Talk:Sikhism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

From June 2006 to July 2006

Contents 1 Akal Takht 2 Their should be a section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one 3 Caste system 4 Relation to Hindu mythology - reverted 5 Page split 6 Sikh sects 7 Hs Khalsa Recommendations 8 Simar's comments 9 Review of Decision Making Section 10 Final Push to FA 11 This article is now a Featured Article Candidate 12 Why is their no mention of Sikhism & Hinduism as ONE? 13 Sikhism and Hinduism 14 Sikhism or Medieval Sikhism? 15 youngest of all the major world religions 16 Personal attacks warning

Akal Takht

I've tried to improve this section but I cannot find reliable sources of information. I'm not sure how the role of the Akal Takht has changed in time and different web sites I've read say different things. What I've written is very bare and sketchy - if anyone has more information, please improve it. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Their should be a section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one

I know that this is a sensitive subject but their are many people who dont believe that the Gurus were trying to seperate people into Hindu & Sikh. If you look at the teachings of the Gurus, their beliefs, their names, and what they did for all of India, it is fair to at least argue that they wanted everyone to UNITE under one god...Not seperate into Hindu and Sikh. Please be fair and mention this

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.54.199 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there any sources that describe this? If so, please add. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well actually the religion was not just restricted to Hindu but also Muslims, there were first borns from both religions who would be Sikh, and the Guru's preached that there is No Hindu or Muslim but just one god. So if one needs a mention it is that it was to unite religions and not just Hinduism. Haphar 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A mention of syncretism already appears in the article. If you wish to expand more on the particular relation with Hinduism, see Hinduism and Sikh Panth. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The user Haphar is wrong when he wrote that it was to include Islam as well. Politcally yes he was trying to unite others. But remember Nanak Dev was also against Orthodox Hinduism, (Caste for example) and was trying to help low class Hindus learn the Vedic teachings of Karma, Dharma, and so forth. So yes he was saying thier is no such thing as Hindu because yes he was trying to unite Hindus with his teachings. Remember in those days most families didnt seperate themself into Hindu & Sikh. They had the entire family stay Hindu while the eldest son would be a "Sikh"....this was not done with Muslims in general...So the user Aryan818 was right when he said that Hinduim & Sikhism should be mentioned as being one...Islam has completely different teachings 204.102.210.1 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Caste system

Id just like to clear something up, Sikism dosent follow a caste system but this article claims it does. So I think we should remove it to reduce confussion. Sikhism was formed to obolish the caste system not create it, some people might follow it but that has nothing to do with religon, just stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the article needs to make it more clear that the caste system was rejected by the Gurus. However, we would be kidding ourselves if we said that the vast majority of Sikhs in India don't follow the caste system. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well im gonna clear it up because its kinda offensive, the next thing you know someone might use this false information against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

What false information? I'm pretty certain the article itself doesn't assert that Sikhism condones Castism. Feel free to cleanup anything that seems misleading. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Hindu mythology - reverted

I've reverted [1] the recent change by Elven6 because it was uncited and contrary to the title did not discuss relations with Hindu mythology. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add to it but someone got rid of it, I had to leave on some urgent business so i coulden't finish it.

When I decided to finish it up it was gone!

Page split

I'm going to split this page into two now, because there is already far too much information and I cannot add all relevant stuff without making it too long. So, I'm going to remove the redirect from Sikh and create a page detailing Sikhs as a people. That is culture (Punjabi, generally), emigration/immigration, appearance, recent converts and other details related to Sikhs. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. In fact as time progresses, there will be a need to create separate articles for almost all section mentioned in the article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sikh sects

In preparation of the final section, I've found a useful link: [2] and [3]. After this section is done, I will do a final reduction in page size and copyedit and then put it up for FA. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hs Khalsa Recommendations

I have several suggestions for how the Sikhism page can be improved. I plan to list them below, one at a time, allowing time for comment on them before making the relevant changes. After a suggestion has been considered and approved or rejected, I will move on to my next suggestion.

1) "The followers of Sikhism are ordained to follow the teachings of the Ten Sikh Gurus and the select works of fifteen earlier bhagats as scripted in the Gurū Granth Sahib."

Problem: I feel this sentence is misleading. As you know, the writings of only six Gurus are included in Guru Granth Sahib. Perhaps this sentence is not meant to suggest that all ten Gurus are included. However, a second issue arises because there are more authors than just fifteen bhagats included in Guru Granth Sahib as implied by the second part of the sentence.

Solution: "The followers of Sikhism are ordained to follow the teachings of the ten (lowercase 'T') Sikh Gurus, as well as (no 'the') Guru Granth Sahib which includes select works of numerous authors from diverse backgrounds."

If this is not detailed enough, perhaps all relevant authors could be listed. In any case, just stating "fifteen earlier bhagats" is factually incorrect.

I also propose removing 'the' from in front of Guru Granth Sahib. Guru Granth Sahib is not a thing. It is not acceptable or appropriate to call Guru Nanak Dev - the Guru Nanak, or to call Guru Gobind Singh - the Guru Gobind. Similarly, Guru Granth Sahib is a Guru of equal stature. I know writing "the Guru Granth Sahib" is extremely prevalent all over the Web, but we at Wikipedia should consider the merits of the case and hold ourselves to higher standards rather than just going with what is most popular. Thanks for considering my post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hs khalsa (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you're taking an interest in improving the article.

I definately agree with what you are saying and the introduction is misleading (even though I didn't even pick up on it!). Maybe the term "diverse religious backgrounds" would be better than just "diverse backgrounds" which is a bit vague?

I think the issue with 'the' might be a bit contentious. I think not using 'the' is misleading to readers and sounds odd in English. I completely agree with you that Sikhs believe the Granth to be the embodiment of the Guru's teachings but as a neutral encyclopedia I don't think it is good for Wikipedia to elevate the status of the Granth to anything more than a book of the Guru's teachings. Wikipedia should state that views of Sikhs on the issue (which it does), but should not necessarily subscribe to it itself. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and also for your welcome. I sincerely hope to work with you and others to improve various topics on an open basis. Your points regarding 'the' are well thought out. I agree that the 'the' in front of Guru Granth Sahib is not a particularly important issue, so I will drop that change.

