Talk:Sikhism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:26, 13 July 2006 editSukh (talk \| contribs)6,020 editsm →No section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one?: m← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:17, 8 December 2024 edit undoRegentsPark (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,690 editsm Reverted edit by 116.71.14.36 (talk) to last version by CewbotTag: Rollback
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=ipa}}{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{featured}}
	{{Indian ~~selected~~}}		{{Indian English}}
			{{Article history\|collapsed=yes
	{{oldpeerreview}}
			\|action1=PR
	{{0.5 nom}}
			\|action1date=20:51, 16 June 2006
	{{todo}}
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sikhism/archive1
	----
			\|action1result=reviewed
			\|action1oldid=59002224

			\|action2=FAC
	'''Archived discussions'''
			\|action2date=16:21, 2 July 2006
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sikhism
			\|action2result=promoted
			\|action2oldid=61696247

			\|action3=FAR
	* ]: ] ] to ] ]
			\|action3date=01:28, 17 August 2009
	* ]: ] ] to ] ]
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Sikhism/archive1
	* ]: ] ] to ] ]
			\|action3result=removed
			\|action3oldid=306965394

			\|maindate=August 17, 2006
	== Sikhism is a featured article ==
			\|currentstatus=FFA
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject India\|importance=top\|punjab=yes\|punjab-importance=top\|portal=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Pakistan\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Sikhism}}
			}}
			{{To do\|collapsed=yes}}
			{{pp-move-indef}}

			{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request\|Sikhism\|Please make 'Sikhism' an audio recording because it is one of the world's major religions, and making it a recording would allow adherents who are visually impaired the ability to hear about the tenets of their faith and the issues that effect Sikhs}}
	Well done everyone. Sikhism is now a featured article on the English Misplaced Pages! Now I'm trying to get it on the ]. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 23:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	:Congrats to all those who worked on this! -- ] <sup>\] \]</sup> 07:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|archive = Talk:Sikhism/Archive %(counter)d
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|counter = 6
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			}}

			== Ridiculous claims of 120 million Sikhs with spurious sources ==
	Congrats indeed ! ] 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
			Removing these. Unreferenced news articles are not adequate sources for this claim <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:28, September 20, 2021 (UTC)</small>

			== Inaccurate edits made by User without sources to back it ==
	== Sindhis and Sikhism ==
			This ] has made an this edit alongside a few others all of a sudden since last week. Which is strange as this did not happen for over 6 months since the info box was created. One of those users who made an edit was ] who was also banned for being sockpuppet ( Just to reiterate I am not saying Joshua or others are related parties of Mattansilk). Also to note they have made these edits with NO sources and constantly reverting them

			I have no issue with it being referred to as a Dharmic faith. As we share some similar core values and beliefs and should maintain unity with each other.
	Does anyone have any information on Sindhis and Sikhism? I've been reading how a large portion of the Hindu Sindhi population revered Guru Nanak and how Sikhism was quite prominent in the Sindh prior to partition. Any further expansion on this could be good for the article. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

			So the two issues i want to address was:
	Oh, and here is an interesting article relating to Sikhism and Hinduism. Now this is sourced, so it could be a good way to begin to find information for a paragraph in the article: . ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
			1) Slogan: This user along with the other users who made the same edits are finding it hard to differentiate between a Sikh jakhaira/Slogan (Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal) and Sikh greeting (Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Fateh). As per ] it clearly states this is the Sikh Slogan as well. https://www.discoversikhism.com/sikhism/bole_so_nihal_sat_sri_akal.html

			2) Sikhism did not separate from Hinduism or any other religion. Sikhs themselves view Guru Nanak was Sikh from birth as the Gurus are a reflection of God. There are many instances of Guru Nanak rejected Hindu practices from at a young age such as sacred thread, caste system etc...
	== No section on Sikhism & Hinduism as one? ==

