Talk:Sikhs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Miscellaneous discussions

Poorly written article. I will try to improve it gradually. What meaning does OM and OMkar have to the general reader? Also it is actually incorrect even if it did have meaning to the reader.

The bit about Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji's triumph over large Mughal armies seems to come from the feelings Sikhs have about him but is actually exaggeration and not in agreement with general historical accounts from this period. Other superfically thought out comments: For example the statement attributed to Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji as "he was neither Hindu or Muslim" is misleading as well. First the statement is generally accepted in the Sikh community as the Punjabi version of the words "There is no Hindu or Muslim" which reflects his view that religious distinctions or divisions were unimportant. A very different statement. In fact, saying that he was saying "I am of a new religion" misses the main point he was making about the fact that such distinctions are not important. His point is generally taken to be about the oneness of mankind.

The article also lacks any primary teachings. Sikhs actually have an amazing set of teachings and are more than people who are in a hurry to die for some cause. Very very few actually do all the things on the list in the article everyday and yet are still Sikhs because of other more important attributes and beliefs.

---

Hmm. How neutral and encyclopedic is a page that contains "Why become a Sikh" chapter? I did not notice a "Why become a Christian" in the Christianity article. Watcher 06:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

This text needs much editing and revision to give it NPV status. It is quite weak as it stands.

Dear Watcher,

Many thanks for your comments on the Sikh page. I list my reactions to your comments below:

1. Just because you do not have a certain sub-heading on the Christian page does not mean that it should or should not appear on the Sikh page.

2. "Why become a Sikh" chapter? This chapter has been included as there is strong interest in this faith and it is a question that I have been asked many times – How does one become a Sikh?. Should an encyclopaedia not give unbiased information that is required by individuals?

I hope this has thrown some light on this topic. No offence intended!

Hari Singh

---

I do not intend to start a flamewar here, but I too do detect some lack of neutrality in the article. Perhaps the 'ji' after the Gurus' name can be removed since it's a sign of reverence and an article just can not be described as unbiased if it betrays any of such emotions, positive or negative, of the author. Even without that, the article is a wee bit, what one might say, on the 'preachy' side, but I am sure it's nothing a more objective language cannot remedy. That notwithstanding, the article is certainly quite well written and covers Sikhism well. Kudos to you Mr. Hari Singh in case it's you has supplied the original text.

Gurinder Singh

---

Wait a minute, I guess I spoke a bit too soon about the article being well written. Upon complete and a more careful reading, I find it not greatly more than just an exhortation to convert to Sikhism. Now where are the following:

• Sikh history such as, founding of the Khalsa, Sikhism before the Khalsa, the wars against the Mughals etc.
• A list of sikh Gurus and links (perhaps wikipedia interal links) to articles on each of them
• Sikh art, including, literature, music and painting
• Cultural aspect of Sikhism, such as sikh marriage ceremonies, funeral rituals, baptism rituals and such
• Geographical regions of Sikhism predominance
• Important places of Worship for a Sikh

May be some of the above are partially covered in the article, but still it's majorly been about how to be a be good Sikh. Now I may daresay that this article needs significant work to be encyclopaedia-worthy. I hope some expert can help us out here.

Gurinder Singh

I shall readily agree that this is indeed not a wikpedia-worthy article currently. If you can, please do anything to improve it. I guess all the controversial stuff and bias should be done away with first. --Gurry 04:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguous Link

The Maya link in the article goes to a disambiguation page. Wouldn't it be better to link it straight to the Sikh version of "Maya"? -- Anonymous, Oct 30, 2004

Re: Biased

The Sikh religion does not believe in 'recruiting'. You can only be a Sikh if you are born a Sikh. And if you understood the purpose of the site it is to add your own knowledge and information to it, so the 'sources' for this page are varied and extensive. DUMB ASS!!!

Congratulations, Goebels

This is obviously a very biased entry. You made your point very well, punctuated by profanity.

Anyway, this seems like a piece of propaganda. I may revise it in the future to make it more objective when I have more free time.

Stop Fighting

You all are weird (pardon my American Southernism). I don't think the page is particularly biased. I'm looking for history and definition of Sikhism, and I think I found it in this page.

Me == anti-consumerist American quasi-Buddhist libertarian progressive, with emphasis on the word American (in the best sense).

Tiger or lion?

Just some input/ideas that might be to the benefit of this article:

In this article it says that Singh means 'tiger', whereas in the article about Sikhism it says that Singh means 'lion'. I could research this myself of course but i thought it might be easier just to post this question here where experts are sure to read the question and as to avoid lengthy discussions in advance.

I was also wondering about why Sikhs always (seem to) wear turbans. I was always told that Sikhs wear turbans because their religion prescribes this. Is this true? Again, could research this myself, but it seems to me that other people might be able to answer this already. Some comment on this in this article might be justified.

PS. Please stop calling each other 'dumb ass' and 'Goebbels', it's ridiculous. --Vunzmstr 14:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The confusion comes from the fact that while Western cultures look at the Lion as King of the Jungle, in South Asian cultures, the King of the Jungle (who is called Shair; in Sanskrit Singha) is actually the tiger. (In Urdu, the Lion is "Babbar Shair"; I am not sure about Sanskrit/Hindi.) And the problem has been compounded over the last couple of centuries by writers like Bertrand Russell using the name Sher Khan for his King of the Jungle in The Jungle Book, but then interpreting it as a Lion.

As for turbans, yes. The idea is that ordained Sikh males (who have taken the Khalsa oath) are all "Sardars", Kings, one and all.

Bertrand Russell? How about Rudyard Kipling?

OK - You all have some legitimate gripes about this article. I, for one, agree that it contains too much proselytization and not enough info. But my major gripe is this: "he/she, him/her, his/her" and other such nonsense bugs the hell out of me. It's just so . . . so . . . nineties!

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Add External Link

Admins, Please add An External Link to http://www.justsikh.com - Your online Sikh Community. Thanks Manpreetvohra 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Comment

This page has some terrible spelling errors and I wonder about informal prose. 24.26.134.34 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)B.G. Sikh , non-sikhs or anything else, please comment on the following. REMEMBER THIS IS JUST AN DISCUSSION NOT PROTEST OR POINTING OUT OF FAULTS OR CRITISISM. I am just an 18 year old boy who has no resources and want to discuss the following with responsible, intelligent people in a FRIENDLY manner. The Sikhism scene in punjab is quit worsening these days.I mean Sikhism was Made to remove all the flaws and meaningless rituals of the society then but now people are building more of these just by wrong interpretations.

REMEMBER ITS JUST A DISCUSSION

• Guru Nanak Dev ji made the whole religion to remove belives like IDOL WORSHIP . But i've heard gurudwaras that keep Datun (kinda toothbrush) near the Guru Granth Sahib, Bath the whole Book (and flow it in water when it gets old) and thousands of people bow down to the book with their head covered and do not turn their backs toward the book ( with all my respects) as if all the gurus are actually in it . TELL ME ISNT THIS IDOL WORSHIP ITSELF ? what else did guru nanakji proved when he moved the whole Mecca along as the muslims moved his feet . We are idol worshiping . GURU GOBIND SINGH JI says Guru maane Granth ( Guru = Granth - a holy book). Its a metaphor. You can evaluate it as if the Granth is the next and only guru. But their also lies a deeper meaning that Guru is as diverse , powerful and true as a granth

• Caste and groups have flourished to an unimaginable level. We now have diffrent types of sikhs - Jatt Sikh , Ravidasia Siikh etc etc. Even today in the rural punjab , its still unimaginable that a intercaste marriage occurs. Why is that happening. Instead of resolving the issue of caste we are impowering it by stating that Jatts are the real sikhs because they are brave or something like All minorities or low castes are the real sikhs because the Panj Piyare( the 5 chosen ones) were all those. Isnt this a strict violation to the sayings of the GURUS .

• I DEEPLY RESPECT PEOPLE KEEPING ALL THE K'S but Why do we only consider only Turban wearing men, who dont cut their hair , keep a kirpan , wear a kada ,etc etc to be a Full Sikh. Does the Guru Granth Sahib state somewhere that a sikh should do that? Did gurunankji or his followers said that ? Come on they were Saints and they had their lifestyle so as to appear a man of god (or saadhu,sage ,saint whatever you call it) to the public then.That is why their depiction in art resembles a sardaar. All the other people in the baani like Guru Kabeer Das and Guru Ravidas etc are not considered SIKH and their followers are Denied the facilities of SIKH COMMUNITY . We have Gurudwaras where the priest denies holy rituals (marriage , crimination ) just because the person is a MONNA ( dont keep the K's). That really is depressing. Have you Honestly seen any MONNA reading the guru granth sahib ? no right !! Why ? Because they are not allowed to .WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Is the Beard or the turban going to read the baani ? SIKHISM WAS CREATED TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION AND WE ARE ONLY PRODUCING IT MORE.