Regarding author backgrounds, the authors of Guru Granth Sahib came from different religious traditions, different areas of India, and even different levels of wealth and professions. So I will go ahead and make the change with "diverse socioeconomic and religious backgrounds". Others can feel free to further edit my change or to post their thoughts regarding this topic after they visit and read my above post. I will now move on to point two. --hardeep 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

2) "Sikh scriptures are written in the Punjabi language, and the most sacred institutions are located in the Punjab region now divided between India and Pakistan."

Problem: Guru Granth Sahib is written in multiple languages, not in Punjabi.

Solution: "Sikh scriptures are written in Gurmukhi script and primarily in the Sant Bhasha language, and the most sacred institutions are located in the Punjab region now divided between India and Pakistan."

Sant Bhasha is extremely similar to Punjabi, but it is considered a different language. Also, Sant Bhasha is not the only language used. For example, Persian is another language that is included. --hardeep 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is actually clarified further down, so it is contradicting what is already written. I'll change it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Simar's comments

An anonymous user left these comments on my talk page: Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked out the Sikhism page after a long while, and was kind of shocked to see all the changes. I understand your efforts to make the page more in line with other pages, but in all your heavy editing, you took out a lot of what made the original page great.

I am a practicing Sikh in graduate school in the midwest. I recieve questions about Sikhism every day of my life. I found that the original page, what it was in May, 2006, was an excellent reference to which I could direct the curious. It was written from a perspective that made it easily accessible to those who want a basic understanding of Sikhi's tenets. For instance, the now omitted "Religious Philosphy" subheading was quite excellent, and very pointedly answered many questions by those who know nothing of Sikhi. There is nothing on the new page that addresses these points. In fact, there is very little discussion of general beliefs - in a clear, concise manner - on the new page at all. And these general beliefs are what the page should be highlighting before it gets down into the nitty gritty that you seem to most enjoy discussing.

Another qualm I have is the emphasis on the word "God." It shows up in just about every other sentence, in what I find to be an extremely dense explanation of Sikhi's evolution and beliefs. The problem I have with the frequency of it's use is that the very definition of God is not dilineated from the Abrahamic defnition of God, which how most readers at Wikipedia will immediately associate the term. After studying Sikhism somewhat extensivly, reading interpretations of Baani since i was a kid, I find that God in Sikhi, while in line with mool mantar, is more similar to how Buddhism defnies the abstract sense of truth. This is the very essense of the Dharmic religions - not the personified, vengeful image of God common in the West. However, when most Sikhs dont understand this, I think it will be very difficult for Westerners to make that dilineation unless it is laid out in front of them....very clearly.

ANYWAYS - i appreciate your efforts, but to be perfectly frank, I think this new page is quite dense. While it is excellent to have the information there, sourced out and all, I will not use this as a point of reference for friends who have no understanding or knowledge of Sikhi. And I am sad that I lost that source.

So, my two suggestions? Please try to include a simplified and bullet-pointed "religious philosphy" section, and please cut down on the over use of the word "God."

Best, simar

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.175.42 (talk • contribs)

If anyone has any comments to make, please do so. I will leave my comments when I've had time to look at the issues in more depth (I'm slightly busy atm). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm using [4] as a reference to the old version and thus my comments pertain to that version only.

One of the peer review comments suggested that the original article was too list-weighty. It merely listed a list a dos/donts with little context or scriptual backup. We have tried to correct this, but it has resulted in an article where it's much more difficult to pull out facts like that list. Maybe we need to create a separate article that can have a list form of such points?

It's important to note that I've removed details of being a Sikh to Sikh, and left Sikhism as a religion and philosophy of life here.

I do agree with you that the article has become more difficult to read - but that's only because it has *all* the information there. I'm going to make it easier to read by removing the ISO transliterations (that's transliterations with the funny diacritics on Latin characters) on everything but important Sikh ideas. So, niraṅkār will remain, but Hari Kriśan will revert to Har Krishan. In addition, I will be trimming the article and checking it for readability issues.

It would be interesting to see other user's views on this so that we can come to some sort of consensus on what to do. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sukh veerji,

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I was just reading the page on Sikhism and wanted to share a couple of concerns with you. It's obvious that you've put a lot of time and hard work into the information that you've posted, and that is appreciated, but I still have a couple of concerns.

The main intro seems a bit pedantic. Is all of that information really necessary to explain the core of Sikhi? Points such as "Some consider Sikhism to be a syncretic religion, although this is not a widespread belief held by Sikhs; the Sikh gurus maintained that their message had been revealed directly by God," seem extraneous. By adding this point into the main refernce for Sikhi will give credence to the idea- which I'm sure you know is highly disputed, controversial, and insulting to practicing Sikhs. I see that under Philosophy and Teachings, you've stated it as an incorrect over-simplification, but I still think it is misleading to have it in the main Intro and perhaps even in the Philsophy and Teachings.

I'd also be interested to know why you've chosen the authors and references that you have. Over half of your sources are not Sikhs themselves, and Kushwant Singh is agnostic (which I read somewhere on your discussion page earlier). Wouldn't sources who practice the religion have greater insight into the teachings, philosophies, and historical contexts? I understand that non-practicing Sikhs may have undertaken research projects which Sikhs themselves have not yet done, and some information from these may indeed be valuable. But do we really want to really so heavily on their interpretations of Sikhi? It makes me very uncomfortable.

At the moment, the series of definitions of minor details take away from the main beauty of Sikhi- the qualities that make it unique. I think it would be helpful to streamline it a bit more, and just provide links to more extensive details.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely, Puneet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.248 (talk • contribs)

A) Sukh raises an important point - others complained about the article having too many lists in the past, and now, somebody commented about it not having enough lists. An easy answer to this dilemma escapes me.