			I.e He rejected the sacred Hindu thread as a young boy. Furthermore in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib he states "ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥ Haj Kaabai Jaao N Theerathh Poojaa \|\| I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines."
	Im trying to understand something....THeir are many people in the past up til even today who dont believe that the Gurus were trying to seperate Indians into a HIndu & Sikh catagory...Meaning that HIndus and Sikhs are supposed to be united as ONE...NOw u people obviously dont agree...and thats your opinion...But why wont u allow for a one sentence link to the article that argues about what im saying....Its just one sentence....thats all it is....Their should be a link for those who are interested in learning about this....and one more thing.....Please do not respond to this message and say to me that the reason you are not allowing it is because I do not provide evidence...I mean I have been putting tons & tons of evidence for a few weeks now....and even if i didnt....WHICH I DID....But even if i didnt...ALl the evidence is on the page that I am talking about! The page that I am arguing for has all the evidence....So new excuse do u people have now? ] 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

			@] , @] , @] , @] , @] - Can also share more light on this.
	:First of all, please don't be rude - even if you think other people have been.

			== "The Definition of Sikh" ==
	:Secondly, what is the sentence you would like included? Please type it out. Keep in mind that no assumptions (POV) should be borne. ] 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

			There is a portion of the page that references the definition for the Sikh as defined by the SGPC.
	::Yes, please provide the sentence or sentences you wish to add to the page with suitable citation. If it doesn't have a citation and it goes along the lines of "some Hindus believe..." or "some Sikhs believe..." then it won't be included (see ]).

			At the time of writing, this is the definition:
	::Secondly - and I'm not trying to have a go at you here - you may have noticed you've received a slightly hostile reception on Misplaced Pages. I think you should examine the tone that you use when discussing matters and try and understand why people can take things you say the wrong way. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::Here is the link.....].....And Sukh your getting the time frame wrong here....WHen I first debated u guys I was not sarcastic or mean in anyway....It was only AFTER people started calling me names and being sarcastic with me, that made me in turn act the same way....But what your doing is taking my comments out of context and saying "oooo look Aryan, maybe people are like this with you, becasue you act the same way with them...I know myself and I know what i typed....I didnt start it with them, they started it with me
	::::You cannot use another Misplaced Pages page as a reference. You can link to it, but it's not a citation. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 10:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::Let me make what I asked clearer. All we need from you is: 1) The exact sentence or sentences you wish to add, with any wiki links you wish to add AND 2) A citation supporting the claims made in your sentence (preferably a book, but a reputable web site will do). ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 11:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::::But the article has links...it has evidence...it has references...why am I going to put down references when the article already has them? Im not useing the article as a reference....IM just trying to make the page simple and easy to understand....so if someone clicks the ] page then they can see the references for themselves!...What part dont u get? ] 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I will not be continuing this conversation any further unless you provide both the line or two you wish to add and a citation supporting any of your claims about Sikhism and Hinduism being one (there are authors who have wrote about stuff like this, so finding such a citation shouldn't even be difficult). The ] article is a mess, and contains no inline citations to substantiate any of its claims. All you're doing now is wasting my time when I have better things to be doing. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

			The Definition of Sikh is any human being who faithfully believes in:
	Aryan, '''TELL US THE LINE YOU WANT TO INCORPORATE'''. Don't waste time talking about everything except that. ] 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

			I. One Immortal Being,
	:WAIT, the argument still stays, you said if someone dosen't belive that they are diffrent it wasen't up to me to remove it.

			II. Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Sahib to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib,
	:But the same could be said about you, if we don't buy it then why should you put it up? Besides your article is pretty one sided mabye you should equal it out so mabye we can put it up.

			III. The Guru Granth Sahib,
	:The article is one sided? Please explain to me what part of the article is not a fact...everything on their is a fact...no opinions...facts....anyway here is the sentence that i am trying to put up....It would say...."Their are a number of people that have always believed the Gurus were not trying to seperate people into a Hindu and Sikh catagory. They argue that Hinduism and Sikhism should be united and not seperated. For more information please see ]"....NOw is that bad?...Doesnt take up room from SUKH's precious page...Doesnt say its fact or opinion...it just says if u want more information click this...why is that bad?? ] 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			IV. The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and,
	::'''''Here's''''' a reference which mentions that some Sikhs claim the religions are the same but the writer of the article is actually against the idea. . It can be used as a source though there are probably better (I'm too lazy to look!) <b><font color="teal">]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">]</font></b></sup> 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			V. The baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh.
	:::Your reasons are some of the dumbest I have seen, a name is no reason to claim their is a connection. A Christian family can name their son Pizzaro, so would that make them Spanish?

