Talk:Sikhs

Propoganda in the article

There is a lot of propaganda in the article utilizing links from similar propaganda stuff available in the internet. The Congress initiated riots is termed as Hindu. The BJP's and Sangh's action during the riots which included the rescue of Kushwant Singh and many other Sikhs is not even mentioned. Kushwant Singh himself has explained this that when he felt in Nazi Germany it was the Hindu Sangh that came to his rescue. So its time to remove those anti-Hindu version and put the things in right perspective.Politicalpandit (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the answer is to say what reliable sources say. If the sources portray two or more versions of the events then it is our role to say so, without adding our own assertions as to what is "propaganda" and what is the "right perspective". At the moment the issue that you mention cites a source, so the first thing is to check that the source has been accurately represented in this article (see below). If it has then it has the right to remain, albeit so do other reliably sourced versions. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Khuswant also said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone check Frank?

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

Really over the top

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

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

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

Sikh Music and Instruments

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

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

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

Bias

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

Incomprehensible Sentence

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

sikh musical instruments

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

Punjab : The wealthiest state?

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

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

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

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

Nice info thanks

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

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

Punjabi Sikhs

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

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

Moghuls did not persecuted Sikhs

During 16th Century Moghul Rule, Th emoghul army was sent the to fight and stop the looting and recovery of National treasure ( the land tax collected by Moghuls) which was looted by Sikhs during its way to Delhi.The Moghul army caught one of the Sikh religious leaders during fight with Sikh Insurgent army. Later he was taken to Delhi and was given death sentance by Moughal Court in Delhi as to stop the further sikh attacks on royal treasure.He was one of the Gurus ( Sikhism is not based on peace as been falsely stated their Guru preach to loot the treasure and kill the army)The final verdict was to bury him alive in red fort which was done by the Moghul Army. No restrictions were placed by Moghuls. Later their Gurus made all sikhs to take oath " sawa lakh se ek bhidaoon" meanin One sikh will kill 125,000 muslims. This statement is still written in all sikh religious books. which can be verified at any sikh temples in US, UK , Australia, Canada etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.102.61 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Moghul emperors treated people of india like slaves and there were many atrocities done by them. One emperor named Ahmad shah abdali afghan ruler attacked india 17 times and each time he lotted india and took slaves from india, there was no one to check his sinful activities. Only sikhs were there because no one dared to stand and fight against him. sikhs fought against moghuls. Many times sikhs died fighting against them and if they were captured by moghuls they were treated simillar way as taliban rule treats people. The so called treasure were slaves and lotted material by moghuls. " sawa lakh se ek bhidaoon" meanin One sikh will kill 125,000 muslim was made to increase the moral of sikhs when they went to wars against moghuls as moghul outnumbered sikhs in wars.Sehmeet singh (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

5 Ks or 6?

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

Six KsMain articles: Khalsa and Sahajdhari

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

The six symbols are:

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

Unexplained deletions

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

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

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

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

That is not how it works. And please this is the last time I ask you: Stop accusing other editors of bullying, as it constitutes a personal attack. This dispute is the first interaction I have with you as an editor, I have not in any way mentioned anything about you as an editor but only about the article content. This is a content dispute, and it is a normal process in Wikipedia, so you please do not take this so personally. Furthermore Wikipedia works as per consensus, the previous consensus was to have the persons listed (as well as the sentence "and is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by serving people of all origins the same (vegetarian) food" which you insist on removing). You were being bold and removed a number of persons with the rather vague rationale "fake/self named entries deleted", later exapnded with the equally vague "It's not a scrapbook to write personal details against notable member of community". A great number of the persons are included in the Sikhs category (or sub categories) or their Sikh background is mentioned in the article text itself, which leads me to conclude that at least a number of the entries on the list has been removed on insufficient grounds.

As such it is up to you to explain in a lot more detail why you want these entries removed from the list. "Fake" is obviously not true in all cases, and you have yet to explain precisely what it is that is written "against notable member[s] of [the] community".

Lastly please stop reverting, as it constitutes edit warring and is a blockable offense. You will need to achieve a consensus for your deletions before they are to be carried out. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments Shermalabs, please refrain from personal attacks or you will be blocked from editing. Focus on the content and not the contributor. If you know what Wikipedia is for, then you should also know the policies that support your reason for removing the content. Saddhiyama, per WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation". This part of the sentence "and is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by" is being challenged by Shermalabs. If you do not have reliable sources to support the material, you should not include it again. In fact, per WP:UNDUE, you should have significant reliable sources that demonstrate this is the mainstream view in India before adding it back to the article. I've protected the article for two days to allow discussion.--v/r - TP 14:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I acknowledge and appreciate the summation of the policy of verifiability. But we also have an editing policy which stresses that problems should be tried to be fixed before being deleted. This is a policy that is difficult to maintain when the editor that wants to delete the material does not want to provide a reasonable rationale for the deletion. This applies both to the quoted sentence and the entries in the list of notable Sikhs. Uncited material can be deleted, I agree, but the normal process is to add a "Citation needed" template and give other editors time to find a citation for the statement, unless it is a sentence that violates other primary policies like WP:BLP. Something I believe is not the case here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A {{cn}} tag can be used but isn't neccessary. The rest of that paragraph in the editing policy covers content that should be retained. This editor obviously feels this specific sentence shouldn't. Besides the grammar issues, it insinuates a negative connotation about a group of living people. It's exactly right to remove it until a source of found. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor asking to retain the material, not the editor wanting to remove it.--v/r - TP 14:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I am not particular attached to that sentence either, however the removal of entries in the list is clearly problematic. As I stated a lot of the persons are included in the category or subcategory of Sikh persons, or it is mentioned in the article itself. I am looking forward to hearing the exact reasons for their removal from the list by the user formerly known as Sharmalabs but now styles themselves User:Sherepunjab. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, i am not entitled to give you all the explanations personally for whatever i do on wikipedia. Whatever i have edited i wrote the explanation in the space provided for the same. U seem to be keenly interested in all my activities on the wikipedia. Talking in wikipedia's language,only if you have citation for any one of the entries i have deleted, then talk to me regarding this matter. Moreover user Tparis( T), i am not afraid of getting banned. Go ahead if you want to, but you have to give reason for that. -User:Sherepunjab/User:Sharmalabs

I'll have a reason if your continue with personal attacks. Discussion is part of the Wikipedia-process. If someone reverts your edits, you're required to discuss them on the talk page before restoring them. You must use Wikipedia policy to support your edits. If you cannot do this, then controversial edits are not likely to stick and you'll be wasting your time. You are not entitled (read the definition of entitled, you used it wrong) to do anything here, you are obligated to explain your edits and not edit war. Read this chapter Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Resolving Content Disputes. Personal attacks are not how you resolve content disputes, we call that a battleground mentality.--v/r - TP 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Dagger

This is all that needs to be told † <--- REMOVE THAT SYMBOL FROM THIS ARTICLE. Chirstianity has no right to syombolise Religion in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frebra (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not a cross, it is actually a dagger. The only cross that appears in the article is the image of the Victoria Cross. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Guru Nanak

Guru Nanak as the founder and as someone that had a revelation from GOD for three days should be included in first section of this page. This page has good information however does not flow properly to give a comprehensive introduction into Sikhism, it could be allot better.please could you inlcude this in the first part as many people are unawre of the important meeting between GOD and Guru Nanak that started sikhism.