Jump to content

Talk:Sikhs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.14.63.241 (talk) at 08:06, 12 January 2017 (→Quotations from Guru Granth Sahib). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateSikhs is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Werdnabot

whan you make changes

when you edit this page please state what you are doing and why, as otherwise it will just be altered back and forth with problems, please log in ,then discus on this page,after a response then change, I have written the introduction for this page as I feel it is important to state the religious facts about Sikhism, the ideology and what it about are important however people must know the connection between God and Guru Nanak from what it states in the texts otherwise it will seem than Guru Nanak was just a normal person who created a region whithout devine help which is not the case. So please add as much as you like but only change when you have discussed it here. This page does not flow at the moment it could be allot better so lets do it together.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Original and archived link checked. Both found to be dead. Link in article marked as dead. Apuldram (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I feel that the definition of Sikh (the very title of this article) from the Guru Granth Sahib deserves a place in lead section. Yes there is a definition already in first paragraph but that is as per Sikh Rehat Maryada, which states, among other criterion that a Sikh must believe in the Guru Granth Sahib. So it would be but natural to follow this and next state what the Guru Granth Sahib actually defines a Sikh to be (in what is an abundantly clear definition). Please state your objections if any. Sisu55 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A long quotation is not appropriate for an article's lead section, which is a summary of its most important contents, see WP:LEAD. The lead could contain a summary statement, such as: "A poem in the Guru Granth Sahib sets out the daily routine of a devout Sikh". Apuldram (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Beliefs

The article is quite comprehensive regarding the clothing aspects of the Sikh religion - such as uncut hair, turbans, cotton undergarments, blade, bracelet, etc. More information about specific religious beliefs, other than their monotheism and how they start their days, might benefit the article.

I came to the page to find out what the Sikh believe, but remain ignorant, except for the points noted and their history and challenges. Do they have so-called commandments that they follow? Does their religion oppose lying, stealing, adultery, eating certain foods, pre-maritial sex, certain technologies, equal rights between genders or sexual orientation, etc.

The article helped me better understand what a Sikh looks like, and empathize with the challenges and persecution they have faced - but what does their religion teach, condone, oppose, and support? Did I completely overlook these sections? If so, I apologize. Tesseract501 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information you seek is in the article Sikhism. The second sentence of the lead from that article could well be incorporated here. What do others think? Apuldram (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate the info. I always thought the religion was called Sikh, not Sikhism. No wonder I didn't find what I was looking for before. Thanks again for helping me out. Tesseract501 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

september

something happened. it be done.

ASG 171.48.65.120 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attempts by Hindus trying to claim their last name is a derivative of Sikh nomenclature

Hello,

I've noticed a two IPs repeatedly trying to insert their Hindu name as Sikh, see here and here for two recent examples. I've noticed a similar behaviour by muslims who attempted to sneak their faith into a name whose nomenclature is derived from the Sindh area (drop the n and you'll see). Given the shared land and historical aspect of this area, this was less of a surprise than Prajapati and Kumar trying to pretend they are Sikh.

As a pure-bred[1] who is proud of his heritage and the INNUMERABLE (MILLIONS) who have SACRIFICED for ALL SIKH people, from Anglo-Sikh Wars to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, to World War I and World War II, I am getting increasingly upset that the hindu people continue to try and sneak their names in hopes of being respected in the Commonwealth Realms, as if they have fought side-by-side for centuries with the "white man" they so often deride when among their own kind.

Some of the ALL TIME (Gerard Lake, 1st Viscount Lake, and by extension: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, among others) greats put their neck out on the line for us, undertaking us as a lofty civilisation project that they were aware would need attention long after their own passing. I do not take hindus and muslims trying to hide under our (EARNED) banner lightly.

First the Mussulmans orchestrated Operation Blue star, going so far as allowing one of their own to be adopted by Mahatma Ghandi so that Nehru could be perceived by the uneducated hindu masses as the second coming, followed by an unwarranted attack on our temple which resulted in her own death. From here, they decided that attacking approximately TEN THOUSAND sikhs (1984 anti-Sikh riots)) was the right course of action.

If that wasn't enough, they went even further by planting a muslim (Reyat is a muslim last name) who APPEARED to be Sikh (similar Turban styling etc) to bomb Air India, which was blamed on us.

History has shown that James Mill was right, and regardless of what the Hindus want to argue, their names will never be Sikh and we do not want them. We are not interested in a high population or converting those who are not born Sikh. Asking thirty million (if that is the number. it seems high) to acquire sufficient education to appreciate our faith is difficult enough as-is, we do not need others trying to hop on the bandwagon.