			However, this definition is restrictive because there are other Sikh sects who do not technically fit this definition, so I propose that this portion of the text be removed from the page because it's technically inaccurate.
	:::Same with your intermarriage claims, I could marry a white girl, would that mean my religion as a bond with hers? No (Your argument is about family values, not Sikh and Hindu familys in general!).

			This is not to comment on the SGPC in any way, rather to make sure that the Sikhism Misplaced Pages article is the most accurate when it comes to all Sikhs, not just the majority.
	:::I have never seen or heard of a Sikh going to a Hindu mandir, show some PROOF! O focurse I have seen some HIndus coming to Gurdwaras when they need help. SHOW YOUR SOURCES FOR THESE CLAIMS

			Thoughts? ] (]) 15:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::So if the son was Sikh and the family wasen't that means theirs a connection? WHERES THE PROOF?
	:::Again this argument is on family values, how do you know those familys accepted it with open arms? Hey with that idealogy I guess I cam convert to into a Christian or what ever so 50 years after im gone people will look back and say my religion could possibly be linked to Sikhism!

			:I agree, many heterodoxical groups do not fall within the SGPC-crafted definition of a Sikh, such as Udasis or Nanakpanthis. ] (]) 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::12 July 2006 (UTC) {{unsigned\|Elven6}}
			::In an effort to amend the definition of Sikh to include other Sikh traditions, like the Udasis, Nirmalas, Nanakpanthis, etc, I believe the text ought to be changed to:
			::The Definition of Sikh is any human being who faithfully believes in:
			::I. One Immortal Being,
			::II. The first Sikh Guru as Guru Nanak
			::III. The utterances and teachings as enscribed in the Guru Granth Sahib is a Sikh.
			::For the first two points, at the bare minimum, all Sikh traditions all orginate from Guru Nanak, so all must agree to view Nanak as the first Sikh and the first Guru. Similarly, since all Sikhs hold Nanak as the first Guru, then all must accept his teachings and writings that enscribe God as a singular, immortal being.
			::For the third point, I'm unsure how different Sikh traditions approach reading from the Guru Granth Sahib. For example, ] maintain a living Guru as a part of their religious canon however, I'm unsure if they also read from the Guru Granth Sahib as a part of their liturgical practices and if so, do they still refer to the Guru Granth Sahib as "Guru", or does it default back to the "Adi Granth" in their case?
			::All said, I believe this definition is definitely more accurate for the modern day since it would account for all Sikhs under the various traditions and sects as well as those Sikhs who have not undergone the initiation rites to receive Amrit. ] (]) 20:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

			== Sikhism separating from Hinduism ==
	::::Elven6, I must have asked you many many times - please sign your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>! This automatically converts to your name and the date/time you posted.

			Any sources to support this claim? I’ve reverted this unsourced addition to the infobox. ] (]) 13:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::"I have never seen or heard of a Sikh going to a Hindu mandir" - I have. '''Plenty''' of Sikhs visit mandirs, especially in the Punjab. The situation outside of India is different, but inside India, Sikhs visit Gurdwaras, Mandirs and Sufi burial sites. Hindus too visit Gurdwaras and Sufi burial sites. Hindus and Sikhs get on very well in Punjab, contrary to what the media may say relating to the events of the 1980s and they still visit one another's places of worship.