I know Guru Gobind Singh ordered that but it was then to make the KHAALSA , an army . These were so designed to make a strict code of Discipline in the infantry . I BELIEVE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIGION. Beside WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Guru Gobind Singh ji's Baani is not even in the Guru Granth Sahib , his baani is in Vichtra Natak and other similiar installments and he even goes to a point cursing everyone who calls him guru shall go to HELL. He only considered himself of being an army leader . So why a discrimination is a Sardaar and a Monna

• the purest thing i found in the granth was to get the essence of god through a guru in person. but we are neglecting this and we are bowing our heads to a book ( I dont want to hurt anyone , i state this with all my respects for other people's belives). No body needs to technically go to a gurudwara , you can have god right next to you when you are meditating with the purest devotion right in you home just with a help of a guru. But what are we doing. We are Making the golden temple more GOLDEN when the money could have flourished 1000s of poor poeple's home and doing all the Sharaahn (stuff in the outer world) . I mean out of 10 sikh people i meet only 0.5 know what a guru is and what meditation is.( but that can be true maybe in only my case and maybe i havent met the more of those people) . We are wearing a turban, keeping all the K's and doing every thing worldy while deep inside our hearts we are becoming more political, more corrupt and more proud and egoistic. Something has to be done about that. I and my fellow youth have the power to bring back the True meaning of the word SIKH - a student.

Anudeep Toora - A sikh only at the heart but a monna at the world

Respected sikhs of the world including (monna-ANUDEEP TOORA)i have read your article about your personal beliefs.I just want to give lights to some of the facts that i am myself a sikh having uncut hair and wearing K'S and from a family that you can call a strict follower of sikhism who belive in all GURUS including GURU GOBIND SINGH JI .you have mention that it is not significant to look as sikh you can just be sikh by heart but i want to tell you what a sikh mean the person can only be called sikh IF HE LOOKS LIKE HIS OWN GURU HE WOULD BE THE REPLICA OF GURU GOBIND SINGH JI HE SOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE WHOLE WORLD AND WOULD BE UNIQUE IN MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THIS IS OUR IDENTITY THAT OUR GURU HAS GIVEN US if you are not like that so what is the difference between u and others i dont say that moona should not allowed doing things that we can do infact i have not seen anybody denying it in delhi from where i am from here in BANGLA SAHIB(GURUDWARA) YOU CAN EASILY FIND 70% MONNA AND HINDUS DOING SEWA AND PRAYING AT 2:30AM IN THE MORNING WHEN LOTS OF PEOPLE WERE SLEEPING in fact in past years i have heard lot of sikh who have become monna from all over the world again converting into full sikh.even in delhi there are lots of hindu who when get the the clear knowledge of our religion deliberately change into sikh which include(famous CHAMAN LAL RAAGI(hindu) WHO CHANGE INTO CHAMANJEET SINGH KHALSA)INFACT IN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD I HAVE SEEN THIS THING HAPPENS i just wannt to tell that if you call urself as sikh your identity is very important and infact i could say humble that many MONNA(SIKH) have not met with the write person who have told them about the great culture of this unique and the most modern and sacrificing religion in the world who are the only one that have even die for others .AND FOR GURU GOBIND SINGH JI HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD GIVEN UP HIS WHOLE FAMILY HIS FATHER HIS SONS AND HIMSELF FOR US .HE WAS THE ONE WHO TOLD "CHIRIYA NAAL MEIN BAAJ LARA O TABHE GOBIND SINGH NAAM KAMMAO" MEANS IF ONLY I CAN MAKE MY SINGHS AS POWERFUL AS EAGLE TO FIGHT WITH SPARROWS THEN ONLY I COULD BE CALLED GOBIND SINGH. HE HAD TURN A NORMAL PERSON INTO THE BRAVEST OF BRAVE HUMANS IN THE WORLD(WHICH INCLUDE A UNIQUE IDENTITY)EVEN BRITISH WHO HAVE RULED INDIA HAVE ONCE TOLD THAT SIKH ARE THE BRAVEST SOLDIER OF THE WORLD.ITS IN HISTORY THAT IF A GURU SIKH MADE A DECISION TO FIGHT FOR UNJUSTICE NOBODY IN THE WORLD CAN STOP THEM (BHAGAT SINGH AND UDDHAM SINGH)ARE GREATEST EXAMPLE.SO I JUST WANT TO END BY SAYING THAT TODAY YOUNG SIKH OF THE WORLD DO NOT KNOW WHERE THERE ROOT LIES AND WHAT IS THERE HISTORY THEY DONT NO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THERE BEARD AND HAIR this is the uniqueness that we have to keep to be a real sikh who follow his guru by mind,soul and looks i know it is tough as a youngster which i am also as iam only 28 yr old and wear western dress and want to be in in new fashion world but i know that my actual identity is more important so i request all the sikh of the world to not ever cut your hair and beard this is not your look but your GURUS look which you have inherited from your forefather who have even given there lives to make sikhism survive. RAMANDEEP SINGH (A TRUE SIKH HAVE NOT ANY CASTE OR SURNAME )___________ The 5 K's redirection goes to Kellogg's Special K Cherylyoung 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism Website

In the past I have tried to add the link to my site on Wikipedia, but apparently everytime I added the link, someone deleted it. My website address is *Kabira - It's an amazing Sikhism related website with wonderful pages relating to the Sikh religion and it has fascinating Sikhism related pictures as well as links. Anyone who wishes to monitor my site or check if it contains any inaccuracy may do so. PLEASE DON'T DELETE MY WEBSITE FROM WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.42.53 (talk • contribs)

WP:NOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_original_research Check that out. 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Archived discussions

• Archive 1: May 2004 to June 2006

Recent changes by Inderjeet1012

I've reverted your changes because:

• Replacing the images with an image that has questionable copyright status is likely to be illegal
• Persistent use of honorifics such as 'Ji'
• POV statements such as "The great sikhs include the martyrs like "
• Excess repitition of Sikhism's disapproval of the caste system

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Turban issue?

I'm not sure how much of an issue this is outside of the United States, but I wonder if we should include a section about how turbans have led Sikhs to be mistaken for Arabs and/or Muslims and consequently subject to harassment. At the very least, turbans should be mentioned in the article if they are part of the customary (or required) dress for Sikhs. I know very little about the religion, so I don't feel I'm qualified to write such a section myself. -Juansmith 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself. BTW, I do believe it's primarily a problem in the US only. BTW, although I'm not a Sikh myself, I do know a little bit about Sikhism and to my knowledge the turban is not required. However Sikhs are not supposed to cut their hair. For men, the turban is therefore a good way to keep the hair tidy. Nil Einne 12:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics as a Sport

"and are significant participants in sports such as field hockey, cricket and politics."

Maybe in certain cultures politics is considered a type of sport? Why is this statement made?

loL. BTW, please sign your posts! MrASingh 00:57, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism Website

I have tried to add a link on Wikipedia, but someone deletes it. The website address is *Raj Karega Khalsa Network - It's a popular Sikhism related website with a lot of multimedia being provided by Sikhs worldwide as well as articles on Sikhism. Please don't delete the link as it is an important site providing people with free sikh multimedia and articles from which they can learn about the Sikh religion and is directly related to the page it was posted on.

Hardev Singh Khalsa

Thanks for the link to your web site. However, please read Wikipedia:External links. Specifically the point:

"A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."

Please don't add your own web site. This is tantamount to using Wikipedia as an advertising board. If other, unrelated contributors feel your site is good enough to be added, they will do so. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an above average site on Sikhi and should be on the external link section - I have no direct link with the author of the site. But the site is included on Sikhiwiki as it is regarded as a good site with a broad range of material. --Hari Singh 13:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Racial Classification of the Sikhs

I remember that, according to British law, the Sikhs (as are, I believe to an extent, the Jews) are regarded as having distinct racial classifications to other groups.

Discriminating against Sikh individuals (and, also, I think, Jews) is regarded as racial discrimination.

That is to say, the notion of Sikhs as a racial grouping does exist (Hopefully, there would be a way to define this using modern day science. But it would probably be best not to).

AsSingh | 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sikhs are protected as an ethnic group (which is not the same as a racial group). That is, they share a common linguistic, religious, and cultural background. I don't think it has anything to do with a genetic definition of race, which would be problematic anyway because there are Sikhs that are not in anyway genetically related to the people of the Punjab. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly beg to differ with your viewpoint Sukh. There are a great many logical and scientifically well-founded reasons for thinking of Sikhs as being a racial group. Firstly, Sikh history is deeply embedded and intertwined with the Sikh struggle for survival and independence at the hands of a great many imperialist and other expansion forces that intended to subdue (or, in some cases eliminate) the Sikh people and those of the surrounding Punjab region (the most obvious ones being the Mughals, who weren't known for their hospitality).

