Talk:Hinduism and Sikhism

possible inconsistency

It is claimed that:

1509: Guru Nanak's declaration "I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim" Alah rām kė pind parān.

According to Merriam Webster the term 'Hinduism' was first used in 1809, so how can Guru Nanak have said something like that? (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hinduism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.83.33 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The word "Hindu" does appear in Guru Granth Sahib - ang 885. "Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, knows the secrets of God" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions (talk) 21:57, 25 Dec 2018 (UTC)

Highly flawed content

The content of this page is very misleading and the author's of the page has selectively used flawed and highly refuted work of some people like Khuswant Singh, Harjot Oberoi and W. H. Mcleod. I have objection to the content and intent of this article. I'll wait for some time for the original creator of this page to come and talk for their choice of words and citations on this article, after which this article will be edited.

• Khuswant Singh is not an authority on Sikhism, his work is flawed and many genuine Sikh scholars have academically exposed his work.
• Harjot Oberoi was removed from the his position of Sikh chair for his highly erronous work, he continues from behind the scene to spread misinformation.
• W. H. Mcleod is more of a missionary than a historian. His thesis, which was later published in the form of book had thesis committee members who had no knowlegde about Sikhism. Its like one presenting and passing a thesis presetation on Quantum Physics in front of thesis committee which does not even know anything about conventional physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Aulakh (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is rarely one main author of any article on Wikipedia, every article is edited by many different authors, sometimes thousands. You can find who made certain edits by browsing the article's History. As for your objections, they may be valid. If you believe those sources are unreliable, feel free to be bold and remove them and any disputed statements that are supported solely by them. I don't know anything about these sources myself, but if someone happens to think they are important and reliable, they can bring it up again here. Thanks for sharing your concerns. -kotra (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do as time permits. Currently, removed the following unreferenced propaganda "However, Sikhism, like Hinduism is a religion which can be practiced regardless of language or culture and turbans are also worn by Hindus (and Muslims) in many parts of India. Nevertheless, this propagation furher fueled the need of the Sikhs to form a separate identity.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Aulakh (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh secularist?

The line in the article reads, "Secularist Sikh writers like Khushwant Singh have written that despite innovations ...". Please provide information how it was decided that Khushwant Singh is a secularist. Who did this research and what are the references? At what platform was this research (KS being secularist) published? If he himself claimed that, please provide his claim in quotes and also give references. Thanks, ---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Table confusing and possibly incorrect

Some of the entries in the table are confusing. Particularly the line

12. Use of force accepted if other means fail

This has "Sex-methodology accepted. Ahimsa." next to it for Vishnavism. What does this mean? Vishnava are not total pacifists, as the Gita says, when it is correct to fight then fight. And what does sex methodology have to do with it. This is not the only line I don't understand, but certainly the strangest -- Q Chris (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

this page should be deleted that person "sikh history" is biased and whats to subert history to fit his or her own personal view. just because what u do doesn't mean the rest(majority) of the Sikh believe or should follow what you live by. stop changing our post. all u can get is some biased book that u quote and present them as facts. sikh know guru ji hunted but guru ji didnt eat meat that is for sure. a lot of history is biased because they had there own agenda in writing incorrect stuff about guru or sikh at that time. you think the enemies of sikh wrote the correct version of history they probably distorted it and now you are presenting it as facts.

Remember WP:AGF, also remember that if you remove cited references again you will be blocked from editing. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism and Sikhism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hinduism and Sikhism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Hinduism and Sikhism.

Sham

Either you are a Hindu or a Sikh. One can't be both. At the most a person can be liberal minded. But that sort of a person would be regarded as a spiritual person and not a religious person. There is considerable difference between the two.

There are no similarities between the two religions. Eventhough a lot of persons who were born Hindus converted to Sikhism, it does not bring the two together. If any similarity exists, it is between the thought and beliefs of two individuals or a group of persons, but not between these two religions. Ajjay (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You cant be Hindu and Sikh? Wow thats amazing. There have been plenty of people who go to both a Mandir & Gurudwara. And there was a time in India when people were Hindu and the oldest mail was a Sikh....So you cant be both? I consider myself both. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was raised in a very religious and large Sikh family, and we have attended Mandir quite a few times, made donations, and prayed to hindu Gods, even though we are not actually Hindu. Some of my aunts and uncles have married into Hindu families. My cousins who were born of the hindu/sikh parents worship both religions as that was how they were raised. So they are proof, you can indeed be both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuroame (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ajay, who are you to dictate who can be what? The very statment: "There are no similarities between the two religions" Is utter rubbish. There blatently are similarities between the two religions particualrly in the context of Hindu bhakti and Sikhi. Why else would the teachings of Hindu bhagats and even sufi be incorporated into Sikhi? It does not make them the same religion. If people could not follow both traditions then do explain why Hindu-Sikh marriage is fairly common place despite the attempts of puritanical politics that have sought to drive a wedge between the communites. It is a fact that that many Panjabi and Sindhi Hindus and Panjabi sikhs follow elements of both traditions, it is called religious syncretism and it happens in many parts of the world.--86.20.74.243 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One cannot be both Hindu and Sikh. It's like saying I follow both Islam and Christianity or any other combination. One simple concept. Sikhism does support or believe in icon worship and clearly steers you away from it. Hinduism on the other hand strongly promotes it. Here you have two roads in opposite direction. You cannot be on both. When it comes to religion you can only follow one and not both. By saying you are both it is clear you are neither nor have you really understood the teaching of either. As for you example on following common tradition I live in a western world. The Christmas ritual(buying a tree, sticking presents underneath it etc) is followed by many people from different religious background. This does not make them Christian. The same applies to Halloween, Easter etc. Many western people also take part in the celebration of Vasakhi. This does not make them Sikhs. By going to a Mandhar and taking part in some ritual does not make you a Hindu. Religion is a belief not an act, and what Sikhism teaches you is, 1 Gode and no Idol Worship. Hinduisam teaches many gods through Idol worship. How can you follow both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.45.188 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Very Misleading article