			== Pronunciation ==
	::::Thank-you for posting a link DaGizza. I'll see if I can accommodate a line or two in the article. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			I have heard Sikh's themselves pronounce it like "sick" not "seek" despite what the Oxford Dictionary claims.
	:::::'''Sukh's point is true''' On a visit last year to ], I visited the ] and saw several Hindu and Sikh men and women paying their respects. ] 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			Can anyone elaborate on what should be the correct phonetic spelling? ] (]) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I've added a section "Relationship with Hinduism" in "Sikh people" (I'm not really sure where to put it). It's a bit rough at the moment. Please tell me what you think. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::::This paragraph is only temporary. Please list your objections/comments so we can finalise the content, then we can mix the actual content in with the rest of the page. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			:Hi,
	We are not saying that a name proves anything....it doesnt....BUT These are not regular names like CARLOS, JATIN, MIKE, OR JASPREET....THese are HARDCORE RELIGIOUS NAMES...When u name your son HAR KRISHAN...OR RAM DAS....OR RAM RAI....I mean come on thats pretty dam Hindu...Do u know what those names mean?....If ur a Guru and u name ur son HAR KRISHAN are u gonna say the Guru didn beleive in Krishna? If ur a Guru and u name ur son RAM are u gonna say the guru doesnt believe in Ram?....I mean this is not 2006 when u name ur son David....This is the time of the Gurus giving out hardcore religious names....Its like somebody naming their son PRAISE JESUS....are u gonna say the father didnt believe in Jesus?? ] 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
			:The correct phonetic pronounciation is indeed closer "sik" than "seek". To be fair, the Oxford Dictionary contains both pronounciations, likely to support both cases.

			:The latter pronounciation arose during the British annexation of Punjab and became popular during the subsequent rise of the Sikh overseas diaspora in Britain, Canada, and the US. ] (]) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
	:Do you think people pull names out of their rear ends? It was the time of course people would name their kids like that, after all their weren't many Sikh names. {{unsigned\|Elven6}}
	::Please sign your posts. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	::This is a FUNNY argument to make for someone whose username reflects a neo-Nazi symbol... ] 06:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::Aryan, I think this is where you say 'touché'. Also, please don't ruin the indentation of posts. It makes them difficult to follow. Also, I'm reverting most of your changes . This is a ''featured'' article and we don't appreciate controversial additions without citations. None of the present sources agree with what you have added. Also, you've changed a direct quote from Khushwant Singh - this is VERY misleading. Do not do this please. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::Sukh u are the worst....I mean u finally put up a link for Hinduism and sikhism as ONE...U ask everyone to help out on it , since its not 100% fixed....Then I come in and make the most minor of changes...and u erase it all...I its ok if u didnt think that i did the best job...But why would u erase everything? I Mean some of the changes that I made were just changes such as the structure of a sentence.....Thats it....I mean did u have to change EVERYTHING?....U know its people like u that make wikipeida soooo frustrating...Its like u own everything ] 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::::I didn't change everything you wrote. If you cannot see why changing a quote is wrong, or why adding comments such as "Scholars such as Singh argue that the Gurus never intended to seperate people into a Hindu and Sikh catagory. That they were instead trying to unite everyone under God. " without reference to a single scholar who said that is wrong, then I cannot help you.
	:::::I have mentioned to you time and time again that your additions need to be cited. If you cannot provide references, I WILL remove them. And no, I don't own the article, but you seem to be unable to take any constructive criticsm. ] \| <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ</span> \| ] 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	== My tuppence ==