The point I suppose that I am trying to make here is that, despite significant ethnic diaspora from that region throughout the world, there are many Sikhs who are still, in a very scientifically verifiable way, linked by blood and genetics (if I programmed a clustering algorithm to search through the genome sequences of 2 Sikh individuals, there would a much higher level of similarity than there would be between 2 randomly selected individuals from the human population). The reason that there would be such a high *scientifically verifiable* link between any 2 Sikh individuals separated by such large distances would be due to the *historically* high level of selection pressure present in that part of the world before the 1900s (there are, of course, large areas of human genetic anthropology that discuss and examine this, but conversations along these lines get pretty messy pretty quickly). I suppose that the point that I am trying to make here is that if a computer tells you that 2 individuals are similar, and it arrived at that conclusion in an agreeable way (using colour-blind and widely accepted pattern recogntion algorithms that you have no problem using when you implement OCR for reading scanned images and converting them into text), then it is difficult to accuse a non-emotive agent (like the computer) of being racist or subjective.

As for your last point, viz : "I don't think it has anything to do with a genetic definition of race, which would be problematic anyway because there are Sikhs that are not in anyway genetically related to the people of the Punjab. "

This is quite a peculiar point. It is a general instance of stating that a general rule is absolutely incorrect (the notion of the Sikhs being a race), just because it is not absolutely correct (there are 'Sikhs' who are not genetically related to Punjabi populations). Something along the lines of 'the law of the excluded middle'. However, there is a problem with this viewpoint in that when the general rule is something along the lines of 'driving at speeds much higher than 100mph will kill you', it is possible to state that that rule is incorrect as there are 'people who drive at several hundred miles per hour and do not kill themselves'. Obviously, there are only a small fraction of people who can afford to deviate from the rule signficantly. That is to say, morally, most would agree that the general rule is a good norm, but there will always be a minority who 'don't fit in'. This does't mean that the general statement is false - statistically, by some realistic and universally respectable measure, the general rule might be 99.9999% correct (so 99% of Sikhs are, say, within 1 or 2 'blood linkages from one another', a high level of certainty by most human standards).

Thus, mathematically and as objectively as possible, the Sikhs are pretty much a race as much as most white people write on their censuses that they are members of the 'white race' (despite the fact that Eastern Europeans, Russian, Ukrainians and Yugoslavians have been busy killing each other for years, whereas most Sikhs have been living relatively politically stable lives since the independence of India, apart from odd occasions).

OK, this could turn into a messy strand or thread. Certainly I'm not saying that Sikhs are not Indian (they are quite spread out now in India), nor am I saying that they are not a significant ethnic group within India (their over-representation in many strands of cultural life shows to the contrary), but the idea of a white Californian calling himself a Sikh is as contrary to any sensible Sikhs' natural instincts as is the idea that Sikhs have not historically had to live by the fact that they were quite different from a lot of the peopl who wanted to move into their territory (Afghans, Mughals, the British, and the list goes on....).

Note: The above is not meant to be a scientific essay, but it is meant to outline some ideas/threads that would allow for a scientific basis for Sikh identity. This basis seems pretty related to blood to me.

AsSingh | 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Singh

Meaning of Singh "is not Lion" We are not wild animals. Singh means Knight. Adding singh to a person's name, after baptized is given a honour to person "Like, Sir in english and sahib in indian languages" Singh means Star " in Cantonese" He has attitudes like a worrior, army personal, a disciple, then to be call "a Sikh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.107.103 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the literal translation of Singh is Lion. It derives from the Sanskrit Sinha (or Simha) meaning the same. If you have established for your alternative interpretation, please provide them. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree with Sukh. SINGH definitly means Lion in sanskrit. It is just used as Lion Symbolizes Bravery. -Anudeep Toora

Added back information on surnames

I have added back information on surnames since Sikhs indeed use "Singh" and "Kaur" as a middle name. 192.206.28.62 01:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The information on Singh should be restored to the entry. It is helpful for readers, who shouldn't be forced to go to the discussion page for it. --April 21, 2007

ethnicvity

Are all sikhs punjabi?

all sikhs are not punjabi, you can be sikh and not be punjabi, you can be punjabi and not be sikh.

also sikh are not a race, there are white people (like in canada) who have converted to sikhism and they are considered sikh, they may stick out becuase there white and have turbans but they are not considered any less sikh, if fact white converts are usally more devout. many sikhs sitll do believe in caste, for instance a rajput-sikh and a jat-sikh are NOT considered the same race or ethnicity or anything, there considered as having the same religon but different ethnicity

There are a few non-Punjabi Sikhs, but for the most part they are Punjabis (especially from the province of Punjab, India). 58.166.159.228 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Rajputs: Hinduism, Sikhism and Punjabi Hindu Rajputs

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 from invaders. 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 Sikh and join the Guru’s army of protectors. Many Punjabi Rajput families too have been giving their sons to be enrolled in the Guru’s Army and baptized as Sikhs. Thus there are many Hindu, Punjabi Hindu Rajput and Punjabi Hindu Mair Rajput families whose kin are proud followers of Sikhism today. Thus there are many Sikhs who call themselves "Sikh Rajputs" today.

Atulsnischal 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have commented above is not very true. Even though Sikhs have protected Hindus and other oppressed people from the tyrant kings your statement "Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus from invaders" is wrong. Sikhism started with the first master Guru Nanak and his philosophy of doing away with useless rituals in which the society he was born in got involved, believing in just one omnipotent, omnipresent, formless GOD, working for the society, giving away caste system and considering all humans as equal, considering women as equal to men etc. There is no practice of giving the elder son to become Sikh by Hindus in Punjab at the present, this statement is again wrong. There is no thing as Sikh Rajput, where are you getting this information from? This is totally against the philosophy of Sikhism as it does not believe in classifications like the one you are mentioning. Whoever is doing such classification does not understand the principles of Sikhism. A. S. Aulakh^Talk 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend, however much you may seek to deny this, it is a fact. Yes, Sikhism is an independent religion today. But, the influence of Hinduism cannot be DENIED. Your point on there being no practice among Punjabi Hindus raising their eldest son as a Sikh is wrong too. Yes, due to religious fanatics (both Hindus and Sikhs), this tradition has all but died out. But to say that it never existed is WRONG. I am myseld testament to this. I belong to a Arora-Khatri family and let me assure you that my "par-dadas" and "par-nanas" included Sikhs too. Your comment infuriates me especially because it is people like you who seek to deny Sikhi's Hindu heritage. YES, SIKHISM IS AN INDEPENDENT RELIGION. All of us accept that. It is however people like you, who need to accept that the founder of the faith was born into Hinduism, his followers (in most part) were Hindus and finally, the bulk of converts to Sikhism in the following centgury after Guruji founded Sikhi (including your own caste, the so-called "Jutt Sikhs" (If there are no Sikh Rajputs, there should be no Jutt Sikhs too.) were Hindus.

A piece of advice: Do not use "Aulakh" in your name if you do not believe in caste. People like you (and also Muslims and Christians) have always browbeaten Hinduism with this "Caste System stick". And like shameless hypocrites you continue to call yourself Jutts, Khatris, Aroras, Mazhabis, Rangrehtas, Churahs, Chamars, Kambojs....I do not need to go further.

Dear (what should I call you? IP Address!), please read my previous comment carefully, where did I say that there was no example of Punjabi Hindus raising one son as a Sikh? There might be some examples in the past; what I am saying is that it is not true today (which was reflected by the comment above). I agree, that religious fanatics do harm but I do not agree to your so called "influence of Hinduism on Sikhism". Yes Guru Nanak was born in a Hindu family, but why do you choose to neglect the fact that he did not accept most of the tenets of the religious affiliation in which he was born? Read Guru Granth Sahib carefully yourself (without depending on the "sants") you will yourself find out the truth.

Also, the statement "Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus....." is an insult of the philosophy of Guru Nanak. Sikhism is not a religion by the warriors, its other way round - its the Sikh Philosophy which has produced the warrior who have fought tirelessly against the oppressors. Also, if you do a little more research, you will come to know that Sikh philosophy also does not believe that one becomes a warrior, priest, teacher, Sikh etc just because he/she was born to one. In fact, one becomes what he/she is from his/her own beliefs and practices.

Towards the end of your comments your language is going quite explicit. I need not get involved into the war of words as to an avid researcher and one who strives for truth, it will eventually become clear that Sikhism and Hinduism does not go hand in hand. Yes, it is true that Sikhs do not (or should not) hate and ostracize Hinduism but anyone saying "Sikh's Hindu heritage" .."influence of Hinduism on Sikhism" kind of things is, I believe, simply wrong and is either part of or is a victim of propaganda.

Also, most of the last names like Randhawa, Sandhu, Pannu etc. come from the name of the villages in the Punjab region, there is nothing I have mentioned which may provoke your attack on me unless you are venting your frustrations. Thanks for calling me a "hypocrite" that is what exactly Swami Dayanand Saraswati called Guru Nanak. That off course, does not make me Guru Nanak, but yes it gives inspiration and knowledge how people get explicit without even knowing the facts. Cheers! A. S. Aulakh^Talk 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So I am a victim of propaganda, eh? Well, if I am, so are u sir. I know your location. Let me guess: Kaneda, Amreekka, Englaand? Vancouver? Toronto? London? Birmingham? New York? I presume you are living there on "grounds of political asylum".