This article is alarmingly misleading. The last two lines of the introduction manipulate information to convey what is incorrect. For example, the footnote for "intermarriage between Hindus and Sikhs has been considered acceptable" cites the quote "A Sikh's daughter must be married to a Sikh." Also, the last line's reference sources are not valid! The 2nd source for it, a page about a Hindu shrine, mentions one important Sikh visitor. Nothing on the sources even imply that Hindus and Sikhs both visit each site proportionally. I will clarify the inaccuracies here; if you have a reason to change then respond first please. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes very misleading

Present Day Scenario, The Truth Hindus in all(in particularly Hindu punjabis) lose no chance in humilating and cracking jokes on Sikhism & Sikh community in any gatthering or function....They have have taken over from were what Mulims used to do befor Indias Partition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.121.67 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok first of all Sikhs crack jokes on Hindus to. Lets not get all innocent. Secondly most Hindu Punjabis go to a Gurudwara or believe in some form of Sikhism so dont act like they hate on Sikhs cus they dont like them. And third, this article is not mis leading, its building a case for people who believe in both Hinduism and Sikhism. If you dont believe in the unity of these two religions, then thats your opinion. But there are many people who believe that Hindus and Sikhs are pretty much the same (with some differences). After all the Gurus did teach us to unite. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a Punjabi Hindu and i in no form believe in any Sikh concept at all and i never visit a Gurudwara and i know not even a single Punjabi Hindu who believes in any sikh ideas. 122.161.152.30 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you must live in a little hole, because when i was last in Panjab in 2004 and before that in 2001 Once in during Janmashtami, many sikhs were lining up in Ludhiana to visit the Hindu Mandir in Model Town, on Diwali there were hindus going to both places of worship not least my own relatives and have you ever been to vaishno devi shrine in Jammu? Sikhs a plenty! It does not been all Hindus and Sikhs do this in the Panjab, but many do. --86.20.74.243 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a Panjabi Hindu.. I and my Sikh friends used to visit Gurudwara and then used to go to Hanuman Mandir on every tuesday..My sikh friends often visit Shivji temple...and there is a huge population of Hindus who visit 'Harmandir Sahib' golden temple and other Sikh sacred places such as Poanta Sahib etc... Hindus and Sikh are like brothers...People who say shit on each other religions or creates rift should get punished :P . Thanks and Regards Shekhar Tagra --121.241.64.81 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sikhs do not go to Hindu temples or pilgrimages?

Many modern day Sikhs take a pilgrimage to the Golden Temple don't they. From that article:

...Similarly Diwali is one of the festivals which sees the Harmandir Sahib beautifully illuminated with Divas/Diyas (lamps),lights and fireworks are discharged. During these special occasions 1-2 million pilgrims visit the Holy shrine named Harmandir Sahib.

That sounds like there is pilgrimage to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

An annual event is not a pilgrimage. Many gurdwaras are lit up during the New Year and an abnormally large crowd shows up on those days. Are you saying that New Year's visits are pilgrimages? "Pilgrims" and "pilgrimage" are simply poor choices of words.3swordz (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

.3swordz Your point is a valid one, but please cut out the personal remarks. Debate content and not editors. Thanks --Sikh-History 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

this remark was made a LONG while ago when I was new here. In much more recent developments, the user and I get along fine. So stop tracing my edits. I see no need to monitor your edits, or to interact at all save for if you have another direct problem with me. 3swordz (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

you know what, to avoid yet another stupid needless conflict with you, I'll fix the tone right now. you've gotten me to cop to something (ancient), good job.3swordz (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

False claims

Quote-

"Sikhs can often be told apart by physical appearance. Hindus refer to God by many names such as "Rama,", "Krishna" or "Durga", however they view these human forms of God as a symbolic represenation of One universal ultimate Truth and reality called "Aum" or "Brahman" that is omnipresent and eternal and resides in all living entities as professed by every Hindu scripture. Sikhs refer God as "Waheguru" or "Raab," and the Sikh God is omnipotent, omnipresent, formless, genderless. This God is referred to in both male and female tenses throughout the Guru Granth, showing the nature of a single creator. Rama, Krishna etc. are considered mere creations of God and are nowhere near God's greatness, in Guru Granth Sahib Ji they are also crticised as being filled with ego. Therefore, Sikhs are strictly forbade from worshipping them, but must worship the One alone as described in the Mool Mantar and praised throughout Guru Granth Sahib Ji."

"Rama, Krishna etc. are considered mere creations of God and are nowhere near God's greatness, in Guru Granth Sahib Ji they are also crticised as being filled with ego. Therefore, Sikhs are strictly forbade from worshipping them, but must worship the One alone as described in the Mool Mantar and praised throughout Guru Granth Sahib Ji"

Now i shall quote from the Guru Granth Sahib to proove that these lines are 100% false.

Sloka Sahaskritee M: 1Guru Nanak Dev says-

Ek Krishna sarab devaa dev devtaa-t atmah aatma-m Sri vaasa-v devasya koi janas bhev Nanak taako daas hai so-ee Niranjan dev

Translation

There is only one Krishna, rest are all demigods(devtaa-s). He is the master of all demigods. He is the Supreme soul (Param-atma) Nanak is the servant to that controller.

Asaa M:5 Sloka

Hari Hari Naam japanti-aa kach kahe na Yamkaal Nanak man tan sukhi hoi anteh milay Gopal

Translation

By chanting the name of Hari ( Krishna ) Yamraj ( incharge of death ) doesnot say anything. Nanak says, " the mind as well as the body gets happiness and in the end one meets Gopal ( Krishna's childhood name ).

also refer to - Gujri Sri Trilochan jiu ke Padey Ghar 1, Asa di Vaar, Maroo M5, Raag Goand Baani Naamdev jiu ki Ghar 2, Soret M5, Guru Gobind Singh's book- Chaubees Avtara. I can quote 100 more references from the Guru Granth Sahib where endless Glories of Lord Krishna and Lord Ram are sung and they are declared to be the Supreme Lord.

Now to the 2nd point -

indus refer to God by many names such as "Rama,", "Krishna" or "Durga", however they view these human forms of God as a symbolic represenation of One universal ultimate Truth and reality called "Aum" or "Brahman" that is omnipresent and eternal and resides in all living entities as professed by every Hindu scripture.

i can quote a lot here but i shall quote only 1 verse

Sri Bramha Samhita, text 1

Isvara Parama Krishna Sat Cit Ananda Vigraha Anadir adit Govinda Sarve Karan Karanam

Translation

Krishna is the Supreme controller He is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge. He is origin of all and has no origin himself. He is the Prime cause of all causes.

So this makes it clears that the Hindus hold Sri Krishna as just not a symbolic representation but as God himself. Nowhere in the Sikh holy book or any Hindu sacred text has this been said, if there is then please quote, till then i shall delete this part.

As such the whole article seems to been have written by some sikh gentleman who wishes to declare his own views as universal and the article must be considered for deletion. 122.161.152.30 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't share any of the numerous quotes where Hindu demigods are dismissed as illusions, and tell of the fruitlessness of worshipping them. Hindus can't honestly call the Guru Granth Sahib and the Dasven Granth Hindu poetic masterpieces and simultaneously believe that it is literal. Poetry is metaphor, and metaphor is used extensively in those tomes. You can't pull quotes out of context to support your point; many quotes that can be used for your purposes are parts or larger stories where the Gurus say to worshippers of false Hindu idols, 'Waheguru is the REAL (insert random Hindu demigod here)' as opposed to 'Waheguru IS (insert random Hindu demigod here)'. And this article really should be deleted, as its mere existence implies more of a link than there really is (none). 3swordz (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Implying there is no link is entirely your own agenda and not that of the Gurus. Tell me about simple panjabi farmers of the 16th century and their grand understanding of metaphors, or perhaps the Gurus were actually using plain language so that common folk could understand them? Sounds more plausible. Now as far as wordhipping Demi Gods goes, the Bhagavad Gita even states;

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." BG 7.23

Metaphors simplify concepts, don't know how "lofty" a tool they are. Many folk sayings, for example, are metaphorical. As for "plain language," that's ridiculous. the SGGS is high poetry, not prose or a class lesson. Punjabi farmers may not have been scholars by profession but they weren't a bunch of idiots either.

As for your quote, I don't think that the vast majority of Hindus, who worship demigods, are going counter to what their scripture dictates, your agenda aside. Demigods are revered extensively in your texts and puja to these deities are a core aspect of your "low-intelligence" religious mainstream, whether you like it or not.3swordz (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!! NEEDED for Article on Sikh Rajputs

Someone put a tag on "Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs.

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I recover the page Spartan locke (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sikh names

Some people will not accept cultural differences between Sikhs and Hindus, like Sikhs cannot have their own culture without the blessing of Hindus. Someone put this up:

*Many Sikhs have adopted Hindu names such as Devender, Jitender, Joginder, Manjeet, Gaganjeet, Govind,Arjan ,Angad, Raminder, Jeet, Preet, Inder, Veer etc. as their own, as they are in close geographical proximity.

Names like Joginder, Manjeet, Gaganjeet, Raminder, and most names ending in -inder, -preet, or -veer are culturally Punjabi names, with mostly Sikhs having names in this fashion and very few Hindus (very few Hindu males, NO females), and no Hindus with those particular names. Govind, I will concede, is predominantly a Hindu name, and Arjan is more Hindu, but Punjabi Sikhs do not have names in this style for , and moreover this argument is not about those names.

More urbanized Sikhs outside of Punjab but in India living among Hindus (Jatts call them "Papae," can't really show the pronunciation,)may adopt Hindu names for their children on rare occasion, like names with Abhi- or -esh for males, or names ending with -a for females, for example (Abhi-, -esh, and -a are firmly Hindu), but their numbers are near inconsequential. Point is, there is a rather firm dichotomy, and Punjabi Hindus may adopt the names of the majority Sikhs in Punjab when they're surrounded by them.

If you think I'm just inferring this from a general observation, I live in the Bay Area (abound with Hindus, Sikhs, Asians, Middle East, etc.) and have a job that involves customers signing payment documents; I go through hundreds each day. As most of the clients are of Hindu persuasion, you see a pattern with these things. Sure it's not scientific, but it's not like all the Hindus with Punjabified names stayed back in India, and it's a pretty large random sample. It's an inference that isn't absurd to make. Hindus need to just back off with their assimilation propaganda and accept this; it wasn't until you found out you outnumbered us a hundredfold that you found the courage to try and dictate what our culture is anyway.3swordz (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous discussion on differences or similarities

This is a completely superfluous discussion repeated at countless forums. It serves only one purpose and that is to give a chance to motivated individuals to irritate and spew venom. Nobody can force another person let alone a community to subsume his or her identity to his own.

No community emerges or develops in a vacuum.

India is a large country and Hinduism itself as practiced from one region to another and one community to another can be vastly dissimilar. Dissimilarities in religious beliefs and practices even between Hindus from a common region can be substantial.

On the other hand as the Sikh community has grown ( in numbers) so has the heterogeneous growth of sub sects . Some have an overtly religious disposition while others have regional or clan identities.

The irony is that the politics and politicians of identity (dharma rakshak). …While on the one hand champion the right to protect the identity of a community, are the first ones to takeaway the right of the individual to his/her identity.

The killing of the girl child among Punjabis of all hues is certainly one issue where there seems to be a high degree of common concurrence … .is the girl child Less Sikh, less Hindu, Less Human??
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagrant misuse of sources

A bunch of quotes were pulled out of context, in some cases altered, and placed in the article, probably by a Hindu who wanted to portray Sikhs as also vegetarian. I've added some context to reveal their true context; they have nothing to do with vegetarianism. As people well know, a few of the Gurus were themselves hunters, at times for sport. Hindu propagandists frequently misuse sources on many, many articles. This little section will show just a little of that. For more info, simply access the source: www.srigranth.org :

• Page 467: "They (the truest of the true) burn away the bonds of the world, And eat a simple diet of grain and water."

This line emphasizes simplicity, and no gluttony.

• Page 332: "You kill living beings and worship lifeless things, at your very last moment, You will suffer terrible pain."