	I agree with ]'s statement. As the "name" issue has been raked up, let me give some illustrations from the great ]-]-] monotheistic tradition of the ]. It has been noted by theologians that the relationship between these three faiths is perhaps the most unique amongst organised religions of the world. Here is a list of figures common to the three:
	# Adam(Judaeo-Christian) and Aadam(Muslim)
	# Eve(J-C) and Havva(M)
	# Cain/Kane(J-C) and Cabin(M)
	# Avraham(Hebrew), Abraham(English) and Ibrahim(Arabic)
	# Lot(J-C) and Lut(M)
	# Ezekiel (J-C) and Dhul-Kifl(M)
	# Sarah(J-C) and Sara(M)
	# Hagar (J-C) and Hajra(M)
	# Isaac(J-C) and Ishaaq(Arabic)
	# Ishmael(J-C) and Ismail(M)
	# Jacob (J-C) and Yakub(M)
	# Rachel (J-C) and Raheel(M)
	# Joseph(J-C) and Yusuf(M)
	# Jethro(J-C) and Shoaib(M)
	# Jonah(J-C) and Yunus(M)
	# Job(J-C) and Ayub(M)
	# Moshe(Hebrew), Moses(English) and Musa(Arabic)
	# Aaron(J-C) and Haroon(M)
	# Joshua
	# Gideon
	# Caleb
	# Elijah(J-C) and Illyas(M)
	# David(J-C) and Dawood(M)
	# Solomon(J-C) amd Suleman/Sulayman(M)
	# Shimshon(Hebrew) and Samson(English)
	# Shimuel(Hebrew) and Samuel(English)
	# Gabriel(J-C) and Jibril(M)
	# Michael(J-C) and Mikaeel(M)
	# Alexander who is called Sikandar or Zulqernain in the Qu'ran
	# Daniel(J-C) and Danyal(M)
	# St. John the Baptist is Yahya in the Qu'ran
	# Mary(J-C) and Marium(M)
	# Jesus who is Isa-Ale-Salaam in the Qu'ran
	# Shimon(Hebrew) and Simon(English)
	# Zacharias (J-C) and Zakarya(M)

	In spite of there being so many similarities, there is the paradox of the three: So intrinsically linked and yet so bitterly separated. Compared to these Abrahmic faiths, the relationship between their Dharmic counterparts (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism) has been much more peaceful.

	As for the Hinduism-Sikhism controversy that has been raging on this page, here's my take:

	Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, in their masterpiece, ''Freedom at Midnight'' have described Sikhism as:

	"Sikhism was born from the impact of monotheistic Islam on polytheistic Hinduism on the warring frontiers of the Punjab, where the two faiths first collided."

	I don't want to comment on the theological similarities between the two as I am not an expert. But being a Punjabi Hindu myself, and that too from the Arora and Khatri communities, I can very much say that socially the two were very close. No one can deny that. I myself had Sikh ancestors, though today my family is mostly Hindu. This ''Roti-Beti Ka Rishta'' is undeniable.

	Personally, I hold extremists on both sides as culpable for the 'great schism' that has occured between the two groups socially.

	However, whatever has happened has happened. Khushwant Singh in the newer editions of his masterpiece, ''A history of the Sikhs'' has noted that though peace has returned to Punjab, the relationship between its two communities has drastically changed and will never be the same as before.

	It is the Punjab which has suffered. The divide of Muslim and Non-Muslim in'47 and Hindu and Sikh in '84. Religion has been the biggest bane and scourge of our province as in other parts of the Subcontinent.

	] 09:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:17, 8 December 2024

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sikhism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Sikhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 17, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 2, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This

level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Punjab Top‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Punjab portal This article is supported by WikiProject Punjab (India) (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sikhism

This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism

To-do list for Sikhism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-05-13

Long term

These points are outside of the scope of the current article. Sub-articles are required to expand on certain topics.

Further information on decision making in Sikhism
Philosophy of teachings, major social changes in Punjab
Sikh traditions, culture, family values and religious adherence.
The concept of 'Sarbat da Bhala' (the welfare of humanity) is an important concept in sikhism and needs to be covered.
Sikhism by country

There is a request, submitted by Sikhism, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Please make 'Sikhism' an audio recording because it is one of the world's major religions, and making it a recording would allow adherents who are visually impaired the ability to hear about the tenets of their faith and the issues that effect Sikhs".