I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN as to whether Hinduism and Sikhism are the same religion or not. As such Bhai Kahan Singh of Nabha, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, "Sant" Bhindranwale and "Baamani" Indira Gandhi decided that long ago. Also, the Punjabi Hindu community today no longer cares about the long intercourse we have had with Sikhs. If you do not care, why should we?You have your own faith and have full rights to practise it. That has been one of the strongest advantages for Hinduism: Religious freedom. We have not inherited the intolerance that goes along with some religions of the world, namely of the "My God is the one true God", "My religion is the best religion", "Idolatry is a sin" and "We are not polytheists" types.

But, when I talk about, the "so-called" influence of Hinduism on Sikhism, I am referring to two different perspectives:

(a) The Religious:

The Holy Granth, which is full of allusions to Hindu myth and folklore from various Hindu texts such as the Vedas, the Puranas, the Upanishads and others. I remember listening to a discourse by Gyani Sant Singh and he kept referring to various passages in the holy book, which had referrences to the much-maligned "Hindu gods and goddesses".

(b) The Sociological:

Please understand also, that when I talk of the Hindu influence on Sikhism, I particularly emphasize on the "Hindu Social System", which is very different from "the Hindu religion". From a sociological perspective, the Sikh faith was very much a part of the Hindu Social System. For that matter even the Muslims and Christians of South Asia, have ingrained a lot of practises which set them apart from their counterparts across the world.

As for you point of there being "some" examples of Hindu families in the past raising their sons as Sikhs, well please answer a simple question: Did the Sikh people appear out of nowhere? Was there some miracle and the entire Sikh qaum was born? No. Even if you do not agree with the "Hindu families-raising-eldest-son-as-an-Amritdhari-Sikh", you can at least agree with the point that most converts to Sikhism, were Hindus. Khushwant Singh, in his "History of the Sikhs - I", documents the fifth Guru's travels in the Punjab, during which he founded four towns (Amritsar, Kartarpur, Sri Hargobindpur and Tarn Taran) and also "brought into the Sikh fold, hundreds of thousands of Jat peasants of Majha, the sturdiest peasants of the Punjab." Now, before they became Sikhs, they must have been Hindus, or Muslims ( Although I doubt whether any Muslims, especially during those periods of the Mughal era, when Islamic fanaticism was at its peak, would have converted to Islam. The only notable example that I can come up with is about the Muslims of Sirhind, a substantial number of which, after the Battle of Chappar Chiri, became Sikhs to avoid massacre at the hands of Banda's forces).

I have never agreed that Sikhism was born as a religion of warriors. When that issue comes up, you have to look up to which kind of Sikhism are talking about: The peaceful mission of Nanak, which sought to unite Hindus and Muslims and do away with injustices and evils in the society? Or Gobind Rai's Khalsas, a movement dedicated to remove Mughal tyranny and hegemony from the Punjab?

This my dear friend brings me to the point that I made about castes in Sikhism. The Gurus did verry much say that Caste was anathema to Sikhs. But the system was so deeply ingrained in every quarter of South Asian society that even religion could escape its virus. I know jolly well that Pannu, Dosanjh, Gill etc. are village names in Punjab. But,

Let us suppose there are eight Sikh Sardars by the following names:

• Daljit Singh Bedi
• Jaswant Singh Arora
• Gurshaan Singh Bhatia
• Sardul Singh Minhas
• Moninder Singh Cheema
• Raminder Singh Virdi
• Iqbal Singh Chhibber
• Nawab Singh Ahluwalia

Now, surely Bedi, Arora, Bhatia, Minhas, Cheema, Virdi, Chhibber and Ahluwalia are not village names. Why are they there in the first place then?

And finally, on my family background. Well, yes, I have been born into a family that follows the teachings of the Arya Samaj. But my parents have never coerced me into following any set of rituals. No wonder, I am a "self-professed" agnostic and only believe in the following maxim: "God did not create man. But Man did create God."

All the same I am proud of my Punjabi heritage, my Hindu heritage and even my (lost) Sikh heritage.

I am sorry if any language I used here is inflammatory. But I firmly believe that every religion in South Asia to some extent has been influenced by Hinduism. Nobody can deny it. Yes, we are different now, but we must never forget the past that binds us and divides us in equal measure.

This is my last post in this matter. It was a pleasure to interact with you, Aulakh Sahib. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.129.66 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

No self-respecting Hindu would call Sikhism a religion that protects Hinduism. Hinduism has produced some of the greatest warriors in the world; an example being Ashoka (he converted only near the end of his conquest) and Rajendra. Hindus protect Hinduism. Sikhs protect Sikhism. A few isolated examples that go against the latter doesn't change the overall scheme of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.71.146 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I think for too long this article has been twisted by editors around the world, each of whom has his own version about Sikhism, Sikh practices and most importantly notable Sikhs whose images should be placed in the image box. Some feel Canadian Sikh MPs' snaps should be displayed. Some are bent upon displaying Dr. Manmohan Singh's photo. I am not implying that the good doctor is not the pride of Sikhs (or for that matter, all Indians). But Sikh history throughout its 500 year old history, is replete with great figures, both men and women, in almost all walks of life.

Therefore, I suggest that experienced editors, who are well-versed in Sikhism should get together and decide once and for all, who should be in that box and make a permanent collage (as in the Punjabi people page). Also, editors should desist from writing their own versions of history on this page, unless they are backed by sufficient evidence. I congratulate all the editors, who worked on the Sikhism article to make it featured. If we cannot make this one featured, we should at least desist from despoiling the work of others.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.129.66 (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Confusing World War Statement

"Sikhs fought in both World Wars, such as, fighting in disproportionately large numbers, approximately 10 fold" this statement at the beginning of the WW1 and WW2 section makes no sense. Disproportionate to what? and ten fold of what? and what is "such as" doing in there?

I tried to look in the referenced article for where they got this but could not locate a similar statement. If no one can clarify this to make sense I may come back and rewrite it altogether. Perhaps inserting this statement "In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded." - Arch NME 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference that is now there for the statement merely has that quote itself. It does not have specific enough numeric details/comparisons to support the statement of "fighting in disproportionately large numbers, approximately 10 fold".

It does specify exactly how many Sikh casualties there were - but from that page we can't tell if it was disproportionately large, especially 10 fold. Looking at the Canadian casualty numbers (equally hard to find, all casualty numbers for WWI for the British Empire forces are lumped together in the British Empire number) - there were 50,000 Canadian dead in WWII and approx 60,000 in WWI. Knowing that Canada is today 30 million people and the number of Sikhs is currently around 25 million - I could not justify a "10 fold" claim. One could use the reference to justify that they fought as hard as any other Commonwealth nation. It might all depend on their population in the 1940's and 1910's. Of course we have to be careful not to slide into doing "original research" ourselves. A reference to someone else doing the comparison and making the conclusion is what we need.

Very interesting none-the-less to see that they contributed *so much* in manpower to the effort. Can anyone find a specific statement of how many Sihks were under arms in WWII? That should be easy to compare to other Commonwealth countries to show how well they contributed.

74.103.98.163 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about the Golden Temple?

I'm surprised not to see any link to the Golden Temple in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.217.37.156 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Manmohan Singh

What's the deal with the random picture? Shouldn't there be a caption like... first Sikh PM etc etc. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

are Sikhs born Sikhs?

question: is a child born to Sikh parents automatically viewed as belonging to the religion (as is the case with Judaism or Hinduism), or is there some kind of ceremony that makes someone a Sikh (equivelent to the Christening in Christianity or the whispering of the Adhan into the ear of the infant at birth as with Islam)? If the latter, then I really don't see the point in using the ethnicity group template for this page. If someone is not born a Sikh it really can't be viewed as an ethnic category of any kind. --Krsont 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already a page entitled Sikhism for the religion so if this isn't an ethnic group the pages should be merged. - Arch NME 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the concept of a follower of a religion is seperate from the religion itself; for example there are different pages for Christian and Christianity and Muslim and Islam, even though neither Christian nor Muslim are ethnic categories. My point is that the use of the ethnic template is misleading for this article if being a Sikh has nothing to do with ancestry, not that this article shouldn't exist at all. --Krsont 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An 'ethnic group' has a much broader definition than 'common ancestry'. It has more to do with identity and social grouping. Sikhs are absolutely an ethnic group. A 'Sikh' can be someone who strictly adheres to Sikhism or someone who is simply part of the Sikh community by convention. Now some may object to using the term 'Sikh' in the ethnic sense because they may feel that it diminishes the meaning of a true 'Sikh' in the religious sense. However, that doesn't change the fact that Sikhs are a community based on culture, language, history, race and religion (though not explicitly defined by any one of these things). Muslims/Christians are not ethnic groups because in general the adherents cross too many ethnic boundaries, which is not the case for smaller groups like Sikhs, Jews, or say a Christian sub-group. Pythn 05:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a discussion of the origins or history of Sikhs. Mleaning 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV haha! "It can be truly described as the universal religion."

