's unique identity.

Frankly I strongly disagree with the idea of such subsections because it overrates and convulutes the question/data - too much of history, politics and theology are put together to hodge-podge a sketchy issue. If there is a particular Hindu or Sufi influence, just state it as a matter of fact and avoid making generalizations about one religion or another's influence on Sikhism - these 2 proposed sections sound like Hinduism/Islam is trying to claim ownership.

I think there should be discussion on whether the relationship sections should be taken off and just state it as a matter of fact. --Sikh historian 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My original intention for including the section was to appease Aryan818. However, when I added it, I made the following comment: "This paragraph is only temporary. Please list your objections/comments so we can finalise the content, then we can mix the actual content in with the rest of the page"

As I don't want a revert war to start on the main page, I've removed the subheading. We need to come to an agreement as to how much emphasis we want to place on the relationship with Hinduism (and *equally* Islam) in an article that is frankly about Sikhism. Essentially my opinion is that we need a single line that links to an article that can discuss these similarities. Please give your views. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In dealing with this matter, I suggest that we avoid making generalized comments about the connection of Sikhism with Hinduism and other religious traditions. We can't be faulted for choosing grey over black-and-white, becoz the reality is in grey. But a statement like "many scholars believe Sikhs are Hindus" needs to be substantiated by a really credible source. We need to know if Khushwant Singh's opinion is indeed a credible, alternative explanation (which I know it is).

When talking of philosophical, historical, ceremonial and social connections, I think its best to distribute the facts in respective sections instead of sub-sections like "Sikhism's relationship with Hinduism." Nanak's attitude should be discussed in the history or philosophy section. What Ranjit Singh or Tara Singh said or did needs to go in the gurus and history sections, while the social relations obviously goes to "Sikh people." This Fire Burns Always 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally 100% agree with Sukh and Rama's Arrow. However, we need to make sure that the new article is not politicised by groups who want to make religions into 'political footballs' for their politics. The article should just sticks to the religious philosophical similarities and differences. We want to make it positively educational to the viewer.--Sikh historian 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Haphar 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we alter the sentence "While Sikhism has been viewed as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam,..." by linking Hinduism and Islam to Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and Islam and the Sikh Panth respectively? Full theological discussions about such things are not relevant on this page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to stay away from saying its syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam. While, Sikhism respects, admires, and values the contributions Islam and Hinduism have made to Sikhism. There is a huge proportion which is uniquely Sikh.--Sikh historian 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the excellent guiding principle that Rama’s Arrow gave, which I thought was very good.

In dealing with this matter, I suggest that we avoid making generalized comments about the connection of Sikhism with Hinduism and other religious traditions. We can't be faulted for choosing grey over black-and-white, becoz the reality is in grey.--Sikh historian 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The article itself does *not* claim that Sikhism is a syncretic religion. In fact, it even says that generally Sikhs do not believe this and may find it offensive. However, it is imperative that we mention that it has been viewed as a syncretic religion because there are several sources that do write about Sikhism this way. I believe if this isn't mentioned, we would be failing to adhere to a neutral point of view.

Indeed, looking from an atheist's POV (which I'm not, by the way), all religions have been influenced by previous beliefs. Sikhism just happens to be a religion that arose in an area where there was a history of Islamic-Hindu rivalry.

Syncretism is a way of reconciling previously conflicting ideologies. To say that Sikhism doesn't do this in terms of Islam and Hinduism would, in my opinion, by incorrect. For example, the Mughals often detested Hinduism because they believed it was a Pagan religion - Sikhism believes in one God. Hindus on the other hand disliked the singular, Muslim or infidel approach of Islam - Sikhism has a much more 'many paths to God' approach that fits well with other Dharmic religions.

We don't have to debate whether or not Sikhism is syncretic (and we'd be here forever if we did), but the possibility that it is needs to be mentioned.Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Sukh, what we could do is quote or give the official view of the Supreme Governing body of Sikhism, in the world, at Amritsar. I think that they would have email contact addresses. Then have a small complementary outside unofficial view. I think this has the contact details http://www.sgpc.net/the-sgpc/index.asp http://www.sgpc.net/index.html --Sikh historian 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection to any official correspondence from the Akal Takht (or the SGPC), and I'm pretty certain I know roughly what they'll say. But, I'm not sure how we could use that to expand on the statement that already exists: "Sikhs maintain that their religion was directly revealed by God; the notion that Sikhism is a syncretic religion is considered offensive by many Sikhs."? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if we put the official view first, then maybe put something like "Sikhism is regarded as revealed faith from God. However, there are elements in it that could be classed as syncretic in origin"--Sikh historian 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel uneasy giving the SGPC's view as "official", especially when in essence it's meant to be little more than a Gurdwara management committee. However, we can use the SGPC's opinion as a reference (like the other numbers).

I think your objection stems from the sentence "While Sikhism has been viewed as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam, " being too strong. How about "Some scholars have presented Sikhism as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam..." and then continue with Sikhs don't believe that (and why) and may find it offensive? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think problem is that the statement sounds like Sikhism is just a mixture of Islam and Hinduism, without any new originality (unique) or any major new religious input, exclusive of Islam or Hinduism, unique beliefs and philosphies that they don't have.--Sikh historian 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I don't think syncretism necessarily means that, although I suppose it implies that. How about "Some scholars have presented Sikhism as a syncretic religion which combines some elements of Hinduism and Islam..."? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine but can we put "Some scholars have viewed Sikhism as a unique religion and a syncretic religion which combines some elements of Hinduism and Islam"--Sikh historian 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How about :) "Scholars have presented Sikhism as both a distinct faith and a syncretic religion which combines elements of Hinduism and Islam." That way we can say that people have written about Sikhism being a syncretic religion and how other writers have written that that is a simplification presented by people who don't understand Sikhism properly. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! However one small change, "Scholars have presented Sikhism as both a distinct faith and a syncretic religion which combines some elements of Hinduism and Islam."--Sikh historian 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's fine with me. We got there in the end! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sukh did you know the, SGPC is also called Parliament of the Sikh Nation.--Sikh historian 00:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it's been seen as that - although I've never heard anyone actually call it that. I'm not a big fan of the SGPC personally - all I see is politicians, everywhere! :) Anyway, it's late here so I must go to bed. Good night! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do partially agree, it certainly isn't the same as when the Gurus were there. Good night, as well.--Sikh historian 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passing through

I didn't see a "Sikhs in popular culture" section, but if one does exist somewhere in the articles listed in the template. here is so mething for you. Jonny Quest's Hadji is a Sikh. It's from The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest's former official website. --Zeality 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhism Website

In the past I have tried to add the link to my site on Wikipedia, but apparently everytime I added the link, someone deleted it. My website address is *Kabira - It's an amazing Sikhism related website with wonderful pages relating to the Sikh religion and it has fascinating Sikhism related pictures as well as links. Anyone who wishes to monitor my site or check if it contains any inaccuracy may do so. PLEASE DON'T DELETE MY WEBSITE FROM WIKIPEDIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.238.84 (talk • contribs).

I have removed your link off here and Sikh. My rationale for doing so are in accordance with the Wikipedia Style Guide (see Wikipedia:External links).

• The web page is not accessible.
• The description is POV.
• You (as the owner/web master) have added the site.
• Inappropriate number of adverts on the web site.
• Not very relevant to Sikhism as a religion (it's mainly about Sikh history).

Your site definately isn't bad, but if we accepted all such sites, we'd have a huge list. Sorry. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive site

Hi Sukh, I found this very large Sikhism resource website, personally I think its excellent. I'm thinking of adding on the Sikhism and Sikh articles whats your feelings about it.--Sikh historian 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• www.srigurugranthsahib.org/main.htm

[edit] Conflicting "facts"

On August 16th's featured article Sikhism is said to be "the ninth-largest organised religion in the world", but in the full article it is said to be "the fifth-largest organised religion in the world." I don't know how to change it and would also like to know which it is also.

-Peace

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups, Sikhism is listed as ninth-largest by Adherents.com, but fifth-largest by the Christian Science Monitor. The difference comes in whether you examine only organized religions. The article probably should use one source for both references. Snausages 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism may be the ninth-largest "belief-system", but it is the fifth-largest organised religion, which is what the article claimed.