Ridiculous claims of 120 million Sikhs with spurious sources

Removing these. Unreferenced news articles are not adequate sources for this claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.107.213 (talk • contribs) 21:28, September 20, 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate edits made by User without sources to back it

This User:Joshua_Jonathan has made an this edit alongside a few others all of a sudden since last week. Which is strange as this did not happen for over 6 months since the info box was created. One of those users who made an edit was User:Mattansilk who was also banned for being sockpuppet ( Just to reiterate I am not saying Joshua or others are related parties of Mattansilk). **Also to note they have made these edits with NO sources and constantly reverting them**

I have no issue with it being referred to as a Dharmic faith. As we share some similar core values and beliefs and should maintain unity with each other.

So the two issues i want to address was: 1) Slogan: This user along with the other users who made the same edits are finding it hard to differentiate between a Sikh jakhaira/Slogan (Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal) and Sikh greeting (Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Fateh). As per Bole So Nihal it clearly states this is the Sikh Slogan as well. https://www.discoversikhism.com/sikhism/bole_so_nihal_sat_sri_akal.html

2) Sikhism did not separate from Hinduism or any other religion. Sikhs themselves view Guru Nanak was Sikh from birth as the Gurus are a reflection of God. There are many instances of Guru Nanak rejected Hindu practices from at a young age such as sacred thread, caste system etc...

I.e He rejected the sacred Hindu thread as a young boy. Furthermore in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib he states "ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥ Haj Kaabai Jaao N Theerathh Poojaa || I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines."

@Usingh0663 , @Jattlife121 , @Javerine , @Ronnie Macroni , @Twarikh e Khalsa - Can also share more light on this.

"The Definition of Sikh"

There is a portion of the page that references the definition for the Sikh as defined by the SGPC.

At the time of writing, this is the definition:

The Definition of Sikh is any human being who faithfully believes in:

I. One Immortal Being,

II. Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Sahib to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib,

III. The Guru Granth Sahib,

IV. The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and,

V. The baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh.

However, this definition is restrictive because there are other Sikh sects who do not technically fit this definition, so I propose that this portion of the text be removed from the page because it's technically inaccurate.

This is not to comment on the SGPC in any way, rather to make sure that the Sikhism Misplaced Pages article is the most accurate when it comes to all Sikhs, not just the majority.

Thoughts? AnyBurro9312 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, many heterodoxical groups do not fall within the SGPC-crafted definition of a Sikh, such as Udasis or Nanakpanthis. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In an effort to amend the definition of Sikh to include other Sikh traditions, like the Udasis, Nirmalas, Nanakpanthis, etc, I believe the text ought to be changed to:

The Definition of Sikh is any human being who faithfully believes in:

I. One Immortal Being,

II. The first Sikh Guru as Guru Nanak

III. The utterances and teachings as enscribed in the Guru Granth Sahib is a Sikh.

For the first two points, at the bare minimum, all Sikh traditions all orginate from Guru Nanak, so all must agree to view Nanak as the first Sikh and the first Guru. Similarly, since all Sikhs hold Nanak as the first Guru, then all must accept his teachings and writings that enscribe God as a singular, immortal being.

For the third point, I'm unsure how different Sikh traditions approach reading from the Guru Granth Sahib. For example, Namdhari Sikhs maintain a living Guru as a part of their religious canon however, I'm unsure if they also read from the Guru Granth Sahib as a part of their liturgical practices and if so, do they still refer to the Guru Granth Sahib as "Guru", or does it default back to the "Adi Granth" in their case?

All said, I believe this definition is definitely more accurate for the modern day since it would account for all Sikhs under the various traditions and sects as well as those Sikhs who have not undergone the initiation rites to receive Amrit. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sikhism separating from Hinduism

Any sources to support this claim? I’ve reverted this unsourced addition to the infobox. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have heard Sikh's themselves pronounce it like "sick" not "seek" despite what the Oxford Dictionary claims.

Can anyone elaborate on what should be the correct phonetic spelling? 91.217.105.54 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

The correct phonetic pronounciation is indeed closer "sik" than "seek". To be fair, the Oxford Dictionary contains both pronounciations, likely to support both cases.

The latter pronounciation arose during the British annexation of Punjab and became popular during the subsequent rise of the Sikh overseas diaspora in Britain, Canada, and the US. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: