Talk:Sikhism

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}}
Sikh and other religon relations must be added into the article for general knowledge and correct information. Wiki admistrators will be contacted to dispute and correct the article. Public demands that information on the following religons and relations should be provided as information in this article.

• Christianity
• Islam
• Hinduism

all information has been provided earlier in history. Requests have been made to revert information on all three religons and relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk)

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

Sikhism website

I found a grest sikhism website www.sikhzone.net that provides information about sikhism, sikhism principles, sikh gurus, gurdwaras and also lets you download pdf gurbani. I think it's worth adding to External Links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The coool (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Questioned external links

I have removed a couple of external links that appear more to be resources for Sikhs than adding substantively to the article. I request the editors of the article to review these.

• SikhNet.com - community website
• GGSSC.org - Guru Gobind Singh Study Circle - non-profit organization

The Punjabi radio station and the site offering literature are, I believe, sufficiently far from adding content to the article to qualify for direct removal. Jackollie (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Last Guru Of Sikhs

In the article it is written that it is believed that Guru Gobind Singh confered the title of Guru upon Guru Granth Sahib.And that this belief finds no mention in Adi Granth or Dasam Granth.I have some obections to the way it is written. firstly a 'belief' is something that is held to be true by a group of people and may or may not be true.That Guru gobind Singh installed Guru Granth Sahib as the eternal guru of sikhs is not just a belief,it is a perpetual truth.It has to be understood that the sikh gurus did not formulate a 'municiple law' or rules for conducting life and disputes among their followers. They left that on the sikhs to decide that by way of gurmatta according to time and changes.Thay were flexible on the approach towards living.Guru Granth Sahib contains the teachings of Sikh Gurus and shows the path to salvation.It does not contains the laws or guidlines for Sikhs. secondly the term Guru Maaneyo Granth was composed by the hazuri singhs of Guru Gobind Singh after his departure from this earth.These hazuri singhs ( meaning one who is always in the presence of guru) were not ordinary mortals.They included the panj piaras and relatives of Guru Gobind Singh and sikhs who were dearer to him.They were highly learned men.Guru Granth Sahib Contains only the Hymns of Sikh Gurus.The work of sikhs is not included in it. thirdly Sikhism should not be viewed through the eyes of a Muslim or Jew or a Christian.people of these religions have a codified law contained in their religious text unlike sikhism whose religious text does not contain laws. A healthy debate is always good and removes many constraints.I hope the questionable sentences in the article are corrected sooner.Ajjay (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request to add external link

I'd like to add this link http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/asia_features/sikhism/index.html to the article. Do you have any objections? These pages give a broad history of the Sikh faith and show lots of objects and art work associated with Sikhism. VAwebteam (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi protected

Wasn't the article semi-protected. What happened to that? I don't see the protected sign! Ajjay (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism

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

Edit warring

If you want to make any major edit, then please discuss before doing so. You have suddenly started doing edits based on your own point of view.Please refrain from doing so.Don't fill this article with names of people who do not belong here. you can add their names in their respective articles. Stop undue POV EDITS on this article.THANKS!!Ajjay (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of vandalism when you clearly do not even know what it is. I do not need to discuss an edit, when I'm rewriting the original POV that was in the article. The section was quite incomplete, as it did not even explain what Operation Blue Star was about. It also states that Operation Blue Star was initiated because of the government's accusations of inciting violence. This is not true. Blue Star was primarily based on the militant occupation in the Golden Temple. Also, your version only refers to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, but fails to mention other Hindu-Sikh conflicts, in which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus. There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Go and read some history books before writing on history facts.There was no hindu-sikh riots.Everyone knows that 1984 riots were congress sponsored. what makes you edit something you have no primary knowledge about. What are you sources - obviously some internet site.Wake up my friend.Face the reality.If you have any doubts about the reality than make sure that you visit the office of national human rights commission of india. You are welcome to re-write but without your additions. Your tweaks and minor edits are full of personal viewsAjjay (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard". This is your mentality. your feelings for sikhs.your idea of hindu-Sikh relations.I don't need to say more.A person like you, no matter how intelligent, doesn't belong on wiki. Ajjay (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When did I say I am not familiar with Operation Blue Star? Please, I have an extensive knowledge of Operation Blue Star. For crying out loud, I wrote the article on Bhindranwale! Also, you only referred to anti-Sikh riots, but there was also other Hindu-Sikh tensions, in which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus. You honestly think Sikhs didn't do anything in retaliation?? That's what I mentioned in the articles. It's one-sided to say that there were only anti-Sikh riots (and yes I know it was Congress-sponsored; it was backed by Gandhi's supporters), when there were also Sikh against Hindu violence. And please, my stuff comes from books. You can only find Sikh fundamentalist nonsense on the Internet, proclaiming that Bhindranwale was some hero. And don't make personal attacks. There was violence on both sides, but Hindu against Sikh violence was far more devastating. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you back up your claims with govt. sources. List the places where violence occured between sikhs and hindus.The number of incidents.Reports from Govt. investigating agencies.Where are you sources.Ajjay (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I never talked about violence in the article. I wrote that there were other Hindu-Sikh tensions, not including the anti-Sikh riots (which was not really orchestrated by Hindus, anyway...it was more political). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As for your Sikh against Hindu violence, see Global Terrorism by James and Brenda Lutz here. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me towards the link.But, going by it, the violence appears to be govt. sponsored.Also spellings of Indira Gandhi are wrong.It also fails to mention the exact year when hundereds of militant groups sprang up. which was after Bhindranwala. Also where did he make an explicit demand for khalistan. Things like these are best left for politicians. People like us get a bad mouth out of it, sometimes burns tooAjjay (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of sources spell Gandhi as "Ghandi". I don't know why, but that appears the case. Also, I pointed you to the link because it talks about the Sikh violence against Hindus after Operation Blue Star (how could you forget the airplane bombing?). As for Khalistan, I already removed that from the article. I know Bhindranwale's involvement with Khalistan is a bit clouded; it appears he endorsed it at one time, but he wasn't really the major proponent. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The airplane bombing was not against Hindus. It was directed against Govt. Also it was carried out by terrorists, and a terrorist does not belong to any religion. Also the canadian Govt. had questioned the role of RAW in that bombing. It is a vicious circle. i don't know if i can make an edit now or not. I will see and do waht i have to do tommorrow. I am tired. Good DayAjjay (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's a valid point. However, the book does state that there were tensions between the Sikh and Hindu communities. As for Air India Flight 182, the bombing was orchestrated by Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh terrorist group (to my knowledge, there doesn't appear to be any non-Sikhs in the group) that wants to form a separate state. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did the tensions occur.You cannot just provide a ref. from a book. Also the book is about global terrorism, and a clash which is communal in nature is not covered under it. The author is not speclialised on this subject.

The name of Indira Gandhi or anybody does not belong in article of sikhism. Please remove it. It is enough to state her as prime minister at that time. You provide no govt. sources on alleged hindu-sikh clash. Only a govt. source would be acceptable. Or an eye-witness account. This article is about sikhism and not operation blue star. If you want to add lenghty observations , you can do that in Operation Blue Star or Anti Sikh Riots. This article is about the religion, Sikhism. Is any mention has to be made, it should be of a small nature.Ajjay (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Government source? Since when is the government the primary authority on any matter? Also, those actions (Blue Star and such) were of vital importance in modern Sikh history. My additions detail the conflict between Sikhs and Gandhi's Congress government. If this article is really about Sikhism only, then why do you have an entire section titled "Political advancement". My additions are perfectly legitimate in the scope of this article. Also, the book cited is reliable source. Each terrorist conflict was examined and thoroughly analyzed as a case study. Also note that the book cites a number of other authoritative sources, exclusively detailing these events. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To all editors: please refrain from making personal attacks. They are not pleasant to read, even if they are about another editor. I've removed the major attacks, and certain other incivil remarks that were made in this section of the talk page.

In terms of the dispute, looking at this recent-diff, While I agree with Nishkid64 that further explanation of Operation Blue Star is helpful, the referencing should be more aggressive. Even if the source is the same, almost every sentence should have a citation in this section. Alternatively, tightening the expression of the article would no doubt, help.