What's funny is that this passage condemns not meat-eating, but Hindu practices, hypocrisy, and corruption! Irony...: They do not listen to the Lord's Praises, and they do not sing the Lord's Glories, but they try to bring down the sky with their talk. You should always be careful around those whom God has excluded from His devotional worship. They do not offer even a handful of water, while they slander the one who brought forth the Ganges. Sitting down or standing up, their ways are crooked and evil. They ruin themselves, and then they ruin others. They know nothing except evil talk. They would not even obey Brahma's orders. They themselves are lost, and they mislead others as well. They set their own temple on fire, and then they fall asleep within it. He does not honor his ancestors while they are alive, but he holds feasts in their honor after they have died Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the dogs have eaten up? Making gods and goddesses out of clay, people sacrifice living beings to them. Such are your dead ancestors, who cannot ask for what they want. | You murder living beings and worship lifeless things; at your very last moment, you shall suffer in terrible pain. You do not know the value of the Lord's Name; you shall drown in the terrifying world-ocean. You worship gods and goddesses, but you do not know the Supreme Lord God. Says Kabeer, you have not remembered the Lord who has no ancestors; you are clinging to your corrupt ways. (332)

• Page 1350: "Do not say that the Vedas are false, false are those who do not reflect.

OUT OF CONTEXT:Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. This line preaches simply open-mindedness of all belief systems. It was altered to try to legitimize Hindu texts only, for Sikhs. You're slipping, Hindutva friends.

If in all is one god, then why does one kill the hen?" This is part of a critique of the Muslim Halal prayer practice, praying over lifeless matter. Read the whole passage, don't yank quotes out of context.

• Page 723: "The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat. So control your urges, or else the Lord wil throw you into hell."

gluttony and materialism. once again, read the passage.

• Page 898/899: "You are the treasure of mercy, O my Beloved Lord God. I cannot even describe Your many Glorious Virtues. The cat sees the meat, but does not eat it, and the great butcher throws away his knife; the Creator Lord God abides in the heart; the net holding the fish breaks apart."

God's mercy and benevolence. Some context:

You are the treasure of mercy, O my Beloved Lord God. I cannot even describe Your many Glorious Virtues. The cat sees the meat, but does not eat it, and the great butcher throws away his knife; the Creator Lord God abides in the heart; the net holding the fish breaks apart. The dry wood blossoms forth in greenery and red flowers; in the high desert, the beautiful lotus flower blooms. The Divine True Guru puts out the fire.

• Page 1374: "Sayeth Kabir, that the best food is eating kichree (daal/lentils) where nectar sweet is the salt. You eat hunted meat, but which animal is willing to have their head cut?"

this quote is either fabricated or alternately (and erroneously) translated from the said source. Anyway, read the passage.

*And to anyone who tries to say that Sikhs literally refer to and therefore worship Hindu gods: Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider. Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction. One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself. 1374

And there are other passages that make this point, or that the Hindu gods are flat-out false.3swordz (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The assertion "Sikhs do not go to Hindu temples" needs clarification. As it stands it is just not true. It sounds as though Sikhs are barred from visiting Hindu temples, when in fact they do. The Mandir that I attend has many Hindus from the Punjab, and there are very close connections between their community and the Sikh community, many families are related by marriages. It is not unusual to see Sikhs in the Mandir. What I think this means is that Sikhs would not go to a mandir specifically to worship (though some do seem to worship when there but not directly facing the murtis). This should be clarified. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the statement is self-evident, that it already means that Sikhs don't worship worship in the Hindu way. It should be taken for what it implies, not just literally. Of course Sikhs aren't banned from going to mandirs, I've been in a Hindu mandir once for a few minutes to drop off a gift for my Hindu neighbor's new kid; I wasn't kicked out. That aside, idol worship is forbidden in Sikhism (never mind what they "seem" to do). Just change the wording, there's no need for a tag.3swordz (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

At the mandir that I attend, the man who rings the kantee (bell) is a sikh. He is an elder who wears a turban and has a beard (so I know he is Sikh). My best friend is a sikh person and she and her family ALWAYS go to the mandir on shivratri and diwali. I think people who say that sikhs don't go to the mandir and hindus don't go to the gurudwara are intolerant and quite backwards. Open your eyes and take a look at reality. There are many sikhs who donate to the mandir and there are many hindus that go to the gurudwara. In the community that I live in the mandir is usually atleast 25 to 30% sikh - and there is a gurudwara next door so it's not because they don't have anywhere else to go. I think we need to be accepting of the fact that sikhs and hindus - especially those from Punjab are connected more than we like to believe. Unity717 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article deals with conventions, not exceptions. One weakly-backed counterexample changes nothing. The fact of the matter is that Sikhs by and large go to Gurdwaras exclusively. Punjabi Hindus may go sometimes as well; living in such a Sikh-dominated region they have often taken on some Sikh characteristics: for example, they may venerate the Sikh Gurus as bhagats, but by doing Hindu-style puja to their images, etc. They aren't Sikh but often aren't purely Hindu either, traditions meld. No one is denying Punjabi cultural connectedness. Regardless, you still can't "equitably" sort out cultural characteristics (like, "oh, as many Sikhs go to mandirs as Punjabi Hindus go to Gurdwaras!") no matter how much it doesn't sit well with you. As for your random stats, and your "kantee" being a Sikh, wherever this venue is, I strongly doubt that. The proscription of idol worship and devotion to any other god/gods is a central tenet of Sikhism, one that is stated unequivocally. Stating that Sikhs always go to Gurdwaras is closer to the truth than your PC-everyone-goes-everywhere-or-else-it-isn't-fair version of the world, so don't throw around "backward" and "intolerant." Don't try to edit the truth to make everyone happy if it distorts it. Such statements aren't made out of malice, it's the truth.3swordz (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you have lived in Punjab for considerable period of time. Please try to refrain from sentiments and write what is true. All those who are born and brought up in Punjab or have lived there for considerable time know that the two sides are very much inter-mingled. They maintain separate identities, but very much like two brothers. and above all, Punjabis are Punjabis first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.131.82 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you who ought to refrain from sentiments and generalizations. Moreover, you missed the point, that as many Sikhs can't be going to Mandirs as Hindus go to Gurdwaras because such activities as idol worship, central to mandirs, are flat-out proscribed in Sikhism, and the Rehat Maryada bars allegiance to other religions. As you say yourself, they maintain seperate identities. Again, these statements aren't malicious, but the truth, "brothers" rhetoric aside. Who said they couldn't be friends? And really, what does that or Punjabi pride have to do with anything?3swordz (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Shortcomings - question mainly for Sikhs