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.112.155.57 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

NPOV non neutral language, lack of citations

"A shining feature of the religion is that the followers are selfless in situations where they commit to help"

Aside from being non-neutral ("a shining feature"), I doubt an actual citation can be found for this ("followers are selfless" All of them? Prove it!). This sort of language is pervasive. This article needs a serious rewrite.

No kidding. People who want to edit this article should first know something about religion/ethnicity/culture in general. There's hardly anything on who Sikhs really are as a community (as opposed to what their religion requires them to be). The Jewish articles on Wikipedia are good examples of well written entries. Pythn 04:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I also deleted material in reference to the book written by the original prophet of the religion, as it was full of "loaded" words regarding its authenticity. e.g. "most damning proof being the fact that the." It might be proven, but I put a "citation required" stamp there for someone to pull up the actual data. StormRyder 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd looked at the history you'd've seen that the stuff you very mildly edited had just been put in an hour earlier. It looks like someone cut-and-pasted it wholesale from some web site, in the process deleting a bunch of stuff that's been there for a while. I doubt the GF and the accuracy of the new stuff, so I reverted the whole thing out. If the poster wants to integrate the additions into the article, they should do so in an orderly fashion. Zsero 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Paragraph

The opening text is a complete total duplicate (word for word) with the "Definition" section. I'd suggest deleting the entire "Definition" section and figuring out how to make the introduction text flow around the table of contents. Thought I should leave it to someone who knows how to do the latter. 74.103.98.163 14:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Population

I just noticed the population stats say 15% Sikhs live in India and 85% live outisde India. In fact, it is relatively reversed. It says the worldwide population is 26 million. Also, on the 'Sikhism' wikipedia page it says 90% of Sikhs in India live in Punjab province. In fact its less than that. It also says 65% of Punjab province is Sikh and there are 23 million worldwide I want to correct these mistakes but this would be my first edit and I don't want to mess up the internet.

I've found these sites for sources:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sikhism#Sikhs_around_the_world Which says there are 23 million worldwide.

http://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/historical-events-in-sikh-history/population-2.html Which says 78% of Sikhs in India live in Punjab province. It also says in 1991 Punjab province was 63%.

http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Summary%20Sikhs.pdf Stats from a 2001 census. which says there are 19.2 million Sikhs in India and 14.6 million in Punjab province, which works out to 76% of India's Sikh population residing in Punjab. It says Punjab province is 60% Sikh.

http://www.sikhchildren.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1 This page says there are an estimated 22 million worldwide.

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=872 This page says there are between 20-25 million worldwide.

http://www.serf.ws/ This site says there are 20 million worldwide and 68% of Punjab is Sikh.

http://www.saldef.org/content.aspx?a=1611&z=8&title=RICHMOND%20Brewpub%20shuts%20out%20turban%20wearer This site says there are 24 million worldwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101770_pf.html This article says the worldwide population is 25 million

At many sites there are references to Sikhs living in the UK, US and Canada totalling about 1.5 million.

I'm leaning towards writing 77% of India's Sikh population living in Punjab. That there are around 22-25 million Sikhs worldwide. And that 60% of Punjab province is Sikh.

What do you guys think?

Daab 18:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As of mid- 2000 Johnson and Barrett (2004) put the total world population of Sikhs at 23, 258, 000; making up 0.4% of the world's population. I think this is the most accurate figure so far. Increase in the Sikh population is that 392, 633 Sikhs added per year.

Given this Sikh Population in 2007 is 26, 006, 431.

Johnson and Barrett, 2004. Todd M. Quantifying alternate futures of religion and religions. Published by Futures Vol. 36 (2004) 947–960.

MSP4realmf 06/07/07. 1603hrs.

history

I typed in "Sikh" to get information on the history of Sikhism. There is no information on its history which, I think, leaves a massive gap in the article. The founding date of this religeon should be a key part of this article but yet there is not even a single sentence which refers to this. You MUST include the history of the Sikh religeon in order to give this article some base. Infact it probably should have been the first piece of information provided in an otherwise incomplete article.

Start a separate article called "Sikh History" because 500 years of history is massive amount of information that cannot be summized in one section. Start a new article.--Peter johnson4 09:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sikh Population in the UK

The article states that the SIkh popultaion in the Uk totals at 700, 000, however the 2001 UK population census has Sikhs numbered at 336,000. Are you telling me that the UK Sikh population doubled in 6 years!!!

Surely this figure of 700, 000 must be wrong.

Also i suspect that totaling the number of African Sikhs at 1, 000, 000 is also wide of the mark.

No one has anything to gain by this 'Sikh inflation'.

The Sikh popultaion of Canada as per 2001 Canadian census stands at 278, 410; again according to the article the Sikh Canadian popultaion seems to have more than doubled!!

Also, considering that there are less than a hundred Sikh families living in Pakistan, i STRONGLY suspect that there are less than 300, 000 Sikhs living in Pakistan.

In the population table, it states that Sikhs number at 26 million, whereas under the distribution heading it has Sikhs numbered at 40 million. Can we have some consistency please!!

This Wiki page is a bad joke!

PLEASE someone sort this out...it seems as if someone has just been making these figures up!!

MSPrealMF 2239 hrs 29/06/07

More Info.

According to a lecture given by Michael Arthur in November 2004 (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/downloads/files/ethnic.pdf.); UK Sikhs numbered at 400, 000. Assuming that the popultaion increase is a directly proportional relationship (not very realistic i know!) i have assumed an annual increase in UK Sikh popultaion of 21, 333.

Hence I hae estimated the current UK popultaion to be 464, 000. I have changed the UK population figure to take account of this; if you have more accurate figure then please change my ammedment.

Thanks. MSPrealMF 1223 hrs 04/07/07

That sounds like WP:OR to me. If you have a source for 400K, leave it at that. Your estimates of the increase don't belong on WP. Zsero 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sikh population in the US is stated as 210000 while there are 150,000 in California alone. The figure is somewhere in the range of 400k to 500k. Also, the main problem in US and Canada is that religion category is often under reported or left unmarked in the census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.64.216 (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify the Sikh view of the SGGS

If I changed this bit, somebody would only just revert it back, so I thought I'd raise it here first. The article says, "The Guru Granth Sahib is revered as the living Guru, not just as a holy book." This is only going to confuse non-Sikhs into thinking that Sikhs regard the Sri Guru Granth Sahib as being "alive". We should clarify that what we mean to say is that it is regarded as being the "living guru" in the sense that it is the ultimate guide to Sikhs as the Gurus (teachers) were before it. Understanding the significance of the Gurus as teachers of the naam is key here. Krea 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Then how is it different from other holy books such as the Bible and Koran? -- Zsero 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you think the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is "alive" in the sense that it is conscious? Krea 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not telling you anything. I'm asking: if the SGGS is just "the ultimate guide to Sikhs", then how do you justify the claim that it's unlike any other holy book; that sounds like just about every holy book. How do you distinguish the SGGS from the Bible and Koran? Or do you think the statement is wrong, and it really isn't any different? Is the SGGS simply the Sikh Bible? -- Zsero 03:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In function, they are not different: the Bible guides Christians (amongst others) just like the Qur'an does to Muslims. What else is it supposed to be? Were not the ten gurus before it merely teachers, guides, enlighteners? Where in the Bani does it tell us that it is anything else? Who tells us that it is unlike any other holy book? The reason that we Sikhs do not treat these other books with exactly the same respect as we do the SGGS is that we do not believe all the things that are in those books. Krea 00:23, 13 September 2007 (

was the bible compiled by jesus:sikhs regard guru granth sahib as their living guru because it contains the teachings of their gurus as were said by them without even a minor change. they are first hand as they came from the gurus mouth. that is why the language in which they are written is called gurmukhi. unlike the bible and the quran, which were written and recorded by the followers of jesus and prophet muhammad, guru granth sahib was compiled by the gurus themselves.the gurus laid great emphasis on naam i.e the sacred word. the gurus did not claim themselves to be incarnation or messengers of god.guru granth sahib was given the guruship by guru gobind singh himself and all the sikhs were ordered to hold guru granth sahib as their eternal guru.117.96.34.41 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all very well, but you're wrong about the Bible and Quran. Jews and Christians believe (the first five books of) the Bible to be the direct word of God, and the rest to have been written under Divine inspiration. Moslems believe the Quran to be an exact transcript of Mohammed's words. That would seem to give them the same status in those religions that SGGS has in Sikhism. -- Zsero 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"O servant Nanak, the Lord is revealed through the Gurmukh, the
Living Expression of the Guru's Word."
-- SGGS, page 12, line 2; Raag Aasaa, Guru Ram Das
(translation Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa).