Despite all this, I'm not sure if this article currently qualifies as an FA, so might sooner or later, reassess this article just to be sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

thats it! That is why there are so many editors are going haywire to edit it. To get it off FA.Go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajjay (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User NishKid64 must answer this

• Why the govt. sources of a Democratic country like India are not trustable.
  • Read WP:RS. Scholarly works, like books, are clearly acceptable. I never said govt. sources are not unnacceptable. I only asked why you considered the government the primary source, when there's many scholarly works covered by noted historians and other individuals.
• Why is he using books and not The judicial process and police action, which is first handed.
  • Material on Wikipedia is usually attributed to books or other scholarly works. First hand accounts are fine, but they need to be relevant. There are no specific details of incidents in the article, so first hand accounts are not necessary.
• His claim regarding hindu-sikh riots is vague and does not cite the reports of Law enforcing Agencies, of the place where it occured.
  • I said there were Hindu-Sikh tensions. Tension means a strained relationship. This is definitely the case between the Sikhs and Hindus, after Blue Star and the Gandhi assassination. The book mentions these tensions, thus corroborating my statement.
• Is he stating that he has no faith in the Judicial Authority of India, and it has no value.
  • You have been misrepresenting everything I have said, and now you're making accusations. What does anything I say have to do with the Indian judicial system?
• He should provide the names of places and subsequent police reports , wherever the clashes occured.
  • Why? You said this article isn't supposed to go into specifics. Police reports and places of clashes are very specific.
• Why is he unduly lenghting the section when seperate aricles exist for the matter.
  • Why is length a problem? I am adding material that is neutral. The previous versions are either biased (glorifying Bhindranwale, for example) or they were incomplete (no explanation as to what caused Gandhi to order Operation Blue Star; you just stated that the govt. accused Bhindranwale of inciting violence). Nishkid64 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When he says that the article is about Sikhism and political advencement should not be there, he does not understand the nature of the article. He should not be making it unduly lenghty and include politics of Indira govt.Ajjay (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Politics of Gandhi's government? Blue Star is an army operation, which resulted in the anti-Sikh riots. Without this information, people are going to ask what cause these riots. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*In which Sikhs retaliated against Hindus
*There was violence on both sides, but the Sikhs were hit especially hard
*I have an extensive knowledge of Operation Blue Star
*(and yes I know it was Congress-sponsored; it was backed by Gandhi's supporters), 
*I never talked about violence in the article
*my stuff comes from books
*but Hindu against Sikh violence was far more devastating
*I wrote that there were other Hindu-Sikh tensions, not including the anti-Sikh riots (which   was not really orchestrated by Hindus, anyway...it was more political). 
*I know Bhindranwale's involvement with Khalistan is a bit clouded; it appears he endorsed it at one time, but he wasn't really the major proponent
*However, the book does state that there were tensions between the Sikh and Hindu communities
*Government source? Since when is the government the primary authority on any matter?
*My additions detail the conflict between Sikhs and Gandhi's Congress government
*Also note that the book cites a number of other authoritative sources, exclusively detailing these events

These are some of the obsevations by Nishkid. You can read and know who is right or wrong. i think there is a malicious move to get sikhism from FA as is corroborated by ( Ncmvocalist )

NishKid if you read my edits to the article ( where i sated that the present state is neutral) , you will find all the information.I don't know you motive and reason to harp on blue Star with lenghty mentions in Sikhism when the same can be done in Operation Blue Star, to which there is inter-wiki link.Ajjay (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*I never said govt. sources are not unnacceptable
*There are no specific details of incidents in the article, so first hand accounts are not necessary
*I said there were Hindu-Sikh tensions. Tension means a strained relationship
*Why? You said this article isn't supposed to go into specifics. Police reports and places of clashes are very specific
*you just stated that the govt. accused Bhindranwale of inciting violence). 
*Politics of Gandhi's government? Blue Star is an army operation

User NishKid is indeed very confused. He must also furnish the govt. report where Bhindranwala was found guilty of violence by a court of Law. Unless convicted by a court, he remains accused and according to Indian law , benefit of doubt goes to the accused.Ajjay (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to set matters straight, because it appears you fail to see the issues with your edit. Bhindranwale was arrested by police for his suspected involvement in Jagat Narain's death in 1981. Operation Blue Star came three years later, after Bhindranwale and his armed followers barricaded themselves inside the Golden Temple. It was not a result of the government's accusations of inciting violence. There is no transition to Gandhi's assassination. You mention Operation Blue Star and then you go straight to her assassination. Articles are supposed to be thorough. They should be clicking wikilinks to find more information about a particular subject, not because they are absolutely confused what the relevance of the subject is in the context. I provided a short description about Blue Star and the result. I then went to the assassination of Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. After that, I wrote that the chain of events led to the anti-Sikh riots and Hindu-Sikh conflicts (it's common knowledge that there have been tensions between Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab; these events just furthered these tensions). Nishkid64 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bhindranwale was arrested by police for his suspected involvement in Jagat Narain's death in 1981. Operation Blue Star came three years later, after Bhindranwale and his armed followers barricaded themselves inside the Golden Temple."