B) The word 'God' as used in this article is a generic term. Every religious name for God is acceptable to Sikhs. Instead of confusing the reader by choosing various names of equal weight, a single generic term is used.

C) The authors and references include some of the most often cited Sikh resources, even within Sikh publications. The facts included in the article are usually general and can be taken from any of several sources. The specific reference used is not critical, unless the fact being cited is controversial. There is no need to intentionally include offensive authors, if the fact being cited is common knowledge attainable from several sources. I have read the books of these sources - some are wildly inaccurate. Credence should not be given to these books by including them as authoratative references on Wikipedia. I will begin replacing a few of the sources by tomorrow. If a source by source analysis of the background of these authors and their controversial writings is needed, I am willing to participate in that discussion.

D) One of the traits this article needs in order to have any credibility is objectivity. In other words, we are not to be biased, but to lay out all views along with the facts and let the readers come to their own conclusions. The belief that Sikhism is a syncretic religion is widespread among non-Sikhs. It is also a widespread view among non-Sikhs that Sikhism is a lesser religion than their own religions. This does not mean these views are correct or deserve to be included in an article about Sikhism. It is a scientific impossibility for a virgin to give birth, yet the viewpoint that Mary had premarital sex is not included when discussing the origins of Jesus in the Christianity and Jesus articles. In contrast, when Sikhs know through meticulous academic study that the idea Sikhism is a syncretic religion is factually wrong, to include this view nevertheless appears to me biased. I will revise the sentences relating to syncretism by tomorrow.

If anyone objects to my revisions in these areas, feel free to reverse them until further discussion can be conducted. I will not be offended. --hardeep 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll address the points that Hardeep has raised individually. I will also address Puneet's points when they occur within Hardeep's points ;)

A) I'm not a fan of listy articles - they tend to look unprofessional. We could however, have a separate article that lists the information that was in the original article.

B) I agree with you Hardeep. Sikhism is based around God. I don't feel there is a problem with having lots of references to God :) I realise there is more to being a Sikh than just God, but that is the *core* aspect.

C) A lot of the odd references are from Google Books (http://books.google.com - a very useful resource!) and I don't have an opinion about them one way or the other. I think it's understandable that a lot of English language books on Sikhism are written by non-Sikhs - I personally don't hold the sources created by Sikhs any higher/lower than the sources created by non-Sikhs.

Sure, Khushwant Singh is an angostic (albeit with Sikh atire), but I don't think that in any way shape or form negates from his writings on Sikhism. If anything it gives him a more neutral look on things! I know lots of Sikhs don't like his opinions on Sikhism and Hinduism, but I don't find them especially less valid than any other opinions.

If there are any points that are sourced that you feel are incorrect, we can look at them individually. It's of no use going through the referenced points and removing non-Sikh author merely because they're not Sikhs.

There are some authors that Sikhs might dislike, but some of their work is useful. Ernest Trumpp is one I personally don't like - especially his introduction on the Sikh religion which frankly I find quite bigoted and disparaging. His Adi Granth translation is quite useful because it provides a rather literal translation with lots of foot notes along the way. It's not necessarily correct, but it's still useful.

D) Hardeep, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you slightly on this point. I have no issue with removing the mention of syncreticsm in the introduction paragraph (because it is by no means a central part of Sikhism), but it is an essential topic of discussion within the body of the article. It is a prevailing view amongst many in India that Sikhism is essential an syncretic religion. Whether this is true or not is not for this article to debate. All we need to do is mention this view, and then state that Sikhs don't subscribe to it (and furthermore, establish why Sikhs disagree with this view).

Overall, once we are finished look at content issues in the article, we should concentrate on streamlining it, and copyediting it. Once done, we can get it to featured status. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I have to say that I'm very impressed with the sudden surge in interest in the article and discussion on its contents! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, I agree with all the points you made above, with one minor clarification regarding the syncretism issue. As with the issue of Mary's scientifically certain premarital sex, the question is not whether the view is widespread among non-Sikhs, but whether the view is widespread among Sikhs. Sikhism is by definition what the Sikhs believe, it is not determined by what non-Sikhs believe. On other topics this is usually not the case, but with religion it is different.

The belief that Sikhism is syncretic is definitely not widespread within the Sikh community, although it is the prevalent view among the huge Hindu, Islamic, and Christian populations of India, all of which have claimed Sikhism to be syncretic for historical reasons as well as modern reasons in the promotion of their own faiths. However, there probably is a small but significant minority of Sikhs who do indeed believe Sikhism is syncretic, so I agree the issue should be mentioned (I don't have any poll figures with me, but this what I would expect based on my personal experience).

Many of the scholars and authors that I have read don't say merely that 'syncretism' is an oversimplification, but that it is completely wrong. The belief of many Sikh scholars is not that it is largely incorrect, but that it is totally incorrect. Therefore, I suggest the phrase "and many historians and scholars maintain that such a description of syncretism is an over-simplification which is largely incorrect. However, Sikh religion has strong roots in the religious traditions of Northern India." be changed to "and many historians and scholars maintain that such a description of syncretism is incorrect. However, Sikh religion does have roots in the religious traditions of Northern India."

I believe this would be a reasonable compromise on the issue, since we are sticking to the basic facts and not trying to characterize their level of objection to the idea. --hardeep 08:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me. Hardeep, please take a look over the 'Decision Making' section. I've tried to source reliable information on the Akal Takht, its exact role, history and relationship with the SGPC. However, a LOT of what I've found is contradictory and I'm unable to sift through what is right and wrong. Your help on this would be appreciated. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sukh. I will present my findings on that section in the next few days along with a few other suggestions I have. I will be departing for India in the beginning of July for a stay of one month, so I will try to get my suggestions in before then and pick it up again in August. I've also moved the sentence: "The Sikh gurus maintained that their message had been revealed directly by God." from the introduction to the main body, since it no longer fits in the introduction after we took out the reference to syncretism.