"You tear off the leaves, O gardener, but in each and every leaf, there
is life. That stone idol, for which you tear off those leaves - that stone
idol is lifeless. In this, you are mistaken, O gardener. The True Guru is
the Living Lord. Brahma is in the leaves, Vishnu is in the branches, and
Shiva is in the flowers. When you break these three gods, whose service
are you performing? The sculptor carves the stone and fashions it into
an idol, placing his feet upon its chest. If this stone god was true, it
would devour the sculptor for this!"
-- SGGS, page 479; Raag Aasaa, Bhagat Kabir, line 1 (translation ibid).

The quotes you can find at most web sites, and I got them from sikhs.org.

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib tells us many times, that it is the Shabad that is important, not the vessel. Nowhere did Guru Gobind Singh Ji state that the book was alive. Read the quote above: does it imply that the Gurus were manifestation of our Lord? Read the same quote again: there's another pertinent message there.

Perhaps this is why I didn't bother changing the article: it would only get reverted by people who can read but can't understand. I'm going to leave at this seeing as nobody can give me a straight answer, let alone quote Gurbani to back his/her position. Krea 01:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"sab sikhan ko hukam hai guru maaneyo granth. guru granthji maaneyo pragt guran ki deh, jo prabh ko milboch hai khoj shabd mein leh."

the sikhs revere guru granth sahib as their guru, j or was the ust as they revere the ten gurus.guru granth sahib is no different from the sikh gurus because it contains their teachings as were preached by them.to sikhs, guru granth sahib is more than a holy book.the phrase that sikhs regard it as a living guru does not mean that sikhs believe it to be alive as a human.it means that it contains the bani of the gurus which is eternal, out of the sphere of life and death.when guru arjan devji compiled adi granth, he placed it on higher seat than where he sat.this way he taught that the granth was to be treated equal to the guru. the bible and the quran hold a place less than that of jesus and holy prophet.but guru granth sahib holds an equal place with that of the gurus.one can say that it is the 11th and last of the sikh gurus.117.96.42.199 12:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I wanted to hear. Now, shouldn't that be put in the article? Krea 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to misunderstand the Jewish and Christian views of the Bible, and the Moslem view of the Koran. -- Zsero 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

was the Bible compiled by jesus or was the Quran compiled by muhammad? No. but guru granth sahib was compiled by the gurus during their lifetime.that is how it is different from holy books of other religions.Mauji 07:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain Image Needed

Can anyone upload a PD image of the Nishan Sahib to add to the page. The current Nishan Sahib does not look dynamic enough and i cant find any PD imagaes on creative commons that are good enough. Thx. MSPrealmf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msp4realmf (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Saragarhi References

I think it would be better if the battle of Saragarhi were referenced w/o referring to exclusively Sikh associated sources. Can anyone re-reference the Saraghari bit wrt neutral military texts? Thx. Msp4realmf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msp4realmf (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Repetition of Sikh VC winners

The names of Sikh VC winners are produced under the Sikh Victoria Cross winner section and again under the Sikhs in World War I & II and other Wars section; it would be more straight forward if one set of names was deleted. What do you think?msp4realmf 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Parminder Nagra's picture alongside that of Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj ???

You guys are nuts. Please remove Nagra's picture from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.185.109 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the inclusion of Nagra's picture alongside Guru Gobind Singh Ji is not meant to imply any parity with respect to their standing in Sikhism; but merely to reflect the pluralsy of those people who are Sikhs.

In a montage of Sikhs it would be misleading just to include religious figure.

The montage includes 2 men and 2 women; representative of Sikhs from this modern era and Sikhs from posterity.

Hope this rationale answers you statement. msp4realmf 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. However, showing pluralsy of the Sikh people by putting up a picture of someone like Nagra (who I'm not even sure even considers herself a Sikh or not, but was just born into a Sikh household) alongside that of Maharaj is preposterous. If you still want to depict the pluralsy by putting up her picture, please remove the picture of Guru Maharaj from there.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.185.109 (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that to call it 'preposterous' is a little OTT but ok, fair one, to avoid the ruffling of sensibilities i'll remove Guru Gobind Singh Ji's image and will replace with another.msp4realmf 10:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pander to the beliefs of the anonymous contributor. It is perfectly acceptable to show all *ranges* of Sikhs, including 'Mona' Sikhs (who now contribute the majority of the 20 million Sikhs in the world - if we start excluding people "just born into a Sikh household", Sikhism disappears into an insignificant following. Anyone who says they are a Sikh is one and we're not here to judge their beliefs of themselves.).

This is a neutral encyclopedia - we don't care whether you think it's right or even disrespectful to have such a picture up (which I don't believe it is btw). This article is trying to define Sikhs as both a religious and ethnic group, not Sikhism as a religion. 78.86.12.25 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Homogeneous Sikh Culture

I am going to write a few paragraphs under the title Sikh Culture, can anyone give me any cultural artefacts/activites that i should include that can be said to be wholely or even mostly Sikh? E.g. would it be appropriate to mention Bhangra and Khabbadi; or should it just sikh to religiousity, e.g. Vasaikhi, Nagar Kirtan, Akand panth etc. Cheersmsp4realmf 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism and Punjabi Culture

Sikhism and Punjabi culture are two sides of the same coin. All the Gurus were Punjabi and Punjabi culture is inextricably woven into Sikhism and history. There's an old Sikh saying that in order to understand Sikhism you must first understand Punjabi culture and history. In short the traditional Sikh view prevails and rules which is Punjab culture and history is the mother and father of Sikhism.--Sikh historian 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

nishan sahib photo

the picture of sri nishan sahib is not right. it has been posted in a rectangular shape, making it look like the flag of a country or state. the image should show whole of nishan sahib. and the shape is triangular, with the central tip pointing away from nishan sahib.somene please post the correct picture.can i post a pic clicked by me. if yes then how?Mauji 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Sikhiwiki external link

Please add External link to http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sikh - This is a free Sikh encyclopaedia which has over 3000 articles on Sikhi and 1000hits daily. Thanks. Hari Singh 15:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Language

This article provides the correct spelling in East Panjabi/Gurmukhi. However, I feel West Panjabi/Shahmukhi/Urdu spelling should also be provided, as it was a common writing system for Sikhs before Partition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflatun (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Kapur Singh VIRK ??

What is the problem with this site. It includes a lot of propoganda! The name of Kapur Singh under "saints revered by sikhs" has been written as Kapur Singh Virk. Sikhism does'nt believe in caste system.Why is his surname included. Please remove it. You can not promote your own ideas at the cost of history. Ask any sikh or historian and he will tell you what is wrong with putting surnames. Guru gobind Singh abolished the use of caste name/surname and directed every sikh to put only SINGH after his name.And Kapur singh was a warrior! A seperate list of sikh warriors should be compiled from the time of Baghel Singh ,who won and captured the Red Fort of Delhi.Ajjay 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

YOU STUPID IDIOT WHAT ABOUT JASSA SINGH RAMGARHIA OR JASSA SINGH AHUWALIA THEY HAD NAMES AFTER SINGH

JASSA SINGH RAMGARHIA & JASSA SINGH AHUWALIAY you Know NOTHING about Sikh History STOP :Vandalising the page or you will be BLOCKED. THERE IS NOTHING IN SIKH RELIGIOUS TEXT THAT :SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE THIRD NAME YOU IDIOT. WHAT ABOUT JASSA SINGH RAMGARHIA & JASSA SINGH :AHUWALIA They were BOTH KHALSA!!!!