What happaned inbetween

The thoroughness can be explained in Operation Blue Star , not in Sikhism.

• Indira Gandhi's name should not be mentioned. Her role is also equally controversial. You can mention her as the prime minister of the country.
• The descriptive phrase is too long. It should be short and not long, as is in it's present state.
• Bhindranwale was arrested, but released by court.(no need to mention)
• He did not fortify Golden Temple because of this Murder.(-SAME-)
• He was accused / Suspected / charged by Govt. for violence in Punjab. (-SAME-)
• You can say there was army action against sikh extremists, who were held responsible for violence in punjab, resulting in operation blue Star followed by assassination of prime minister and anti sikh riots and unconfirmed reports of sikh Hindu clashes as aftermath.[1][2]

[3]

The issue is more complex than you think. And still going strong. An impartial detailed analysis would take a long time to come. Being an administrator you have more probable cause for deciding about an article than me, now it is upto you how to put it in article , which is about sikh Gurus and their religion.Ajjay (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I have said Ajjay. As the main member of the assessment team for WikiProject India, and with or without this edit warring, I could not automatically see (on a cursory look) how this article qualifies as an FA, unlike many other FAs. However, as there might be an error, I will reassess the article at a later date formally, to ensure that it is up to the standards of what FAs should be under this project. This does not necessarily mean that this article is not a FA, nor that the grade will be stripped. Please refrain from making any further misrepresentations, personal attacks, or the like against or about any editor at Wikipedia, as this may result in you being blocked from editing. I would suggest all editors on this talk page read and follow the tag that is placed at the top of the page about keeping a cool head. Best wishes in improving the article - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim

Somebody put up "Sikhism was made to kill Muslims" and "If it wasnt for Sikhs India would be known as Hindustan" --AlexanderTheGreatSikh (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ISI propaganda

No there were no sikh-hindu clashes anywhere, all violence was between exteremists and govt forces Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Problem with reincarnation

See the page on 'reincarnation' for full article... it is quoted in this page under the Sikhism section: Sikhism "In Sikhism reincarnation is totally rejected.[11]" I am confused... because in this article it seems to be that reincarnation is a fundamnetal belief of Sikhism. Can anyone help? Hurleyc2008 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurleyc2008 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(conflicted) The frase has got a reference, so it may be real. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism rejects re-incarnation of God or of God in human form or any other manner. It believes in re-birth of humans, but that can be changed with grace of Guru, a person becomes free from all bondages of karma, destiny etc.Shalimer (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something is to be found here. Austerlitz -- 88.75.201.69 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with reincarnation

See the page on 'reincarnation' for full article... it is quoted in this page under the Sikhism section: Sikhism "In Sikhism reincarnation is totally rejected.[11]" I am confused... because in this article it seems to be that reincarnation is a fundamnetal belief of Sikhism. Can anyone help? Hurleyc2008 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurleyc2008 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(conflicted) The frase has got a reference, so it may be real. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism rejects re-incarnation of God or of God in human form or any other manner. It believes in re-birth of humans, but that can be changed with grace of Guru, a person becomes free from all bondages of karma, destiny etc.Shalimer (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs expert opinion i think. Shalimer (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something is to be found here. Austerlitz -- 88.75.201.69 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Sayth Nanak1

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

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

An Eternal TRUTH Crafter's (TRUTH's) True profile is.....(TRUTH & followers of nothing but TRUTH has been defined here) 'Creative TRUTH & fearless friend of even enemies of TRUTH.Thou are TRUE Eternal Idol (made up of nothing but TRUTHs) never to reincarnate. Thou are Self Realised through Thy True Language of TRUTHs. Thy Name was, had been, is here & now at this very moment & will ever remain TRUTH.

Sayth Nanak2

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

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

" This (currupt) tongue is habituated to parrot Thy false names.Thy One & only One True Name is TRUTH (all other are Thy False Names)"

Needless to say that imagining TRUTH(God) to reincarnate or otherwise is absurd.--AmiBalRaj (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Caste in Sikhism?