The Tasks list mentions a need to expand the Decision Making section, and that can certainly be done. If someone were to ask me how Sikhs make decisions in a single sentence, I would say, "The Guru Khalsa Panth makes all decisions in accordance with the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib." We may want to discuss the history of the changing scope of decision making of the Sikhs over time. For example, during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh as well as the British, the Sikh religion was not permitted to exercise political power, even though the Sikh religion desires to integrate politics completely into the faith. During the Gurus' time, decision making rested in the hands of one individual. We may also mention how, unlike in an American-style democracy where the "winner takes all" with a majority vote, Sikhs rely more on consensus, where a decision is reached through compromise that is deemed acceptable (or at least reasonable) by everybody - sort of like Wikipedia ;) --hardeep 04:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Review of Decision Making Section

"The sixth guru, Har Gobind, was responsible for the creation of the Akāl Taḵẖt (throne of the timeless one)." CORRECT

"The Akāl Taḵẖt serves as the supreme decision-making centre of Sikhdom and sits opposite the Harimandir Sāhib." CORRECT

"The Sarbat Ḵẖālsā is a gathering of a representative portion of the Ḵẖālsā Panth." CORRECT - EACH GROUP SENDS SOME SELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ALONG WITH A SPOKESMAN.

"The Sarbat Ḵẖālsā historically gathers at the Akāl Taḵẖt when there is a need to discuss matters that affect the entire Sikh nation." YES - MEETINGS ALSO OCCUR ON VAISAKHI AND DIWALI.

"A gurmatā (literally, guru's intention) is an order passed by the Sarbat Ḵẖālsā in the presence of the Gurū Granth Sāhib." CORRECT - THE ROLE OF THE JATHEDAR OF THE AKAL TAKHT IS NOT TO MAKE ANY DECISION BY HIMSELF, BUT TO HEAR ALL SPOKESPEOPLE AND ANNOUNCE THE CONSENSUS DECISION THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. IF REVISIONS NEED TO BE MADE TO AN INITIAL DECISION, THE SIKHS ARE CONSULTED WITH AGAIN.

"A gurmatā may only be passed on a subject that affects the fundamental principles of Sikh religion." THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE SIKH RELIGION ARE ALREADY WELL-ESTABLISHED. SIKHISM IS A WHOLE-LIFE PHILOSOPHY.

"A gurmatā is not binding on all Sikhs unless issued directly by the Akāl Taḵẖt after which it is known as a hukamnāmā (literally, edict or royal order)." FALSE - A GURMATA IS BINDING ON ALL SIKHS. A GURMATA IS ONLY ISSUED BY JATHEDAR OF AKAL TAKHT ANYWAY, SO HUKAMNAMA ISSUE DOES NOT COME INTO THIS.

"A hukamnāmā represents the "will of the Sikh community." FALSE - HUKAMNAMA IS MEANT TO REFER TO A HYMN FROM GURU GRANTH SAHIB GIVEN AS AN ORDER FOR ALL THE SIKHS (LITERAL MEANING IS 'WRITTEN ORDER'). RECENTLY PEOPLE ARE USING 'HUKAMNAMA' INTERCHANGABLY WITH 'GURMATA' TO REFER TO ORDERS BY JATHEDAR OF AKAL TAKHT, BUT ORIGINALLY THIS WAS NOT THE CASE.

I am leaving for India soon so I wish everybody the best of luck for the next month. The more participation with this article, the better it is. I encourage as many people to participate as possible - leave a comment if nothing else. --hardeep 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Final Push to FA

Hi,

I'm going to incorporate Hardeep's comments and do a final copyedit. Then I'll ask Rama's Arrow to do a copyedit, after which I'll put this baby up for nomination as a FA! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the job. Rama's Arrow 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured Article Candidate

Please vote here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sikhism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is their no mention of Sikhism & Hinduism as ONE?

I made a small small small small paragraph showing a link for people to click on if they want to learn about Hinduism & SIkhism being as ONE...I didnt give any opinions...I didnt take up space...I didnt blah blah blah....I just set up a link...and u took it down....see this is why many people hate Wikipeida and hate wasting time trying to add things. Because people like you just want a biast article in your own way and its sad 71.107.54.199 08:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please add your comments to the bottom of the page.

Your edit [5] provided no sources at all and was essentially conjecture. The article already discusses (quite indepth actually) how Sikh philosophy relates to aspects of Hinduism. As you are aware, there is a whole article dedicated to Sikhism and Hinduism - your information can be added there.

If you are able to provide sources AND reasoning behind the assertion that the Gurus didn't intend to create a new faith then please present them here on the talk page and we can discuss adding them to the article. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand....When I gave detail after detail after detail you guys deleted everything because their was another link set up for that....So I said fine ill accept that, and i put up a small section that sets up a link....And now ur telling me their is no need for that either....Do I have to file a complaint? It is just ONE SMALL SENTENCE! NO OPINIONS...JUST A LINK!... 71.107.54.199 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually know what you're talking about now. What "detail after detail after detail"? As far as I am aware, you haven't sourced your opinion and that's good enough for it do be deleted. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Try to understand something....Their are many people out their who do not believe that Hinduism & SIkhism are meant to be seperated....now their is another link that is already set up for all that info....so I am just taking a 2 sentences to show the link....THATS ALL...It doesnt make sense for me to "back it up with proof" like u say, because their is an article for that....ALL IM SAYING IS ALLOW 2 GOSH DARN SENTENCES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE THE OTHER ARTICLE IF THEY WANT!!!....WHY IS THAT SUCH A PROBLEM FOR U?!??! 71.107.54.199 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism and Hinduism

Their are a few refrences here saying that Hinduism and Sikhism are pretty much the same thing, I did some research on this and I found out it was just propaganda.

[6] (Click Temporal) [7] [8]

As you can see I don't think 3 things would make it VERY SIMILAR

So I guess we could remove this if people agree, this will also clear up alot of other things which needed aid here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

YOU CALL THIS RESEARCH? ALL YOU DID WAS GO THREE WEBSITES THAT WERE MADE BY SIKH PEOPLE. ANYBODY CAN MAKE ANY WEBSITE, ABOUT ANYTHING....YOU DONT GO BY WHAT PEOPLE SAY....THATS NOT RESEARCH....YOU GO BY THE ACTUAL WRITTEN TEACHINGS OF BOTH HINDUISM AND SIKHISM....IF YOU HAD DONE MORE RESEARCH YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT ITS MORE THEN JUST "3 THINGS" THAT MAKE THEM THE SAME 71.107.54.199 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please post your comments at the bottom of the page and sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright but what do you think of the proof and stuff I got?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elven6 (talk • contribs)

Again, please sign your posts! Indentation with ':' is also helpful.

I'm aware of the differences and similarities with Hinduism and Sikhism. The article doesn't claim Hinduism and Sikhism to be the same religion. Is there a particular issue with the article and/or its contents? Or is this just a general discussion? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres on in the first topic

""Sikhism is also linked closely with Hinduism, and are often not considered to be separate"".

Talk 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Didn't even realise that was there. I agree that's too strong and a bit of a generalisation. I'll remove it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if U THINK they are not the same...THATS YOUR OPINION...BUt their are many people, throughout history and today, that have always said we are linked as ONE....Just because U DONT AGREE, doesnt mean u should speak for everyone else and decide what article comes and goes.....The job of Wikipedia is to put out info and let peopel decide...NOT USEER EVANS AND SUKH AND GSINGH....Better known as Khalistan klan 71.107.54.199 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not listed in the Khalistan Klan let me put in my two penny's worth- the founder might not have wanted to start a new religion but the founder distanced himself from a lot of tenets prevalent in other religions and proposed a different approach. ( ie idol worship, sacred thread, praying towards mecca).

There is common heritage and influences ( ie beef is forbidden for Sikhs too, and Sikhs also celebrate Diwali) but there are enough differences ( including a seperate place of worship) to point to the two being seperate.Linkages are there but seperation too exists. Haphar 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Haphar has written, however, Sikhs are not forbidden from eating beef. That's a common misconception (some Sikhs don't even know this). It's largely due to strong Hindu cultural influences that beef eating is frowned upon. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL... Now someone who disagrees with the opinion that Sikhism and Hinduism are the same religion belongs to the Khalistan Klan? Some people *may* consider Sikhism and Hinduism as one religion - but a) you've not sourced that view AT ALL and b) it's not a prevailing view amongst Sikhs. It *may* be a prevailing view amongst Hindus (I don't know actually) but they're not followers of Sikhism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its my religion stupid so I think I would know, like I said I did research and I found it was basicly propaganda. If someone converts from one relgion to another they are basicly severing their ties.

I gave you a ton of info on the whole propaganda thing and if you can't belive it then you were probably a misguided youth. And if you think these articles are made by the staff of Wikipedia then you habe ALOT to learn, no one says we are linked as one! (We meaning Sikhs) Do we worship 12 gods? No....Do we worship Cows? No...Do we bath in Milk? No.....Do we belive in Hindu Myhtology? No.....Do we pray at Hindu temples? No.....Do we belive in the caste system? No.........If you belive Sikhism and Hinduism are the same things then you my friend are a idiot! Also suppose I had no Hindu roots in me, I was a Chrisitian or w/e and I converted to Sikhism, would this mean I am automaticly accepting 2 religions? Festivals like Diwali and Holi are celebrated by a lot of people. People of diffrent religions celebrate Christmas, that dosen't mean its apart of their religion. -Elven6

You are a typical example of an uneducated Sikh who hasnt picked up a Hindu book in his life.....You only go by what you hear and u never actually take the time to read the actual Hindu teachings.........Can u tell me where it says Hindus are supposed to worship cows? Can u tell me where it says ur supposed to clean in Milk? Can u tell me where it says your supposed to believe in a caste system?....NO U CANT...U KNOW WHY?...CUZ U NEVER READ A HINDU BOOK IN YOUR LIFE....U ONLY GO BY WHAT U HEAR THATS IT.....So let me tell u how that feels....If I went by what I hear and saw....Then i could say the GUrus said drinking alcohol was a good thing cuz many Sikhs get drunk all day long.....I could say the Gurus taught that everyone should cut their hair cuz many Sikhs are clean shaven....I could say Sikhs believe in a caste system cuz many Sikhs sing songs about jatt this and jatt that HOI PUTTA JATTAN DEYYY LOL.......BUT THEIR IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE DO AND THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS....GET MY POINT?....OR U STILL WANNA SAY HINDUS WASH IN MILK? 71.107.54.199 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see alot of Sikhs here typing info saying that im wrong because SIkhism & Hinduism are different...And I dont have a problem with anyone who thinks Sikhism & Hinduism are different.....BUt I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO FORM THAT OPINION WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH!....For example I saw one guy on here write OOOO Hindus dont eat beef, they believe in idot worship, and they blah blah blah stuff like that....BUT DID THAT GUY BOTHER READING ANY OF THE HINDU SCRIPTURES?...NO!...HE ONLY GOES BY WHAT HE SEE'S AND HEAR'S.....Now IF I WENT BY WHAT I SAW AND HEARD about SIkhs, THEN I WOULD SAY SIKH PEOPLE EAT MEAT, DRINK, AND ARE CLEAN SHAVEN...CUZ THEIR ARE PLENTY OF SIKHS out in the world that are LIKE THAT...U GET MY POINT?...DONT GO BY WHAT U SEE....REEEEEEAD THE TEACHINGS THEN FORM AN OPINION!! 71.107.54.199 05:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is essentially this: A Hindu is a person who believes or follows the primary Hindu holy books. That is the Vedas, Smritis and Gita. Essentially, the Gurus believed that although they were "good books", they didn't represent the complete message of god. There was (in their opinion) something distinctly lacking. Some quotes:

Kabir - "I have searched all the Vedas, Puraanas and Simritees, but none of these can save anyone. " [9]

Guru Arjun Dev - "I have read all the Vedas, and yet the sense of separation in my mind still has not been removed; the five thieves of my house are not quieted, even for an instant. " [10]