Mind your language first.You should first spend some time on learning english grammer. As for blocking me, i don't think that this website is owned by your father.About the knowledge of sikh history, you are invited to debate with me anytime. I don't know if you are a sikh or not but i am a born and practising sikh and living in punjab. And i am a history student too. Just because Jassa Singh Ramgarhia was called by that name by his followers that does not mean you can put surnames behind every sikh. First go and read some CREDIBLE books on Sikh history and then come back. And Kapur Singh was not a SAINT.this claim is laughable.He was one of the great warriors and leaders of sikhs. But that does not make him a saint.When you say that there is nothing in our religius text which says that you can't have third name,then my friend you really need some right guidance.Most of people in punjab put their surnames after singh, but ask any sikh scholar and he will tell you that it is wrong.Please don't get hyper and emotional in you approach. Ajjay (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a Sikh scholar and a Khalsa, I've studied at Cambridge university & Guru Nanak Dev University and studied under the leading Sikh sant of Punjab there is nothing that says you can't have third name in Guru Granth Sahib I have have a third name and many of the Sikh Khalsa Scholars at the Golden temple have third names. Anyway please do not try to vandalise the site again otherwise I will a get administrator to block you for vandalism.--Sikh scholar 05:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend ,i agree that there is nothing written in our religious text which says that you can't have a third name. But you must also understand that Sikhs have no codified law like the muslims or other religions.If you have read the sikh history then you must also have come across the names of all the ancient warriors,sikhs etc.All used only the name singh.example Maharaja Ranjit Singh , Baba Deep Singh Shaheed(he was a sandhu) but you don't see their surnames. If you have studied at Guru Nanak Dev University than you have really poor knowledge of sikh affairs. You are giving the example of Sikh scholars,then please br aware that the sikh priests ,at Akal Takht have issued a Hukamnama by Gurmat that prohibited the use of surname or a third name by the priests at the gurudwaras and elected members of SGPC, which manages the gurudwaras.Read the hukamnamas issued by the jathedar of Akal Takht and you will see that he doesn't use his third name officially.his third name is quoted only by media and not by sikh priests.By the way Khuswant Singh is a major Sikh historian ,but he is not the ultimate authority on sikh issues.I hope you see my point.And putting forward a valid point is not vandalism,atleast in my knowledge.http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990327/ige27145.html Please visit this linkAjjay (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maharaja Ranjit Singh

I think we need a picture of Ranjit Singh.He was the first sikh king and one of the greatest sikhs.He did a lot for sikhism and gurudwaras in punjab, espl. the golden temple.It is better than showing cut surd's pictures as SikhsAjjay (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikh population in The Netherlands: 12000

Please can somebody ad the Sikh population in The Netherlands under "Regions with significant populations" On the Sikh website in the Netherlands it is stated as 12000 http://www.sikhs.nl/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirijnvw (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Holla.jpg

Image:Holla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gurdwara

The Gurdwara is a holy place for Sikhs. It is referred to as a temple to non-Sikhs however, the Sikhs only call it the Gurdwara out of respect. The Sikhs go to the Gurdwara on a daily basis to pray and to practice their five bani's. It in indeed a peaceful place for the Sikhs and all are welcomed at any time --Nijjargurl (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Http://www.khalsaschool.us/images/SjGurdwara.jpg

Fair use rationale for Image:Holla.jpg

Image:Holla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

persecution

The sikhs have been one of the most persecuted communities in the world, They were persecuted even in modern india by nehru, indira and rajiv gandhi. Somebody help find a ref. for this thanks.Ajjay (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

sikh philosophy

I think we need to merge 'Sikh philosophy' and 'Sikh gurus' into one paragraph to give a balanced para, which should not be lenghty and filled with names, considering there are seperate articles for each of themAjjay (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Holla.jpg

Image:Holla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I have nominated the article for GA! let's hope it comes through!!Ajjay (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A. MOS: Wikipedia:Embedded list is not followed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A. {{Fact}} tags in infobox.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A. WP:UNDUE for Baba Harbhajan Singh B. "People revered by Sikhs also include:" seems UNDUE, where the most revered Gurus are not all mentioned, why mention other people? c. "Saragarhi day" is WP:UNDUE D. UNDUE to merits and demerits of Green revolution in "Representation"

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A. Image:The Regiment Sikh Regiment Battle Insignia.jpg Fair use rationale needed B. Image:Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh.jpg not fair use for this article. C. Image:Professor Piara Singh Gill.jpg not fair use for this article D. Image:Dr Narinder Singh Kapany.jpg not fair use E. Image:Nineteen-Eighty-four (The storming of the Golden Temple).jpg not fair use

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

8. "Essentially Sikh history, with respect to Sikhs as a distinct political body, can be said to have began with the martyrdom of the fifth Sikh Guru, Guru Arjan Dev in 1606." Shouldn't Sikh history start with it's foundation??????
9. The article talks about the empire, but what about small states as Sikh Confederacy, unification as empire and end of empire.
10. "Communal tensions between Sikhs and Hindus arose again in the late 1970s, fueled by Sikh claims of discrimination and marginalization by the Hindu dominated Indian National Congress ruling party and the "dictatorial" tactics adopted the then Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.[38] Frank[38] argues that Gandhi's assumption of emergency powers in 1975 resulted in the weakening of the "legitimate and impartial machinery of government" and her increasing "paranoia" of opposing political groups led her to instigate a "despotic policy of playing castes, religions and political groups against each other for political advantage". As a reaction against these actions came the emergence of the Sikh leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who vocalized Sikh sentiment for justice and advocated the creation of a Sikh homeland, Khalistan. This accelerated Punjab into a state of communal violence.[39] Gandhi's 1984 action to defeat Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale led to desecration of the Golden Temple in Operation Bluestar and ultimately led to Gandhi's assassination by her Sikh bodyguards.["NOT NEUTRAL. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
11. "Representation" and "Distinguished Sikhs in the Modern Era" have overlapping info.
12. "The farming skills of the Sikhs and their willingness to work hard, ensured that they rose from humble migrant labourers to become landowners who control much of agriculture in California.
13. "Today American Sikh agriculturists such as Harbhajan Singh Samra and Didar Singh Bains dominate Californian agriculture and are known colloquially as the "Okra" and "Peach" kings respectively." needs citation.
14. {{Fact}} tag in Representation.
15. "In India, the Jatt ethnic grouping is by far the largest at a population of 11,855,000 followed by the Mazhabi at 2,701,000 with the Tarkhans totaling 1,091,000." Stats need citations
16. "By the advent of World War I, Sikhs in the British Indian Army totaled over 100,000; i.e. 20% of the British Indian Army." ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
17. Expand "Sikhs during the Indian Independence Movement". Write about revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Udam Singh etc.
18. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  in "Sikhism in Western World".
19. "The Punjab itself has been called India’s melting pot" ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
20. http://sikhchic.com/ not WP:RS--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck improving the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Punjabi spelling of Singh

I request Punjabi scholars from Punjab India who learn to write Punjabi at school to kindly give the correct spelling of the word "Singh" in Punjabi, in the Singh article. Kindly please edit it for correct Punjabi spelling and provide a reliable acceptable reference at least on the discussion page.

Some foreign born editors keep misspelling it, it seems, I have corrected the Hindi spelling, kindly provide a reference for Hindi spelling too if possible.

Thank you in advance.

Atulsnischal (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It not really misspealled, the punjabi words for some reason don't show up correctly on firefox, use Internet explorer instead. --Gman124 ^talk 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The following is the page before you edited it [1] and here is the one that was after you changed the spelling, [2] If you look at these two examples on Ineternet explorer then the text on first on will show up correctly, but if you use firefox the text on the second link will show up right. --Gman124 ^talk 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

However it seems to have been fixed on the newer version of firefox. (Firefox 3)--Gman124 ^talk 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Creation of Khalsa and what it means to the Sikhs?

On March 30th, 1699,the leaders of the Sikhs created the day of Vaiskhi. On this auspicious day, the small religion known as Sikhism formed its followers known as the Khalsa Panth. The term Khalsa refers to the purity in oneself and with that of Guru Gobind Ji, who gave true birth to Sikhism. Sikhs, the disciples of Sikhism, are to follow the five "K's" ; which give rules to distinguish Sikhs from others. The word Khalsa also refers to the meaning behind the words spiritual and defender. Both these words signify what it means to be true to the Khalsa in that it represents the religion of Sikhism as well as refers to the fact that we are defenders of it. The number five has always been a sacred number to the Sikh religion. It is why on this very day,Guru Gobind Singh Ji asked for five heads. He wanted the lives of five men who would give up their life to protect and maintain their religion. These five men who sacrificed their lives are considered His beloved till this very day. They are the roots to the creation of the Khalsa Panth and they represent the Khalsa. They are the reason for the existence of Sikhism which is now the fifth largest religion in the world. --Nijjargurl (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

--Nijjargurl (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

References

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) 08:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

The following statement in the current version of article is incorrect:

meditate on the holy name (Waheguru)?? ..what is "holy name"? Does AGGS really give this message? This is wrong transliteration work that often arises from thoughtless word-to-word transliteration of AGGS. The word "naam" which is often transliterated to "name" in English has been used in various different meanings in AGGS, knowledge about the ultimate truth being the most important (perhaps even most frequent) of those. Sikh theologists do not agree on transliteration to "name" at least for the core message of Sikhism. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Professor Piara Singh Gill.jpg

The image Image:Professor Piara Singh Gill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Beant Singh - Satwant Singh

they are black spot on sikhism, they were given duties to protect mrs gandhi. thier act was a shame on sikhism bravery, they could have resgined as body guard and killed her they could have been real brave.

like udham singh who served GEn diar, but he left his job and killed him openely.

i suggest these names must be removed from Achieved Martyrdom for respect of Sikhs

• • • • ------****

Non Sikhs could have different views for Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, but both of them are great heros for Sikhism and their pictures are proudly displayed in Central Sikh Meusuem in Amritsar. Sikhs love both of them to such an extent that Beant Singh's widow was elected as a Member Parliament (of India) with a huge margin immediately after her husband's martyrdom. Her victory echoes sentiments of Sikhs in India.