I am a punjabi living in Canada and the section about marriages within the Sikh community sparked my interest. Living within a large Sikh community I always thought that there is caste within Sikhism. Although all of the Gurus did not beleive in caste it does exist. There are jatts, khatris, darjis,ramghari, rajputs etc yet the article claims that "Sikhs marry when they are of a sufficient age (child marriage is taboo), and without regard for the future spouse's caste or descent." I know that Amrit Dhari Sikhs do not beleive in caste (as far as I know they maintain their last names as Singh) but for the rest of the Sikh population it seems like caste (although not as apparent as Hinduism) really does exist. Unity717 (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Spend some more time with you sikh friends who are not prejudiced. And jatts, khatris, darjis,ramghari, rajputs etc are ethnic groups and not caste groups.Shalimer (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, these are castes. Plain and simple. Even though Sikhism is against Caste, it is still practiced, nothing wrong in admitting what is happening even if its wrong. But to just deny it with a wrong statement and pourposely misguiding is wrong. Gorkhali (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides if you would like to go in theory, then only an amritdhari sikh is a [true] sikh. Rest are not [speaking theoretically], whatever they like to think. Shalimer (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed castes in the Sikh community. You are very much right correct. In fact, the caste system in India appears in all religions in some form or another. What we need to do now is to find reliable sources that can support this fact about Sikhism. You can be bold and remove that wrong statement yourself if you so desire. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The castes in some sikh communities is already mentioned, in the section, [Sikh People]. Shalimer (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Shalimer, I did not intend to portray my Sikh friends as "prejudiced" since they really aren't. In Hinduism khatris and darjis appear as part of the caste system. Ethnicity is something totally different...the wikipedia article about ethnicity claims that ethnicity is based upon ancestry or geneology whereas caste is not based on ethnicity rather on social status (wikipedia article on "caste"). Sikhism, though a different religion than Hinduism, really does have its roots in Hinduism so it is no surprise that some of the characteristics of Hinduism have carried on into Sikhism. Caste does exist in Sikhism although it might be to a lesser extent than in Hinduism. If it didn't exist in Sikhism, young Sikh people could marry anyone who fell under the category "Sikh" YET this does not happen. Also, your statement about Amritdhari Sikhs as "true" Sikhs is quite interesting as well...that is a judgmental statement that is incorrect and disrespectful to the "rest." Why is an Amritdhari Sikh better than the rest...even if it is theoretically? (Unity717 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

I started to conduct a search online about sikhism and caste and I found that even matrimonial sites list different groups of Sikhs. There seems to be quite a division between people who believe there is a caste system versus people who think there is no caste system. Why do people care about sub groups (a.k.a. caste) when they are about to get married? There must be some type of social implications for a Jatt marrying a non-Jatt for example...if there wasn't, people wouldn't specify which group they belonged to while skimming matrimonial sites. (Unity717 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Go and read some good books on Sikhism. I am not a preacher. Besides if you want to talk about hinduism and sikhism there is a seperate talk page Hinduism and Sikhism. When you talk about caste system in India, there is a seperate artcle as well Caste system in India . And you really amaze me when you say jatts and rajputs are not ethnic people, see Jat people Rajput. About matrimonial ads, they are about people who want to get married and not on Sikhisms practices, it is by a group of people, which does not apply to whole community. Besides prefference for getting maried to a particular ethnic group (caste??) is a matter of choice, not related to religion. When you talk of caste it goes deeper. Getting married according to choices wont make sikhism a caste based religion. For example, hinduism is also called varna ashram Dharam. Do you know what varna is see Varna_in_Hinduism and Jāti. And this time don't search online, read some good books such as [Encyclopedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh ISBN-10: 8173802041] Shalimer (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shalimer, since it seems as if you have alot of knowledge about ethnicity and caste within Sikhism could you hook me up with some other resources to check out? Although you may be correct in saying that jatt/rajputs are ethnic groups most mainstream Sikh people see these groups as caste groups. What we need to think about is that the theory behind Sikhism says one thing yet most Sikhs follow/do/believe another thing. Why the discrepency between theory and reality? Theoretically, won't reality eventually shape/change theory? If someone walks around Canada - especially high density areas like British Columbia (Surrey) and Ontario (Brampton)- the reality of what is being practiced is actually quite far from what the Gurus wanted. This topic is very interesting to me so thanks for the great convo! (Unity717 (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

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

In all of India different ethnic groups tend to also be different castes and vice versa. Within each ethnic group, there may be sub-castes, but that is another matter. Because there is a strong correlation between caste and ethnicity, they can almost be considered synonyms. It is also probably why all the non-Hindu religions still have the caste although to a lesser degree. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well an interesting fact that I know from real life experience is that particular Sikh castes would prefer marrying the same caste but Hindus than different Sikh caste. For example, Khatri Sikhs would prefer marrying to Khatri Hindus than to other Sikhs. Not sure is this phenomenon has been written about in any books though. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Information to be inserted?