The following are listed as references in th Guru Granth Sahib to Shortcomings in other Scriptures

• Page 148 - ਵੇਦ ਕਹਹਿ ਵਖਿਆਣ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਵਣਾ ॥ - The Vedas speak and expound on the Lord, but they do not know His limits.
• Page 355 - ਅਸਟ ਦਸੀ ਚਹੁ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ - The eighteen Puraanas and the four Vedas do not know His mystery.
• Guru Nanak, on page 1021 - ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬੀ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਤਾ ॥ - Neither the Vedas (four Hindu texts) nor the four Katebas [Semitic texts: the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms), the Injil (Gospel), and the Quran] know the mystery (of the Creator of the Cosmos).[9]

• Page 1237 - ਨਵ ਛਿਅ ਖਟ ਕਾ ਕਰੇ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਨਿਸਿ ਦਿਨ ਉਚਰੈ ਭਾਰ ਅਠਾਰ ॥ ਤਿਨਿ ਭੀ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ਤੋਹਿ ॥ - You may study the nine grammars, the six Shaastras and the six divisions of the Vedas. You may recite the Mahaabhaarata. Even these cannot find the limits of the Lord.

Are these really meant as short comings. I would read it (maybe naively) as saying that God is limitless, if He does have any limits we cannot comprehend them even in our greatest holy books. I would say that these quotes would only amount to shortcomings if the Guru Granth Sahib does describe limits to God. IThe same goes for God's mysteries.

In fact the only reference that I would say could possibly be a "shortcoming" is this one:

• Page 1126 - ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਹੈ ਮਾਇਆ ਅੰਧੁਲਉ ਧੰਧੁ ਕਮਾਈ ॥੩॥ - The Shaastras and the Vedas keep the mortal bound to the three modes of Maya, and so he performs his deeds blindly. ||3||

Reading it [in context] it could be talking about someone with an impure heart. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the God referred to in the Guru Granth Sahib is simply described as unknowable, and it makes no attempts to quantify God's power, whether through earthly manifestation (giving power to insignificant Hindu gods; trying to justify God's actions as in the Western texts; describing Jesus as God's "special" son, or even more boldly as God incarnate; angels maybe as well?) or otherwise. May sound like a cop-out at first, lol, but it does strengthen God's absolute power on another level, to be worked for through good deeds. At any rate, no other religious text is belittled; as one quote in that very section states, "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false"(1350). They are simply trying to attribute qualities to the unquantifiable. Nanak himself made no claims to divinity. This is just my interpretation as a Sikh. 3swordz (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 3swordz, this is useful. The article as it stands seems to imply the opposite, that the Vedas do not specify some limits which are there. Incidentally, I don't see myself how the existence of demigods or devas limits God any more than any being having free will does, but that is OR so I won't put it in. I will try to clarify the references. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with Christian-Jewish relations

It seems rather similar, who else thinks its a good idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are similarities, but turn the idea on its head: could you justify a section in an article on Christian-Jewish relations that compared it to Hinduism and Sikhism? -- Q Chris (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tat Khalsa

Someone tagged on these blatantly biased statements (in bold)

1. 1873: The first Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha was founded in Amritsar. They worked towards spreading the essence of Sikh scriptures against, what they considered as attempts to subvert Sikhism from within.[18] In a short span of time the number of Singh Sabhas rose to 117 in Punjab. They were supported by the British who wished to weaken the Sikh community and strenghthen their hold on Punjab province.
2. 1879: Another Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha; popularly known as Lahore Singh Sabha was founded by pro-British Sikhs in Lahore to counter Sanatan Singh Sabha, which advocated the view that Sikhism is a part of a larger Dharmic tradition. They held extremist views about Sikhism and were subtlely backed by the British under their policy of "Divide and Rule".

Ridiculous. So the Tat Khalsa was involved with the British simply because they wanted to retain their distinct identity from outside encroaching influences (mostly introduced by the corrupt mahants, not Sikhs)? The only people who say this are Hindus who can't stand the fact that Sikhism is very distinct from their tradition and would have liked the Sikhs at least partially absorbed into Hinduism as Sanatan seemed to have liked. Obviously and fortunately, most Sikhs at the time didn't go for that.

Under 1873: These actions to stop the infiltration of outside traditions into Sikhism would "weaken" Sikhs and Punjab? How does that figure? Under 1879: So if the Sikhs did not to be Hindus, they were implicit British allies? Again, stunning logic. The Sikhs never liked the British in Punjab, as they obviously counted under foreign influence, alongside Hindu traditions/crooked mahants/idol worship etc. Better keep in mind that the Sikhs never had to join some implied "Hindu" or "Dharmic" alliance to give the most lives for independence, far more than other communities and their "ahimsa"/"take it on the chin until they feel sorry for us" philosophies. Many editors seem to like bleating "divide and rule" whenever their perceived "Hindu rashtra" beliefs are challenged. The Sikhs fought the British the most directly while staunchly remaining Sikhs and nothing else.

The Sikhs asserting their distinct identity was not "divide and rule," it was simply yet another community against the British. The Tat Khalsa is to thank for the Sikh community's sense of distinctiveness today, the movement didn't breed a bunch of extremists as implied.3swordz (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Improve Article

This article may be improved by a comparative exploration of concepts such as for example of Moksha atman dhyan naam mantra karma bhakti , krodh, lobh, moh, ahankaar , and transmigration of the soul in Sikhism vis a vis the different schools of Hinduism .

There are broadly 6 schools of hindu philosophy .