I already have enough difficulty accepting there are some "Sikh" people who allege that baptism doesn't require abstaining from consuming meat (outrageous. of course it does!), as this is clearly not true. Those raised as Sikh would understand how things like this are prone to manipulation when the likes of "Prajapati and Kumhar" want to be considered Sikh: fond of our reputation but not the discipline that's apparent among legitimate communities.

There has been attempt to systematically degrade and weaken the meaning of our religion, and hindus and muslims attempting to live in the Commonwealth is no small representation of this reckless behaviour.

Cease and desist, immediately.

Thank you. 187.217.189.229 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Here, pure-bred does not reference caste. Instead, it refers to being raised a legitimate Sikh household which was full of love, rationality, and demonstrated self-sacrifice through action and not words.

what happened yaar

some r wearing turban and making bribes with britain?

do something yaar?

i am loyal to gobind rai.

223.225.190.103 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaur Prince or Princess?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaur[1] Claims that Kaur means Prince, and has a long explenation for why, (gender equality)

while this article[2] claims that Kaur means princess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.243.125 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, compiled by learned scholars and published by the Punjabi University, Kaur means princess: "KAUR, from Sanskrit kumārī or kuṅvārī meaning a princess, young girl, or virgin, is a suffix which, by tradition and under stipulated code of conduct, is added to the names of all Sikh females, so that like their male counterpart, Siṅghs, they all have a common surname."
I would trust the Encyclopaedia and the University. Wikis are not acceptable sources, see user generated sources. Apuldram (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaur
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh

Sikh nationalism

I've deleted this section. Using a dictionary in this way is original research. The 2nd source is the American Congressional Record. I can't read it but I suspect it was something entered by a member of Congress and not an official statement. The third source is good, but it doesn't argue that there is a Sikh nation, it discusses the problems of Sikh nationalist claims. By all means use it and other sources to discuss it, but from an NPOV perspective and with better sources. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peeta Singh: Kindly explain how you are claiming your edits enforce NPOV. Sikh nationalism can definitely be discussed, and indeed it has been under the history section. However the deletion of the section in question is justified and consistent as per WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Mahmoud The topic could be developed further, but apart from that, it meets all the requirements to be considered an WP:NPOV. The reliably sourced topic is not WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. All claims are backed with multiple reliable sources by multiple scholars. Peeta Singh (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peeta Singh: The fact that you're using WP:IAR to WP:EDITWAR shows that you're unwilling to follow due procedure and policy, despite being addressed on multiple occasions by multiple different users.
You have not addressed how the section is WP:OR? The sources discuss the merits and problems of Sikh nationalist claims, they don't state that Sikhs are a nationality because of said definition of what a nation is - as you've inserted into the article. --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Mahmoud, using WP:BRD to remove the content was inappropriate and disruptive [1]. It prevented from improving Wikipedia; therefore, it was ignored.

Please see the references in the Sikh nationality section. The section does not violate WP:OR, there are reliable, published sources about the topic that are cited in the section. The reliable sources do define the a Sikh nation as inserted into the article.

Peeta Singh (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It violated OR to use a dictionary definition that doesn't mention Sikhs to define Sikhs as a nation. If you disagree, take it to WP:NOR. It appears you copied it without attribution which is, by the way, a copyright violation. Being used in another article doesn't make it not OR.

Deleted text

Although the Sikh homeland; Punjab, has not for centuries been an independent nation state, but rather a province within India and Pakistan, the Sikhs may still be regarded as a "nation" according to the definition: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory".ref>"Definition of Nation in English". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press.
Burton, Dan (April 10, 2002). Congressional Record, V. 148, Pt. 3. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. p. 4267. Retrieved 12 November 2016.
Veer, Peter van der (1995). Nation and Migration. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 28. Retrieved 12 November 2016.
Giorgio Shani (2007). Sikh nationalism and identity in a global age. Routledge. pp. 1–8. ISBN 9781134101894.
Pashaura Singh and Louis Fenech (2014). The Oxford handbook of Sikh studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-969930-8.
Birgerson, Susanne Michele (2002). After the Breakup of a Multi-ethnic Empire. London: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 49. ISBN 9780275969653. Retrieved 22 November 2016.
[1]

Note that I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as Sikh nationalism - I've added a section about it, or that there aren't claims for a Sikh nation. But those need to be discussed in the article, not asserted as fact.