Kabir - "The Vedas and the Scriptures are only make-believe, O Siblings of Destiny; they do not relieve the anxiety of the heart. " [11]

Guru Arjun Dev - "One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation." [12]

Guru Nanak Dev - "The Vedas and the Bible do not know the mystery of God. " [13]

However, I must say that the Hindu holy books are quote often quoted in a very postive sense:

Guru Ram Das - "The Shaastras, the Vedas and the Puraanas advise righteous actions, and the performance of the six religious rituals." [14]

Guru Nanak "No one obeys the Shaastras or the Vedas. Everyone worships himself. " (Saying it as a negative thing) - [15]

But alot of the opposition to the Vedas seems to come from Kabir and not the Gurus. However, the Gurus may have respected the Vedas but did not consider them any differently from other religious holy books. Essentially, if the Gurus themselves did not prescribe themselves to the Hindu holybooks any more than they did the Qu'ran or Bible, how can they or Sikhs be Hindus? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I did my research, the information I got was compared by a pundit on his site, I can post his site if your really want to see it and if I can find it again. -Elevan6

Ill tell u how....The Gurus believed in the foundation of Hinduism: Karma, Dharma, Reincarnation, being veggetarian, and reaching Nirvana to stop rebirth....The Gurus had HARDCORE RELIGOUS NAMES LIKE Har Krishan, Ram Das, Arjun Dev and one Guru even named his son RAM RAI....These are not regular average names like Manpreet or Sonu....When u have a name like HAR KRISHAN do u know what it means? Its respecct to KRISHNA...Who is Krishna? HINDU RELIGION.....AND IF THATS NOT ENOUGH most north Indian famlies in those days would remain Hindu while the eldest son is a SIKH....Look im not showing u a few small simliarties....Im showing u fact after fact after fact on how these religions are not seperate....Baba Nanak was not against HINDU teachings....He was against ORTHODOX HINDUISM AND THE CORRUPT BHRAMINS....Stuff like caste, throwing water to the sun, wife sacrafice, AND OTHER things is what he was against because this had NOTHING TO DO WITH HINDUISM....and this is the problem...People like u dont take the time to actually READ the HINDU writings...U live in this hardcore Punjabi world with everything being Sikh, and u have so much pride that u WANT IT TO BE SEPERATE....U GUYS DONT LEARN ABOUT HINDUISM FROM THE ACTUAL WRITINGS, U ONLY GO BY WHAT U HEAR, AND THEN U SAY O HINDUISM AND SIKHISM ARE DIFFERENT.....U asked me how can Sikhs be Hindus? I go to both Gurudwara and a Mandir...I believe in both sides....so which one am I? HINDU OR SIKH?...IM BOTH!.....All im saying is first learn about HInduism, not from white people or wikipedia, but from the actual writings and thennnn form an opinion! ARYAN818 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gurus believed in SOME principles that are in common with Hinduism and SOME principles that are in common with Islam. The Gurus were born into Hindu families and into a Hindu cultural sphere - they are bound to have had Hindu names.

I don't live in a hardcore Punjabi world where everything is Sikh and such an insinuation is frankly ignorant and insulting. You're more than welcome to consider yourself a Sikh and Hindu and worship in whatever way you please. The fact of the matter is that this article dicusses issues and similarities with Hinduism (quite indepth for a summary article too). Most Sikhs do not consider themselves Hindus and that is all that needs to be said on the matter.

I am a kind of agnostic-Sikh and I certainly have no hard feeling towards Hinduism nor to suggestions that Sikhism is a syncretic religion. However, when the majority of people who profess Sikhism say their religion does not form a part of Hinduism, then I tend to agree with that opinion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, their is a difference from what the people say & what the ACTUAL TEACHINGS SAY.....FOr example the majority of Christians say that if you dont believe in Jesus your gonna burn in hell but Jesus never said that....THe majority of Muslims say that killing innocent people is ok if its in war, but the Korana doesnt say that...THe Majority of HIndus worship idols but the Hindu scriptures dont say that....U GO BY THE TEACHINGS NOT THE PEOPLE.....USE YOUR COMMON SENSE....THe gurus believed in pretty much the same thing HIndus believed in (not in ISlamic teachings...and most families would remain Hindu while the eldest son was a SIkh...And they had names like HAR KRISHAN JI...DO U KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO NAME A CHILD HAR KRISHAN, RAM, OR ANYTHIGN LIKE THAT? THEY ARE NOT REGULAR NAMES LIKE JOE, ERIC, OR SATINDER LOL....USE YOUR COMMON SENSE ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Names have nothing to do with it! I could name my kid Joe that dosen't mean his Christian does it? Tom Cruise named his kid Suri which is not a casual name for a child, of course they would have Hindu names were do you think they CONVERTED FROM, if not them then their PARENTS. You belive what you want but its people who say things like what you are who are destroying the identity of Sikhism. Instead of regarding it as a religion people are calling it a "cult" due to people like you who can't move on. Of course we could have been Hindu im not denying that but we are not anymore, we are our own religion not one that has diffrent principles then ours. - Unsighned

I LOVE HOW YOU SAY NAMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT....DID YOU BOTHER READING MY PARAGRAPH WITH A LIGHT BULB ON? I CLEARLY SAID....THESE ARE NOT REGULAR NAMES....THEY ARE NOT LIKE JATIN, OR SUKHDEV, OR HARMANPREET....THESE ARE RELIGIOUS NAMES....WHEN U NAME A CHILD HAR KIRSHAN JI, RAM, HAR RAI, WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS? THEY DIDNT BELIEVE IN KRISHNA? IF I NAME MY SON "PRAISE JESUS" DO U THINK I BELIVE IN JESUS OR DONT U?....COMMON SENSE....U NAME CHILD HAR KRISHAN, HAR RAI, ARJUN DEV, IT MEANS YOU BELIVE IN KRISHNA, RAM, AND ARJUN DEV....DONT GIVE ME EXAMPLES LIKE JOE, OR ERIC, OR SOMETHING STUPID.....AND BY THE WAY...I DIDNT SAY NAMEESS ARE THE ONLY REASON THEY BELIEVED IN HINDUISM....DID U READ THE PART ABOUT FAMILIES BEING SIKH AND HINDU? AND WHAT ABOU THE TEACHIGNS? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I went to sites that were not just made by Sikhs, their is also the one their made by the Pundit and stuff. Why don'y you go to and ask Sikhs what they think? Ask them if they think they are Hindu or Sikh ok? - Unsighned