• 1. Sankhya, a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter.
• 2. Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Sankhya
• 3. Nyaya or logics
• 4. Vaisheshika, an empiricist school of atomism
• 5. Mimamsa, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy
• 6. Vedanta
  

Intothefire (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Exploring on from this earlier post above , regarding some Spiritual terms found in both Hinduism and Sikhism encapsulating vital philosophical and spiritual realms
Viz Moksha atman dhyan naam mantra karma bhakti , krodh, lobh, moh, ahankaar , and transmigration of the soul in both streams ,

I have put together a table that may be developed through discussion , and form content for the article on a later date .

Term	Wikipage with Sikh Explanation	Wikipage with Hindu Explanation	Other pages of Interest/My Comment
Moksha	Moksh in Sikhism	Moksh in Hinduism
Atman	Atman	Ātman (Hinduism)
Dhyan	Meditation in Sikhism	Dhyana in Hinduism
Naam	Naam Japo Nāma	Nāma	Example
Mantra	Mantra in Sikhism Mul Mantar	Mantra in Hinduism	Bīja
Karma	Karma Sikhism	Karma in Hinduism	Example
Bhakti		Bhakti	Surprisingly I could not find an a Wiki article for Bhakti in Sikhism
Krodh,	Krodh		I could not find a wiki article on Krodh in Hinduism
Lobh	Lobh		I could not find a wiki article on Lobh in Hinduism
Moh	Moh Maya in Sikhism	Maya (illusion) Maya in Hinduism	I could not find a Wiki article on Moh in Hinduism
Ahankaar,	Ahankar	Ahamkara	Example
Reincarnation	Reincarnation in Sikhism	Reincarnation in Hinduism	Karma Samsara Sansara

This table is by no stretch of imagination a comprehensive glossary of terms , nor a perfect one for wikilinks . Nor perhaps even a perfect one for the wikiliks , which may be improved upon .Feel free to edit it , add to it so that it can ultimately be added to this article as a comparative List . This article has great scope to be improved . Intothefire (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sikhism and "Punjabi Hindus"

There should be a mention of the following in the article with well researched references.

"Punjabi Hindus" hold Sikhism in high regard, many Punjabi Hindus not only in India but worldwide today visit their local Gurudwaras regularly and adhere to the preaching’s of the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus and Dharma against marauding Islamic invaders who sought to convert Hindus to Islam by lethal force and against oppressive Mughal government and religious extremism of Mughal Emperors and specially that of Aurangzeb.

There has been a long standing practice in Punjab which still continuous where Hindu families give their first born son to the Guru to be baptized as a Khalsa Sikh warrior and join the Guru’s army of protectors. This practice started when Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 asked the Hindu families to give him their eldest sons to help raise the new Khalsa Army to protect Dharma and all against Mughal tyranny and forced conversions to Islam. As it is the Hindu religious duty of every Kshatriya including every Rajput to bear arms and protect society and the Dharma, local Punjabi Hindu including Kshtriya families and Rajputs living in Punjab keenly supported the Guru and offered him their eldest sons all too willingly and the tradition continued hence many Punjabi Rajput families too have been giving their eldest sons to be enrolled in the Guru’s Army and baptized as Khalsa Sikhs. Thus there are many Hindu, Punjabi Hindu Rajput and Punjabi Hindu Mair Rajput families whose kin are proud followers of Sikhism today with their eldest sons as baptized Khalsa Sikhs. Thus there are many Sikhs who call themselves "Sikh Rajputs" today and still use Rajput family names.

mrigthrishna (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of problems with this article

When I try to put down information on the Sikhism page they take it down and tell me that's what this page is for. So then I try to put information down on this page, and it to gets taken down. Why does this keep happening?

Their are sections in this article that are biast and have information about Hinduism that is kind of not giving the bigger idea. And the section that explains the diffrences between Sikhism and Hinduism I also have a problem with. Who is in charge of this aritcle then here? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use WP:Personal Analysis, and also see section on WP:POV. I have had to revert personal analysis, because it differed from what the actual refernce states. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do they take it out? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hindus and Sikhism in Punjab

This section needs to be clarified because it is just a jumble of words. I read it three times and came out worse off than the first time I read it. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

about cristianityhindu,sikh and islaam

if sikh means lerner or chela then every person in the world is sikh whowant to learn something.. if muslman means honest toward god then every honest person in this world is muslmaan... the meanings of names criest,musalmaan,sikh,hindu have their litterl meanings different from their meanings understood in normal beliefs.. the meaning of hindu is present in persion dictionery..which means hindu as black,thief...can we believe?? so for understanding the reogion we have to go through the holly books,history of each relegion and also the present situations of every relegion..

if i m not wrong hinuism is like a mix veg. wcich absorb each and every type of religios phylosiphy..

if it is true then the cristions worshiping in front of stone made Jesus Chriests picture are hindu,and muslisms believing in on god also hindu.becouse hinduism also believe in stone god and one god.can we belive?? the basic purpose of all relegions is same.but we cant say all paths are same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.246.27 (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

non-RS websites

@Sirdaar: Per reliable sources and WP:WWIN guidelines, I have removed the content and websites you added. Blogs and questionable websites are not appropriate for this or other wikipedia articles. I have also restored the content that is supported in the cited scholarly sources. If you disagree, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hinduism and Sikhism. 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/20061018031716/http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/index.htm to http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030827045441/http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/gst/ to http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/gst/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sikhism is a religion of hindu crusaders

Historically, Sikhs were seen as the protectors of Hindus, among others, and were even considered by some right-wing Hindu political organizations like the RSS as the "sword arm" of Hinduism. Hogzilla402 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC) (Wrong information)

Pls don't spread poison in religion if you don't know, Sikh and Hindu are close brothers,both goes to Temple and gurdwaras, Sikhs were created to kill Cruel Muslim Invaders in India,

Sikh and Hindu are close brothers,both goes to Temple and gurdwaras, Sikhs were created to kill Cruel Muslim Invaders in India, Surinderdogra (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Original research

I have restored this version all the way now because the recent expansion done by the 2 of the users,[1][2] completely ignores WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If there is some information like "Hinduism opposes XYZ" and "Sikhism supports XYZ" then the comparison of these 2 views should be made by the cited reliable source, not Wikipedia editors per WP:OR. I am seeing the recent edits[3][4] to be clearly violating that norm. Finally the WP:QUOTEFARM and dependence on unreliable sources (douban.com/group/, hindujagruti.org) and primary sources (Guru granth sahib) has been also very heavy. For these reasons, the last stable version has been restored by me. Azuredivay (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)1