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

How is this image inappropriate?

OneBlood30 has twice removed this image: [[Image:Sikh Family cropped.jpg|thumb|A Sikh family, the boys wearing the traditional [[Dastar]]]] (see image) from the article, claiming that it was not approved, and then that it was not appropriate. The copyright tags appear to be in order, and I do not see what could be considered inappropriate about it. I do not know much abut Sikhism, is it somehow offensive to Sikhs in a way that is not apparent to non-Sikhs? Because the reasoning is not clear, it needs to be discussed instead of just removed. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

I have made minor changes in 'philosophy and teachings' section. If there is a problem please respond here first. Turniplp (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Killing muslims

Someone put sikhism was for killing muslims. That is not true. I am a sikh and I love muslims. Matigues (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Someone please correct this appalling act of vandalism (on Sikhism): "..Diwali (also known as bandī chōḍ divas).." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasvinde (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed for article on Sikh Rajputs

Someone put a tag on "Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs. Thanks Atulsnischal (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

In English, it is more common to use the spelling latter spelling of realization. I AM PROUD TO BR SIKH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.1.128 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Guru-da-Gaddi

Someone may want to take a look at the new Guru-da-Gaddi article and see if it can be clarified. Not sure if it should be mentioned in this article. Also, I'm not sure the dates match up with what's in other articles. —KCinDC (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol

All my googling tells me that adherents to Sikhism must avoid the drinking of alcohol. I can't find a reference to this in the article (unless "find" isn't working). Is it true? Can someone who knows please add it? Kayman1uk (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) mlwr bwxI Bgq rivdws jI kI]

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

nwgr jnW myrI jwiq ibiKAwq cMmwrM ]]

O humble townspeople, I am obviously just a shoemaker.

irdY rwm goibMd gun swrM ]1] rhwau ]]

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

sursrI sll ik(r)q bwrunI ry sMq jn krq nhI pwnµ ]]

Even if wine is made from the water of the Ganges, O Saints, do not drink it.

surw ApivqR nq Avr jl ry sursrI imlq nih hoie Awnµ ]1]

This wine, and any other polluted water which mixes with the Ganges, is not separate from it. ||1||

qr qwir ApivqR kir mwnIAY ry jYsy kwgrw krq bIcwrM ]]

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

Bgiq Bwgauqu ilKIAY iqh aUpry pUjIAY kir nmskwrM ]2]]

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

myrI jwiq kut bWFlw For FovMqw inqih bwnwrsI Aws pwsw ]]

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

Ab ibpR prDwn iqih krih fMfauiq qyry nwm srxwie rivdwsu dwsw ]3]1]]

Now, the important Brahmins of the city bow down before me; Ravi Daas, Your slave, seeks the Sanctuary of Your Name. ||3||1||

Across the World

Sikhs lived in India but have spread across the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.230.131 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

why the animosity?

I was reading this article today and I think it has been edited quite well but I wonder why it is such a big deal to make a connection between sikhism and hinduism and islam? Sikhism began with Guru Nanakji - he was born a hindu so it is obvious that some of his beliefs would be linked with his upbringing. Most religions originate and begin by a person or a group of people who choose a different path. Why is it so hard to understand that Sikhism also has roots from another religion or religions? Understanding this doesn't mean that Sikhism is any less of a religion. It is a great religion that is unique but shares qualities with other religions as well. Unity717 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its called insecurity. Any proud and knowlegable Sikh knows that its obvious that Sikhsim will have links and origins within Hinduism since that was the ancestral faith of all the Gurus, however, unlike the Christians who have no problem accepting Jewish roots and influences from the ancient religions of Europe, it will only come with time that people in India will realize that there is nothing wrong with accepting connections with an older religion or your ancestral religion, and neither does it lessen the importance of the religion that has stemmed out of it. Its just plain and simple insecurity and ignorance, and also political agendas with no regard for the Gurus teachings or their history. Makes you wonder why its called Har-Mandir, or the Gurus call themselves Gurus....etc etc etc....nothing wrong with having ancient roots, however some people will never realize the wisdom.

Gorkhali (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)