Many Sikhs and HIndus consider themselves the same what are u talking about?...Hindus in Northern India go to a Gurudwara....In Afghanistan Hindus & SIkhs have always gone to the same temple.....But I agree many Sikhs dont say their the same as Hindu.....WHY?....Because their brainwashed....They dont learn about HInduism period...THey think Hindus worship cows, bathe in milk, sucided the widow's, and blah blah blah all that crap....And as time goes, especially with so many sikhs living outside of India in an isolated Punjabi world, what do u think is gonna happen? Their gonna seperate!....THINK ABOUT IT...How come at the time of the Gurus most families would remain Hindu while the eldest son was a SIkh? Because they did not belive in seperation...BUT HOW COME TODAY ONLY KHATRI FAMILIES STILL PRACTICE THIS?....CUZ PEOPLE ARE UNEDUCATED...ill give u another example...How come many Jatts take pride in being a jatt even though their religion forbids caste? Why do so many clean shaven people call thsemlves SIKH? WHy does every PUnuabi SIkh drink til he drops and then says Waheguru ji khalsa?....BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE PRIDE THEN EDUCATION....THey call themself a SIKH wihtout LEARNING...This is what im trying to show u people....THE GURUS DIDNT WANT US TO SEPERATE...THEY WANTED US TO UNITE...WHY DONT U GET THAT? ITS IN THE GURBANI! ARYAN818 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism is officially considered a distinct religion in India, US and UK. Wikipedia cannot hold one explanation over another, and I think that the close links with Hindu philosophy, heritage, history and the present close relations between Hindu and Sikh communities are adequately described here.

What kinda lame argument is that? I cant belive ur argument is well their considered distinct in the US & UK so therefore it must be true....what is this a joke? ARYAN818 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Look im not saying u have to agree with me...If you dont agree with me thats fine...But all im saying is , what is wrong with settting up a 2 sentence paragraph that shows a link to another article which is ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA...People should have a choice to see that article because alot of the stuff in that article is NOT ON THIS ONE....BUT U BIAST KHALISTAN PEOPLE JUST DONT WANT IT DO U ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Rama's Arrow 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Think of it like this, you lok are saying Sikhism is like Hindusim because it drawns SOME aspects from it correct? Well if your idealogy is shared with the world then I guess we call every single religion in the world (Besides Hinduism) the same because it draws from and older one (forgot the name but its the oldest religion in the world, it only has a handful of followers now).

No their arent just SOME SOME SOME aspects....Its the same thing...Maybe u should try reading some Hindu scriptures before u form an opinion...See this is what tears me up...ALll u people on here who are fighting with me...NONE NONE NONE OF U HAVE ACTUALLY READ EVEN HALF THE HINDU STUFF....U ONLY GO BY WHAT U HEAR...HINDUS WORSHIP COWS...HINDU batHE IN MILK...HINDUS THINK THE EARTH IS A BULL HORN....AND THATS WHY U THINK SIKHISM IS DIFFERENT...Its really sad how u form opinons when u bearly read anything....One guy hear told me he went to a website written by a Pandit....come on ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If Sikhism draws from both Hinduism and Islam then why aren't we also saying its the same thing has the Islamic religion?

Cuz its not the same....HINDUS AND SIKHS SHARE UNIVERSAL TRUTHS...ISLAMIC RELIGION DOES NOT....Is this a joke? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Heres the definition of what Sikhism basicly is from wikipedia

Sikh:

The SGPC defines a Sikh in the Rehat Maryada as a person who believes in:

• One God
• Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
• The Guru Granth Sahib
• The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus
• The baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru (a Sikh does not need to be baptised to be a Sikh)

*Such a person is defined as a Sikh as long as said person does not owe allegiance to any other religion.

So by Sikhs saying they are also Hindu are saying their not Sikhs because their going against the basic principle by saying they are!

Your wrong cuz u can do all the things u mentioned & still call yourself Hindu or Sikh....U know ur amazing....u never picked up one Hindu book in ur life...U never did any research except go by what u heard, or go by a website....and u have the courage to come here on Wikipedia and say ooooo well Hindus do this & that so their for they are different....I love u people...none of u pic up any Hindu books and yet u all have amazing opinions lol....what a joke ARYAN818 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was born in a Hindu family and i believe in all the stuff u just wrote....I do seva at the Mandir & the Gurudwara...I believe in Ram & Krishna, just as much as I believe in Har Krishan and Ram Das....So by your definition....i am what? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Must be important to note that the SGPC does not really have the authority to define what a Sikh is afaik. There are plenty of Sikh sects that couldn't give a rats arse what the SGPC thought was a Sikh. The picture gets very complex when looking at Sikh sects that drift closer and closer to Hinduism. But, the point stands for MAINSTREAM Sikhism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So do you agree with me by saying its diffrent or with them by saying its basicly just Hinduism in a diffrent form?

Go to those links I posted at the top, youll see how your idealogy of it being the same are corrupting the youth and leading to death! So what if its made by Sikhs? Would you rather trust a site about Sikh histroy made by some White guy who probably knows nothing about Sikhs besides the fact that they wear turbans?

Also what was the point of Khalistan if were basiclly just Hindus? I guess all those people who died creating and protecting the faith known has Sikhism just died in vain to have people say the religion they died for is basicly just something else.