On what basis are you are saying that the edits of additional differences ignores WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Majority of the content has been copied from different articles of Wikipedia like Svarga, Naraka (Hinduism), Pilgrimage, Culture and menstruation, Fasting etc. and majority of sources in these articles are reliable. Proper attribution has even been provided in the edit comment. So, your point regarding WP:OR doesn't holds any weight. Regarding WP:SYNTH, please read what WP:SYNTH says again. It says you can't draw a conclusion C if a source says conclusion A and another source says conclusion B. My question to you is where are we drawing the conclusion C? For eg: Hinduism source says what Hinduism says Heaven & Hell and Sikh source says what Sikhism says about Heaven & Hell. So, where did you see the conclusion being drawn from these two points? If you think a source is unreliable like douban.com/group/, hindujagruti.org or there is over dependence on primary source, you can remove those particular problematic lines but please don't show such irresponsible behaviour of removing such a large content like this without a proper consensus on Talk page. Please see WP:RVW. So, I am reverting your change for now. --Jasksingh (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Apart from reverting your changes, I have addressed 3 points raised by you. Firstly, removed the section of Childbirth Rituals because it was citing unreliable sources as pointed out by you. Secondly, I have removed 5 quotes as per WP:QUOTEFARM pointed out by you. Thirdly, removing the quotes has also reduced dependence on primary source of Guru Granth Sahib. If you think there is still some problem with any section, we can discuss further but please don't remove large number of sections without reaching any consensus. Jasksingh (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Despite your claims of improving the article your edits show that you are still using primary and unreliable sources like srigurugranth.org, fateh.sikhnet.com, thesikhencyclopedia.com, srigranth.org, Guru Nanak Foundation and other sources which seem reliable but makes no comparison of "Sikhism" and "Hinduism".[5][6] This is how your version is still violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but it seems that I have already clarified this in my previous message. Azuredivay (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the line which was citing unreliable source of fateh.sikhnet.com & thesikhencyclopedia.com. Regarding Guru Nanak Foundation, that is the name of publisher of the book. So, I couldn't understand how you found the book source to be "unreliable". Regarding using primary source of Guru Granth Sahib, I have removed two more quotes of Guru Granth Sahib from the article. As per WP:USEPRIMARY, primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. But in any case, after my changes, Guru Granth Sahib is being used as a source only 8 times out of total 102 sources which should not be unacceptable by any stretch of imagination. If you think there is still some unreliable source left, we can discuss further. Jasksingh (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Which part of WP:USEPRIMARY endorses your use of primary sources? Your addition of your own understanding about the verses is violation of WP:OR. 102 sources? There are hundreds of scholarly sources available who have compared these religions but your additions seldom compares two religion with each other. Azuredivay (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#%22Primary%22_does_not_mean_%22bad%22 . It clearly says and I am quoting "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." By 102, I meant to say total number of references used in the article out of which primary source of Guru Granth Sahib has been used as a reference only 8 times. Using a primary source only 8 times out of total 102 references can't be called overuse of primary source. But, in any case, we can discuss and reduce it even further. I have added 8 sections of Hell and Heaven, Pilgrimage, Menstruation, Fasting, Śrāddha, Auspicious days, Slavery and Veil and in all of these 8 sections, no verse of Guru Granth Sahib has been quoted in the current version of the article. Guru Granth Sahib has been used as a source only 3 times in these 8 sections and that too it is supported by secondary sources. So, I couldn't understand which verse are you referring to now. Jasksingh (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sign your comments with four ~~~~ You can't use primary sources for making a comparison of two subjects as a part of your own analysis which is WP:OR. Your sections don't involve sources that are comparing the two religions with each other on a specific subject. They are only individually offering details about position of one religion at one time. You should have already shown by now that how any of your sources in those "8 sections" are comparing both religions with each other. Azuredivay (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed primary source of Guru Granth Sahib completely in the sections that I had added. I hope you are satisfied now. Regarding your claim that sources referenced by me are not comparing both the religions then I would say it goes the same with the version of the article that you called as "last good version". For eg.: in that version if you see the section "Monotheism versus pluralism", different references have been used to explain concept of God in Sikhism and Hinduism respectively. It is not a single source comparing concept of God in both the religions. Same goes for majority of other sections in that version. So, it seems like your line of reasoning is not consistent. You are calling that version as "good" and when I have used same process of referencing in adding some sections then you are calling it wrong. So, it should not be the case that a logic works for a section and the same logic doesn't works for another section. Jasksingh (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits made by Otinflewer seems to be wrong in the following ways:

1. He has mentioned that Hinduism has prehistoric origins and has replaced the actual date with this text. Similar kind of belief is held by many orthodox Hindus that their religion is eternal and has "always" been there which is not worth accepting from an encyclopedia point of view. Secondly the source given by him doesn't say the same. Please see p544 of the book that he has been used as a reference: https://archive.org/details/surveyofhinduism00klos/page/544/mode/2up . It doesn't say anything like that. It is WP:FICTREF

2. He has rewritten the Idol Worship section by giving reference of Idolatry in Sikhism article. He writes: "Prior to 1905, idols were a part of Sikh gurdwaras, including the Harimandir Sahib (Golden Temple, Amritsar)." which indirectly suggests that idol worship was there in Sikhism even at the time of Sikh Gurus. This is not the Idolatry in Sikhism article says. If one reads the entire article, it outlines three phases in Sikhism wrt Idol Worship i.e. first phase is when as per teachings of Sikh Gurus, idol worship was not present in Sikh institutions. Second phase came when mahants, who gained control of Gurudwaras after Mughal persecution forced Khalsa Sikhs to relinquish the control of Gurudwaras, institutionalized idol worship. Third phase is when Khalsa Sikhs re-established institutional control over Gurudwaras and removed the idols installed during the preceding period. But, he has picked between the lines and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, two of the sources cited by him for these lines have citation error.