The original statement was not incorrect. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't about the main article, it's about the Today's Featured Article item on the main page, which says "Sikhism is the ninth-largest organised religion in the world." Snausages 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That has been corrected. Don't know why someone changed it in the first place (it was originally written as the fifth-largest). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I Risk Night: Peas… or just say Peaz Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This article has been subject of vandalism (see "utter bullshit")

I suspect the following is vandalism as well (under "Philosophy and Teachings"):

"The religion of Sikhism is most greatly known for its ritualistic eating of dog and cat poop."

It's all due to the attraction that vandals have for articles that are featured on the front page. The thing is, most of the vandalism isn't even remotely funny. If vandals are going to vandalise, they could at least attempt some good satire. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually vandalism of front page articles has a positive side-effect of making visitors realise that Wikipedia is really a free encyclopedia. The prompt reversion of vandalism also showcases the content protection infrastructure. Rama's arrow 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Sikhism has become a featured article, it is now more likely to be vandalized. Is there a way to make it so only registered users can modify the articles content? This would help preserve the integrity of the article and possible minimize future attempts to vandalize. Killer Swath 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be semi-protected. Arrow740 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monotheistic/Panentheistic

I would say the Sikh belief in one God is more akin to panentheism than the monotheism that occurs in Abrahamic religions. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Dharmic religions are more complex than Abrahamic religions. One can even say that the identification of one, two or a thousand deities is not more important that the core philosophies of karma, dharma and other stuff. See Advaita, Kabir and Bhakti for better understanding of Sikh ideas. Rama's arrow 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

While I can't speak for Sikhism, I know that some Jews interpret Judaism in a panentheistic way. marbeh raglaim 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, checking the Wikipedia article on panentheism, it's clear that it has a long and distinguished history in Christianity too. Therefore, I think it's simplistic to say that panentheism isn't common in Abrahamic religions. marbeh raglaim

Every religion has some streams that tend toward pantheistic views. And every religion has strict monotheistic streams. But I think pantheism is much more mainstream in the Dharmic religions than in the Abrahamic religions. HeBhagawan 16:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on 'human Gurus'

The current lead paragraph says in part "...a religion that began in sixteenth century Northern India with the teachings of Nanak and nine successive human Gurus..." I understand that the Gurū Granth Sāhib is also considered a Guru. I don't think that's widely known, particularly in the west. I don't want to tinker with an article outside my expertise, and thought I would make my comment here.

Looking only at that first paragraph as an introduction, I suggest it could either (a) make it more clear that there are both human gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib, or (b) avoid discussing that distinction in the introduction at all.

I myself would lean toward (b). The intro could then say something like "...with the teachings of Nanak and his successor Gurus..." (since both Nanak and Guru have wiki links, the reader can quickly learn more about Gurus). I think this is consistent with the title of the subsection, The ten gurus and religious authority.

If it's important to make the human / scriptural distinction in the introductory paragraph, perhaps someone who's qualified could make that clearer to the non-Sikh reader. As an example only (I am guessing at meaning), something like this:

• "...a religion that began in sixteen century northern India with the teachings of Nanak and his nine successors, each known as a guru, meaning teacher, guide, or mentor. The last human guru decreed that the Sikh scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, would be the final guru..."

Also, this article provides a translation of Adi Granth, but not Guru Granth Sahib or Dasam Granth. All three have links to their main articles, but a translation for the latter two names might be useful here.

— OtherDave 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your original point and will look at it further tomorrow (bit late here now). However, with your final point, I'm not sure what you mean? What translation are you referring to? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, sorry to have been unclear. I meant that this article tells me that Adi Granth means 'The First Volume,' but I didn't see anything similar for Guru Granth Sahib or Dasam Granth. (I could be mistaken.) In other words, a quick, literal translation of those names. Just offered as an observation; it's a minor point but could enhance consistency. — OtherDave 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'll see what I can do to address these two issues. Are there any other issues with the article? Comments are welcomed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For your first point, the introduction clarifies the situation on the second paragraph as so: "The followers of Sikhism are ordained to follow the teachings of the ten Sikh gurus, or enlightened leaders, as well as the holy scripture—the Gurū Granth Sāhib—which includes the selected works of many authors from diverse socioeconomic and religious backgrounds. The text was decreed by Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, as the final guru of the Khalsa Panth. " Is that not sufficient? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The second point: Guru Granth Sahib means Guru=Teacher Granth=Book Sahib=Master, which could become the "Master Book Guru". Not really sure how to phrase that properly (although Britannica says "The Granth as the Guru", or "The Granth Personified"). Dasam Granth means the "tenth book" and is actually short for "The book of the tenth master" (dasvēṁ pātśāh kī granth). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If we take 'Guru' to be a title (just like in Guru Nanak, or Guru Gobind Singh), then we get Guru Master-Book. I suppose a literal translation would be "the master book" or the "master book guru". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhism Website