• • • • ------****

Beant Singh & Satwant Singh are very much respected in Sikhs. It is clear from the fact their photographs are present in most of the Sikh museums including Golden Temple & Delhi Sis Ganj.

T-shirts bearing their photographs have become popular in Sikh youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabhroo (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Population

There appears to be something wrong with the population figure. I always though the Sikh worldwide population stood at 5% of the world population and has grown recently from 2% to 5%. At 26 million, these numbers are next to nonexistent. That can't be correct.

Taking the world population as being 6,602,224,175 (as of 2007); The Sikhs make up 0.39% of the world's population.

We would need citations... ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 23:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM

The version 2. august 2007 has the rather funny desciption a ..."A Sikh can easily be recognized by his turban, beard, and by the group of metropolitan police following him into the subway."

---

sat sri akal . it appears that many people who have posted their comments on this page do not have exhaustive knowledge about sikhism,much as they would like to believe. their first error is a) talk about bathing guru granth sahib and flowing it when it gets old: there is no ritual in sikhi which requires bathing guru granth sahib.sikhi itself does not believe in any kind of rituals.regarding flowing the granth sahib when it gets old is ignorent observence. a true sikh knows that the birs are cremated when they become old. please visit goindwal sahib and see that they cremate old birs and gutkas on a decided day of every month after performing ardas. b)talk about guru gobind singh ji's bani not included in guru granth sahib: a true sikh knows that it was a tradition of the great gurus that thay the bani recited by them was added in adi granth by the succeeding guru. adi granth was compiled by guru arjan dev and it included bani of the first five gurus ,including guru arjan dev's bani, who was the fifth guru.the sixth,seventh and eight'th guru did not recite any bani.the ninth guru,guru tegh bahadur, recited bani but did not add it in the adi granth. when guru gobind singh prepared the final version of adi granth at damdama sahib, he added guru tegh bahadur's bani in it but not his own.afterwards he bestowed guruship on granth sahib and it came to be known as guru granth sahib. c)talk about guru gobind singh saying "guru maane granth": the person who evaluated this ,a self confessed sikh ,sadly is very ignorent. it's'notGURU MAANE GRANTH" but'guru maaneyo granth which means that hold the granth as your guru.guruji said that every sikh was to hold guru granth sahib as their guru. that is why it is called yugo yug attal guru granth sahib meaning the everliving guru. d)talk about guru gobind singh saying that any person who holds him as guru will go to hell:guru gobind singh was the tenth guru of the sikhs. he stated any person who hold him as god would be damed to hell. and not guru as stated in beginning of this page. e)talk about guru gobind singh raising khalsa as an army:a very ignorent self proffessed sikh holds the view that guruji required observence of the five k's for maintaing disciplne among his army.he does not understand the essence for observing this code. guru ji did not raise an army, but he converted his followers i.e the sikhs into unified distinct group of people.sikhs were to be recognised by their distinct appearence. when guru gobind singh administered khande ki pahul to sikhs they became khalsa. then the panj piaras administered khande ki pahul to guru gobind singh. thusthe khalsa was merged into the guru and the guru into khalsa. f) talk about going to gurudwara and bowing before guru granth sahib as fruitless:only a person who has no knowledge of sikhi and it's struggle and sacrifices ,which are unique in the world , can hold such a view.it comes in our ardasas amritsarji de ishnaan. a sikh asks for gods blessing to be able to bathe in the holy amrit sarovar at darbar sahib commonly known as the golden temple , amritsar.the sikhs bow before their guru,yugo yug attal guru granth sahib because god can be realised only through the guru. it is our spiritual guide and helps us to better ourselves as human beings and help and love others. sikhs do not hold their gurus as god or avtaars of god. sikhi does not believe in incarnation of god in any form whatsoever.if certain sikhs choose to ignore the basic principles of sikhi and follow their own way of thinking then this can not be attributed with sikhi. if an individual follows any ritual of any sort , then that is his chosen path and not of sikhi. actions of individuals can not be held to be that of sikhi even if the individual is a sikh.

Please sign your posts. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 23:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikhs in the US Army

Does anyone have any information on the role of Sikhs in the US Army? I have heard that there are quite a few of them, and that they are mostly officers, but I have no verification and am not sure if my information is correct.Bostoner (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Col G. B. Singh (author of Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity and Gandhi Under Cross Examination), Col. Sekhon, Aaron Singh Mann, Ranbir Kaur are some examples. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally done with Sidhu

I want to thank the person who removed the photo of Navjot Singh Sidhu . I tried it several times but someone replaced it back .Although he was a good cricket celebrity but he aint that good to symbolise the whole Sikh Community. He also Talked to much though and we have better people to put their.I mean no photo of the Ten gurus , No photo of the Bhagats , just Sidhu !!! that was unfair to people who have made major and significant contributions and even had sacrificed their lives. Dont they desrve just a picture on wikipedia. PLEASE someone put a photo there of those people not some cricketer.

the population of Sikhs has no count of Sikks in Africa.

No two there is no mention about Sat Guru RAM singh who was one of freedom fighters of INDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.57.75 (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the 5 k's!!

are comb, underwear, dagger knife, metal bracelet, and uncut hair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.40.136 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Guru Nanak...

I am not very knowledgeable about the religion or the community, but it is decidely odd that Guru Nanak isn't mentioned at all on this page...--iFaqeer 01:47, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Gurpreet- Sikh population in Australia is 22,000.... reference: http://www.sikhcouncil.org.au/sikhsinaustralia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.57.150.68 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rajinater- I am a sikh jutt from Canada and im from wealthy landlord family and this articles information is absoulutely incorrect firstly their is a sikh population worldly of 80,000,000 not 25,000,000 which is population of sikhs in India of which 80% live in sikh majority state of punjab. Secondaly JUTTcaste is not cultivater peasant people but is large landowner and larger farmer people,smaller farmers are called by traditinal name kisan meaning farmer. jUTT caste is one of the highest caste for hindus with the rajputs and brahimans and highest for people in punjab,haryana,himacheil pardesh and pakistani punjab. Jutts are higher caste feadul nobiles originally but due to land being split between jutts son shrinks land which was once in the hundreds of acres to few acres leading to the miscunderstanding of jutts being small PEASENT farmer which we are NOT.SIKH Jutt clans are mainly from rajasthan coming from rajput clans. ha we have royal blood stupid swedish man in article saying we are peasants.I too noticid that their isnt any mention really about our religion just incorrect facts gotten from stupid saurces.We are landlords not peasants or else my family wouldnt have 22room ancestral haveli with 6 servants and 200 acres of land worth 15lakh per acre.lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.200.113 (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing article

Why is the article locked? Open source isn't worth much if anons like me can't help. There is a spelling mistake in the introduction, the misspelling "tremdously" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.106.178 (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of creation of Khalsa

Hi I am Harpreet Bajwa frm Los Angeles & Here I notified that Date of formation of Khalsa is wrongly mentioned under History Tag in this wikipedia. Actual Date is 13 April 1699 but here is 30 March 1699 mentioned. Please change it as earliest possible. -- Harpreet Singh 04:07 PM PST

Well, I had initiated a discussion at Talk:Guru Gobind Singh#Date_of_creation_of_Khalsa yesterday. Some books say it's 30 March 1699, while others say it was 13 April 1699.

The SGPC site says 30 March 1699. Fundamentalisms observed‎ (Page 59) by Martin E. Marty etal. says "...the unusual happening of 13 April (some say it was on 30 March) 1699". utcursch | talk 02:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sikh

Bana Singh and Gurbhachan Singh Salaria are Rajputs they are not sikhs as claimed. kindly rectify the error.

 NAVIN PRATAP SINGH SALARIA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunwarsalaria (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 

Input needed

Murder#Murder in religion needs input on non-Abrahamic belief systems. One or two paras would be a big help. Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Where is Australia on the list of national populations? Bitbut (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Defined

• Cosequent to different Socio-Political perceptions, racial & communal pressures etc, far too many varients of the One & Only One true definition of a 'Sikh' formally documented in Aadi Granth & amplified by this amaturish Wiki PenPal Team, exist causing confusion. The True definition is >>True definition of a Sikh.

• All other definitions are Fake / Half Truth definitions.

Hope this Helps ! This team will consider it as their holy duty to provide inputs on Sikhism with due references from Adi Granth as may be required.

Upright PenPallllllllllls --AmiBalRaj (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Creative Khalsa Singhs Nirv"r

Combine Sikh and Sikhism articles?

Would it make sense to combine the articles "Sikh" and "Sikhism"? There seems to be a lot of overlap between them. The same would potentially apply to any pair of articles which cover a religion vs. an adherent of that religion. 118.208.253.96 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but that is a very thoughtless idea ,its like merging islam with muslim they are two separate things the religion and then the people who follow it obviously will overlap as there followers of that religion and you will see that throughout all the religions articles ,i clearly object and i doubt anybody taking you seriously in this matter Information-Line (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)