3. He has removed some sections under Differences citing WP:OR but discussion on this has already taken place on this talk page under Original Research subject where Azuredivay failed to prove how sections removed by him violate WP:OR and sections left in the version (which he was referred to as good version) doesn't violate WP:OR. Just to reiterate WP:OR says that you can't draw a conclusion C if a source says conclusion A and another source says conclusion B. My question is where are we drawing the conclusion C? For eg: Hinduism source says what Hinduism says Heaven & Hell and Sikh source says what Sikhism says about Heaven & Hell. So, where is the conclusion drawn from these two points?

So, I am reverting his changes for now. We can discuss further on this talk page if there is disagreement with my analysis. Jasksingh (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If "Some of the recent edits made by this user seems to be wrong" then why you are making a blanket revert? You don't WP:OWN this page.

You are wrong about #1 since the source supports the content, "p.544" wasn't the only page cited, but also "p.1", which clearly say "also the oldest living major tradition on earth with roots reaching back into prehistoric times". I would now like to now why you ignored "p.1" and tried to cherry-pick from p.544 to discard a constructive edit.

You are also wrong about #2 because position of Sikhism isn't that clear cut over idolatry. The source is clear.

As for #3, stop misrepresenting my unwillingness to entertain your WP:IDHT as failure "to prove how sections removed.... violate WP:OR". Unless the comparison has been made by the source it does not belong to this article. This is billionth time I am saying this same thing. Azuredivay (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I accept #1 as I somehow missed p1 but can you explain if p544 doesn't say anything like that so why was it cited?

Regarding #2, you claimed that I am cherry picking p1 in #1 but Otinflewer has done the same in the lines copied from Idolatry in Sikhism as only part of some lines has been copied rather than copying those entire lines. Also, the context of the article has been completely missed as explained by me above. Also you are claiming that "The source is clear" but two of the sources cited for these lines are having citation error. So, which sources are clear?

Regarding #3, I am willing to address your concern regarding sections added by me violating WP:OP. I have done that in the past by removing primary source and unreliable sources. Now also, I would not add any new sections in future without source comparing both the religions. But isn't it your responsibility to address my concerns regarding the version of the article that you are claiming as "last good version". For eg: in the above lines added by Otinflewer, can you give my any single source which compares idol worship in both Sikhism and Hinduism? If that's not the case then why are you defending his edit by calling it "constructive"? You still haven't replied regarding how sections, present in your "last good version" are worth keeping as even those sections don't have common source comparing both the religions. Jasksingh (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You can modify about Idolatory in Sikhism if you want since that appears to be your leading concern now, although the current version of that section isn't really bad. Azuredivay (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit made by Otinflewer in Idol Worship section was in violation of WP:FICTREF and WP:OR guideline as he has inserted "contemporary interpretations" by himself which changes the entire meaning of sentence. He has quoted lines from source but the lines doesn't say mention anything like "contemporary interpretations". Infact, the source cited by him says "Such indeed had been the fundamental teaching of the Gurus". So, I don't understand on what basis you are calling his version as not bad. Jasksingh (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Differences sections ignoring WP:OR

The user Azuredivay had raised objections that many sections under Differences are ignoring WP:OR. The reason given by him was that these sections don't contain common sources which mentions the stance of both religions on various points like Pilgrimage, Fasting, Idol worship etc. He had removed some of the sections because of that. So, I will keep on adding such sources in various sections so that they no longer ignore WP:OR guideline. I will also keeping on mentioning those sources in this section of talk page so that any other user, who has the same concerns, can refer to this section.

For eg: today I have made changes in Idol Worship section so that it no longer ignores WP:OR. The common source for that is the following book:

https://archive.org/stream/ACompleteGuideToSikhism/#page/n109

Other supporting sources have also been kept as just common source is sometimes not enough to mention all the details. For eg: the above common source doesn't mentions that all Hindus don't worship idols so other sources have to be used to clarify that. Jasksingh (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

For Pilgrimage section, following source has been added as a common source for both the religions:

https://archive.org/details/IntroductionToSikhism/page/n57 Jasksingh (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

For Heaven and Hell section, following source has been added as a common source for both the religions:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TxP5Ww_JO64C&pg=PA188 Jasksingh (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

For Fasting section, following source has been added as a common source comparing both religions w.r.t fasting:

https://books.google.ie/books?id=gqIbJz7vMn0C&pg=PA71 Jasksingh (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For Caste System section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=H9jKt0dLz1IC&pg=PP56 Jasksingh (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For Asceticism section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.ie/books?id=gqIbJz7vMn0C&pg=PA22 Jasksingh (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

For Shrādh section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://archive.org/details/encyclopaediaofs0000dogr/page/433 Jasksingh (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

For Menstruation section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=boI8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA125 Jasksingh (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For Auspicious Day section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://archive.org/stream/ACompleteGuideToSikhism/#page/n120 Jasksingh (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

For Animal Sacrifice section, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FYxRDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA117 Jasksingh (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

For concept of God, following source has been added as a common source:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FYxRDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA105 Jasksingh (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Rama in Sikhism into Hinduism and Sikhism

This is very poorly sourced and almost all of the sources are about the target. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge/Delete Article based off of highly unreliable citations. Direct the title or merge to Hinduism and Sikhism or even vote for its deletion as the article seems propaganda created by an editor who was temporarily blocked for edit warring and has since been inactive.MehmoodS (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge - per nom, and WP:OVERLAP. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 00:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Merge - per above. Rockcodder (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - There is not much in Rama in Sikhism and I'm not convinced that any is worth merging, but an "oppose" would have looked like support for the existing article. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - We have similar articles like Jesus in Islam, Muhammad and the Bible, Muhammad's views on Christians, Moses in Islam and so on. TB, if an article is poorly sourced you are supposed to improve it, not merge it. I would recommend closing this proposal. LearnIndology (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Other stuff exists. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Still, a poorly sourced article isn't a reason to merge the article. LearnIndology (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Please provide the sources that justify a standalone article. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Very Strong Oppose - I agree with LearnIndology. In the context of Sikh texts, I do not think there is any justification for merging this article. Instead, we can improve that article.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)