Sources for a Sikh nation need to discuss a Sikh nation. An American Congressman is not a reliable source for this. Nation and migration can be used to discuss Sikh nationalism, but not in this way. The author isn't claiming there is a Sikh nation, he's reporting claims by others. And using it as a source for the statement that it may be regarded as a nation without pointing out that the author also says "To make their case, however, Sikh nationalist rhetori cians are perforce required to ignore or explain away such uncomfortable facts as coresidence and intermarriage with Punjabi Hindus, the existence of Sindhispeaking Sikhs and EuroAmerican Sikh converts, and long standing caste, regional, and sectarian differences among Sikhs.7 The entire thrust of such nationalist rhetoric, with its neady bounded and differenti ated social units, flies in the face of much that we know about the social history of Punjab over the past five centuries. Nevertheless, given that nationalist discourse has become a dominant political discourse of the contemporary world, it is hardly surprising that Sikhs might represent themselves in its terms to advance their claims." is a violation of NPOV. I don't think you understand NPOV. The same goes for the rest of the academic sources. There is clearly something called Sikh nationalism and claims that Sikhs are a nation, but that needs to be framed as a discussion. And you absolutely should not use a snippet. Again, snippets have no context - what this shows is simply that there are these arguments - maybe the next sentence shows that others disagree, and you'd have to include that to represent the source fairly. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singh, Pashaura; Barrier, Norman Gerald (January 1999). Sikh Identity: Continuity and Change. India: Manohar Publishers and Distributors. pp. 131–139, Quote:"starts with a general definition and proceeds to argues that Sikhs are indeed a separate 'nation' because 'the Sikhs are bound by common race, common language and literature, common land, common history, common religion, common joys and sorrows, and common political aims and aspirations". ISBN 8173042365.

Quotations from Guru Granth Sahib

I have removed the quotations in the section Castes, as their relevance to the section is not clear. They appear to be random quotations, all with the same reference.
The first sentence of the section, that Guru Nanak said in Japji Sahib that all souls are to be treated with care and respect, is indeed relevant to the section, but needs support from a verifiable reliable source. The quotations don't provide that. Apuldram (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________

@Apuldram Please explain why the reference I have placed was random and irrelevant. West India has major issues that is causing anti-nationalism. Sikhism is there to help to be inclusive of all people. How would you like to see this paragraph corrected?

Guru Nanak has mentioned in his first composition of Jup Ji Sahib which is recited daily by all practicing Sikhs that all souls are to be treated with care and respect as God is the Giver of all souls.

"The Guru has given me this one understanding: there is only the One, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him!", Guru Granth Sahib, 2

Guru Nanak also said that blessings are rained down when the lowly person, regardless of any background are cared for.

"In that place where the lowly are cared for-there, the Blessings of Your Glance of Grace rain down." , Guru Granth Sahib, 15

Guru Nanak also has spoken we need to prize humility above all and thus caste is not an issue.

"One who takes pride in wealth and lands is a fool, blind and ignorant.

One whose heart is mercifully blessed with abiding humility,

O Nanak, is liberated here, and obtains peace hereafter." [Granth Sahib, 278]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

@76.14.63.241: The section is about castes and your first statement, that everybody is to be treated with care and respect, is relevant, but needs support from a verifiable reliable source. The quotations you provide do not give this support.
The first quotation (GS2) is an exhortation never to forget God. It doesn't mention castes or the treatment of everybody with care and respect. It is not relevant.
The second quotation (GS 15) refers to a place where the lowly are cared for. Again, it doesn't support your initial statement, and is not relevant,
The third quotation (GS 278) refers to those who take pride in wealth and lands and to those with humility. Again not relevant.
You need to find a reliable source that explicitly states that Nanak said that all people are to be treated with the same care and respect.
Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Apuldram (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________

@Apuldram: The first quote, Guru Nanak mentions God is God of ALL mankind. God is not just one or two but all. This is where Guru Nanak justifies the equality of castes because God giver of all is God of ALL. Unless, you are an atheist, please explain why you think "God of All mankind" is only "God of a few" and why what you say matters when this about Guru Nanak and not about you.

The second quote is absolutely relevant. That's in an important point to participate in God's blessing by caring for others. Please explain why this has nothing to do with caste or treating others well when there is a need with the lowly regardless of their background according to Guru Nanak. Do you think Guru Nanak is wrong about caring for the lowly or that it doesn't refer to spiritually poor or low castes?

In the 3rd quote, humility is important in treatment of others especially people of different background. Why do you disagree with Guru Nanak and why do you think humility is not needed in treatment of others, including people of different castes? ____________________________________________

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhs&oldid=759628491"