In the past I have tried to add the link to my site on Wikipedia, but apparently everytime I added the link, someone deleted it. My website address is Kabira - It's an amazing Sikhism related website with wonderful pages relating to the Sikh religion and it has fascinating Sikhism related pictures as well as links. Anyone who wishes to monitor my site or check if it contains any inaccuracy may do so. PLEASE DON'T DELETE MY WEBSITE FROM WIKIPEDIA. Jeev

Please do not add your own website to Wikipedia. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy and as such I have removed it. I appreciate you wish to attract readers to your website, but this is not the way to do it. I have explained to you previously why your web site was removed (see the discussion above) and you should read the full guidelines at Wikipedia:External links.

Also, please do not remove comments from the talk page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observances and ceremonies section

The observances and ceremonies section in this article states that Vaisakhi is celebrated on the 13th of April. However, where I am from (UK), Vaisakhi is celebrated on the 14th of April (although it used to be celebrated on the 13th of April up until 2003). This may be to do with the fact that Punjab is five and a half hours ahead of the UK; therefore should it be stated that it may be celebrated on either of the two days?

Sandeep S K 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Vaisakhi article says "Baisakhi usually falls on 13 April, and on 14 April once every thirty-six years." Not sure how true this is. Maybe it's something to do with the change in calendars? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the switch to the Nanakshahi era calendar may be the reason for the change. If I find any article or book on this change, I will bring it to your attention to see if it can be added.

Sandeep S K 13:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masterbation

What are Sikh views on it? --Elven6 02:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As ever, I don't think Sikhism has a specific opinion on that particular activity. Different people will have different opinions, but I presume it falls under the banner of "lust" - one of the five evils stipulated by Guru Nanak. The act itself I doubt to be sinful - but your reasons or thoughts behind it most probably are :P Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downloadable Bani

Can we add links to Bani where people can download it? Such as http://www.gatka.co.uk/Bani.htm

No, it's not relevant to an encyclopedia. You can upload free (as in you own the copyright to make it free) audio to Wikimedia Commons. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] race

Are all Sikhs Punjabi?or do ou get non punjabi sikhs? Dandun

Vast majority of Sikhs are or were originally Punjabi. You get Sikhs from other backgrounds in India and you get converts around the globe - especially America. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for expansion

This article doesn't answer a lot of the first questions that I have had about Sikhism, and that others would also have. For example, what is the attitude of Sikhism toward converts? Do Sikhs need to speak Panjabi? What is the Sikh view of Muhammad? What is the Sikh view on the "existence" of the Hindu deities (compare with Advaita Vedanta, for example)? What exactly is the Sikh concept of salvation? What is the Sikh cosmology? How bad is it when Sikhs don't wear turbans or have long hair, as some people I know do not? What is the Sikh view of the Ramayan? What are Sikh dietary laws? Why are there no longer any Sikh missionaries, though according to book I'm reading, there once were? What is the Sikh view of karma? How about atman vs anatman? Arrow740 08:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, would it be fair to characterize Sikhism as a sect of Hinduism? If not, what are the major beliefs held by Sikhs that Sikhs do not share with the various threads of Hinduism, and what are the core beliefs of Hinduism, i.e. those held in the range of Hindu sects, that Sikhs do not hold? Arrow740 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no definative answer to this: Many Sikhs do not characterize Sikhism as a sect of Hinduism. However most Hindus consider Sikhism as a part of the Hindu tradition. This can be seen in the fact that there are a lot of Punjabi families with a history of intermarriage between Hindus and Sikhs, and many with traditions of elder sons being made Sikh. Unlike marriages between Hindus and members of any other religion, there is no associated loss of caste: which shows that as far as Hindu traditions go, it does not consider Sikhism as a distint faith. To understand this dichotomy between Sikh and Hindu views, you have to understand Sikh history, both ancient and recent- more about this later. To cut the story short, I would say that it is an independent religion in the Dharmic tradition, just like Buddhism, Jainism are. viv 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a time to look and reevaluate the article yet but might be able to do so around christmas time. It would be good to get some fresh material in now that I've been away from the article for a while. Your questions:

• "For example, what is the attitude of Sikhism toward converts? " Sikhism accepts converts - but doesn't preach or attempt to attract them. However, a Sikh convert is as much a Sikh as any other Sikh. Sikhism is not a missionary religion.
• "Do Sikhs need to speak Panjabi?" Sikhs do not need to do anything, and they don't *need* to learn Punjabi. Learning Punjabi would be useful to understand Sikh customs and religious texts. It is also considered the language of Sikh instiutions regardless of where they are situated. However, merely knowing Punjabi is not sufficient to understand the Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth. You may actually be better off learning old Hindi and the Gurmukhi script. A smidgen of Sanskrit, Persian and other Indian languages wouldn't go amiss.
• "What is the Sikh view of Muhammad? " There is a general view in Sikhism that god has sent many prophets and will continue to do so. Although the Guru Granth Sahib doesn't directly mention Mohammed too much, I guess the gurus would have considered him one of many prophets.
• "What is the Sikh view on the "existence" of the Hindu deities (compare with Advaita Vedanta, for example)?" Tricky this one. The Guru Granth Sahib mentions dieties many many many times. However, they're talked about apparently in the context of one god. Sikh scholars say that most of the time the names of dieties are evoked as synonyms for God. But if you read it more literally, the meaning can be taken very differently. However, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the gurus believed in one God and one God only - and this is written about many times in the Guru Granth Sahib! Whether gurus believed that dieties existed in one form or another is harder to answer.
• "What exactly is the Sikh concept of salvation?" - Simply put, very close to Hindu thought. Do good, migrate up the reincarnation ladder, merge with God.
• "What is the Sikh cosmology? " - How do you mean? Do you mean how life started? How everything began? What the universe is? Well, I think Sikh belief is pantheistic in a way - God is everywhere, God is a part of everything (actually, I'm not sure if the second part is strictly true, but I guess it would be if everything emerged from God)... From the article: "Sikhs believe that prior to creation, all that existed was God and his infinite hukam (will).[5] When God willed, the entire cosmos was created."
• "How bad is it when Sikhs don't wear turbans or have long hair, as some people I know do not? " Depends who you are and what opinion you have. The turban itself is a marker of identity, a uniform, and way of projecting your image as a Sikh. This is what the tenth Guru introduced and as far as I'm aware it has no basis in Guru Nanak's teachings (although there is the whole mystical relevance of long hair and the principle that God gave you something that you shouldn't alter). You can be a perfect Sikh and cut your hair - you just can't be an Amritdhari 5K Sikh :)
• "What is the Sikh view of the Ramayan?" No particular view as far as I am aware. Why would there be?
• "What are Sikh dietary laws? " Some say being a strict vegetarian, some say eating meat as long as it isn't Halal, some say eat what the hell you like. No consensus among Sikhs.
• "Why are there no longer any Sikh missionaries, though according to book I'm reading, there once were?" Not sure. There is a Sikh Missionary Society, but no great emphasis on spreading "the word". Times change - can't think of a special reason.
• "What is the Sikh view of karma?" -> Very similar to Hindu belief in Karma. Quote from the SGGS: "By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found."
• "How about atman vs anatman? " Not sure ;)

Some of your answers require a lot of research and depth. Maybe I'll come back to them some time! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikkism and women, Sikkism and politics

Can someone add details to Women as theological figures and Religion and politics (or create an appropriate link to this page for the former and a specific page for the latter, in parallel with the Christianity and politics page). Jackiespeel 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation

need punjabi translators and scripts.--D-Boy 08:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub proposal

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/December#.7B.7BSikh-bio-stub.7D.7D.2C_Category:Sikh_religious_figures. Bakaman 01:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)