Elven6 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that GUru Nanak would say yes i want u all to hide bombs and weapons in a holy temple and fight against your brothers & sisters....u guys act like the "HINDU" people just sat around one day and said hey lets go attack a holy temple for no reason and kill innocent hindus & SIkhs....u act like all the SIKHs that were part of the army that invaded were all brainwashed....Ya the GUrus would be really proud of u...This is what they teach u eh....fight fight fight fight fight ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both and neither of you :) Certain sects of Sikhism come very to Hinduism. The extreme orthodox Sikhism which has prevailed in the last century certainly isn't a sect of Hinduism.

"idealogy of it being the same are corrupting the youth and leading to death" - lol. Yes, my idealogy is causing that.

"rather trust a site about Sikh histroy made by some White guy who" - what are you talking about now? I don't judge a site by the race of its creator.

"Also what was the point of Khalistan " - there was no point. Khalistan was a limited movement that never had the support of the Sikh Punjabi population. If it DID, there is no way that India could have prevented its independence. The whole events of that era are based solely on political **** stirring by Sikh politicians and the Congress party.

Basically one person here thinks that there is already too much about Hinduism in the article and another thinks there isn't enough. That's good enough for me to think that there is a perfect balance.  :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well now hold on....many Khalistan freaks say that the majority of the SIkhs suppport it but they are to scared to say anything...this is their argument...i mean come one they feel that m ost Sikhs want Khalistan....How do u explain that? ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say their is NOT ENOUGH...are u a moron?....I said SOME of us belive these are not different religions and were never meant to be seperated...SO therefore , since an article about what i just said alread exists, why cant u be a nice person and allow a 2 sentence link to that article? ITS JUST A LINK! U DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IT! JUST ALLOW IT! GOD THIS IS WHY I HATE WIKIPEDIA...THEY ALLOW BRAINWASHED PEOPLE LIKE U TO DICTATE WHAT COMES AND GOES...ITS JUST A LINK UR MAJESTY! ONE SENETENCE LINK! ARYAN818 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

*Yawn* This is when I stop discussing the matter because I realise I'm talking to a bunch of children. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

U know Sukh u were the worst one of all...U couldnt even debate me properly...DO u know how a debate works?...One party gives his facts and the party gives his facts....Now Weather u agree with me or not is one thing....But look at all the info i typed....I gave way more facts then u did....Im not making it up...GO scroll up and see for yourself....I gave u fact after fact after fact after fact......and what did u do?....u said was opinions.....I mean your basic argument was that most SIkhs feel that they are different so that means Sikhism is different from Hinduism lol...THATS NOT AN ARGUMENT LOL.....So dont yawn me....U never did a good job in the first place...and please dont respond by saying u did....Ok scroll up and check out what i wrote compared to what u wrote....U dont know about HIn duism....Juuuust Sikhism ARYAN818 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT HINDUISM OK! GO MAKE A NEW ARTICLE ABOUT THIS MATTER BUT JUST DON'T LINK TO THIS ONE OR ANYTHING! IF PEOPLE ARE INTRESTED IN YOUR PHILOSPIHY THEY WILL GO AND LOOK FOR IT! THE PEOPLE HERE DO NOT WANT HINDUISM IN A SIKH ARTICLE ALRIGHT IT CONFUSES ALOT OF THINGS!.

Elven6 4 july UTC

Sikhism or Medieval Sikhism?

Why is this article not providing information on contemporary Sikh history? I added a link on the current situation in Punjab and it was removed. I think if the article cannot contain a section on the historical and contemporary Sikh issues, then allowance of links at the end (like books contain further reading sections) is the least that should be done. 138.49.98.53 20:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "situation" is not current. Again, Wikipedia is not a propaganda site, neither can it accept data from dubious, propaganda sources. Rama's Arrow 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The source you call dubious is used by professors at Harvard as a credible site with credible photographs. Nothing in humanities is really objective, but as long as it provides citations of sources is considered acceptable. You are welcome to list your own sites but this suppression of contemporary events is becoming a typical Hindutva thing to do these days. 138.49.98.53 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Sikhism as a whole and not specific events in history. The events of the 1980s are mentioned and they only form a small part of Sikh history (indeed, they form nothing of Sikhism as a religion). The links on this page are to sites that are relevant to the whole of Sikhism - not specific niche sites. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a weak argument. Sikhism is a living religion and according to its doctrine of miri-piri, one aspect cannot be seperated from the other. I am sure you would agree with this. Because this article does not provide specific information on contemporary events in its main body, it behoves its editors to provide links to other sections as well as to other sites.138.49.98.53 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not at all a weak argument. The events of the 1980s have had little (if any) effect on the tenets of Sikhism as laid down by the Gurus and enshrined in the Guru Granth Sahib. I'm not willing to get into a discussion about the events of 1980s, but the external link is not a general purpose link and is not suitable on this article. There are several article related to Sikh history that do contain quite detailed information on events that happened in the 1980s. They require little more than a mention on this page (we're already having trouble keeping the page size down as we try and get this article featured).

On a side note, is this you Zafarnamah? :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please do not break the WP:3RR. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the points made by Sukh, let me point out that this site and claim of "genocide" are just propaganda and not good WP:SOURCE. Rama's Arrow 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

youngest of all the major world religions

I am wondering a bit about this claim. I know some people would list Mormonism as a major world religion and it is a lot younger. I suppose one coudl list it as a denomanation of christianity though in terms of beliefs it is clearly a distinct religion. Either way (and especially since I don't want to get in an argument about it) is there a source for that claim? Can it be added to the article? I am just intrested in reading the reasoning/definitions for major world reliogon etc. Also is there a list of religions by size anywhere about? The "5th largest" clame made me curious to see a list. Dalf | Talk 20:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism is the fifth largest organised religion in the world (it's bigger than Judaism which surprises many people, see Major religious groups).

The definition of a "major world religion" is rather subjective. However you'd have to have a large world geographic spread and a good few million followers to be classed as major. Also, is Mormonism distinct from Christianity? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Many people do not consider the Mormons to be Christians. Rangek 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the youngest claim because arguably Bahai's are a major world religion and they're newer. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks warning

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Violations of this policy may result in a block of your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)