Talk:Sikhism/Archive 1

message: Did anyone think to back any of these claims with evidence?
Why is there not a single quote form the SGGS here?
Im too busy on the article on Guru Nanak to even start with this!
--Balvinder 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVIDENCE? 

message: Why do you keep typing EK ON KAR? ON IS NOT A WORD. Its EK OM KAR. OMMMMM. In those days people said OOMMM NOT ONNNNN...again....ON IS NOT A WORD...ITS OM...AND STOP acting like Sikhism & Hinduism are 2 different religions. YOu leave out lots of facts on how there similar. 71.119.249.226 08:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For your information, your comment was never deleted.  It was merely moved to an appropriate section - see Talk:Sikhism#Ek_Onkar_2.  Please read the explanation there.  When starting a new conversation, please use the '+' button near 'edit' and select a topic heading.  Do not add your comments to the top of the page.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EK OM OR EK ON?

message: I feel that there needs to be a uniform approach in naming the Gurus.  I think a suitable comprise would be to give each Guru a full title when first mentioned (e.g. 'Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji', 'Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji') with a link to an appropriate atricle and then shortening the name when used subsequently (e.g. 'Guru Nanak', 'Guru Gobind').
And also sri is used with hindus, muslims get ustad and sikhs have GURU in front to symbolize respect
Thinking with a NPOV, there is certainly no need to add Sri and Ji onto every instance of the name.
82.37.160.212 02:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guru's Name 

message: This phrase meaning "One Creator" in Sihkism is currently being debated on the Votes for Deletion page. One of the options is a redirect to this page.
I have voted to keep the article but it would be good to have input from people with a greater background in Sikhism. It would also be good to get some advice on whether it, Ek Omkar or Ik Om Kar is the most common phrase to explain the concept of one creator. Capitalistroadster 08:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ek Onkar

message: Not banned, not encouraged. Not good karma, not a necessity, but no superstitions in extenuating circumstances.
:You're eating the flesh of another animal.  Forget karma...it's just amoral.  Sikkhism is based on real-life principles, things that work on a common sense level.  There's no 'spiritual blackmail' where there is this punishment-reward culture.  It's about living in the here and now and acting responsibly for the sake of virtue and nothing else.  Obviously, if you're in a situation where you physically NEED to eat meat because there is no other healthy alternative, then naturally, common sense dictates that you...er...eat to live.  But if you can avoid slaying that cute little lamb to satisfy your appetite, then try doing it.  Pretty simple, really.
::MAX
::That's an interesting thought--but it isn't really that simple. I mean, morality is subjective, and philosophical reasons for vegetarianism are equally so. Is there some written proscription against the unnecessary consumption of meat when plant-based nutrition is available? Or is this going to vary from Sikh to Sikh? Consider: some people consider it morally acceptable to eat lower-order or especially unintelligent animals (e.g. fish, insects, even birds) and not higher-order ones (cows, pigs, dogs). Some people consider it acceptable to eat only livestock, which are bred to that end. In the end it usually just comes down to regional social norms. Where does the superstition start and logic end? You can't really argue this in finite terms without relying on some kind of subjective guideline (an animal "IQ" cutoff so to speak). I'm really curious as to how much this concept pervades the religion. 
:::That said, I think this belongs in the prohibited behavior article, where the topic is discussed in full. Maybe it was moved after this was added. Fearwig 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat Eating 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: There's a section about discrimination against and persecution of Sikhs - that's all well and good, but shouldn't there also be something about instances of Sikhs' hostility to others?  For example, the cinema bombings in Delhi two days ago, the riots in Birmingham, England last year.  
At the end of the article, the author writes 'Sikhism recognises the concept of a Multi-level approach to achieving your target as a disciple of the faith.'  Why does s/he use 'your'?  Why should s/he not use 'a person's'?
: Let's not jump to conclusions about who was responsible for the cinema bombings in Delhi.  Does Islam include details of 11th September?  I don't think so.  I could also argue that the word 'riot' is a bit extreme for the protests that got out of hand.
: I agree that that 'your' may be better as 'a person's'. Sukh 11:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To further prove my point, maybe this article  could clear things up a bit? Sukh 16:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: According to Sikhism#Sikhs around the world, there are presently 23m Sikhs in the world, yet over at Religion in India#Sikhism, it claims there are 35m Sikhs in India alone!  Clearly, at least one of these assertions is incorrect.  Tomer TALK 22:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
:The Indian Census 2001  suggest that there are in fact just 19.3m Sikhs in India.  Seems a bit low if you ask me so I might have misread it.  Either way it's Census data that'll be pretty accurate (conspiracy theories aside!). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 07:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Sikhs are there? 

message: "A large number of people following the Sikh religion tend to add some elements of Hinduism in their culture and beliefs as well. It is not uncommon for Sikhs to keep statues of Hindu gods in their homes. Scholars in these religions like to think of Sikhism as a derivative from Hinduism as they share many common beliefs."
What a load of bull!  It is uncommon for Sikhs where I live to keep Hindu gods in their homes.  Even if they do keep statues of aesthetic purposes that doesn't mean they worship them.  For example, I have about 10 tiny Buddha statues - does that mean I'm taking elements of Buddism?!  Scholars certainly do not think of Sikhism are a derivative of Hinduism.  Is Buddhism a derivative of Hinduism?  Is Christianity and Islam a derivative of Judaism? No!
:Actually, Sukh, Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. It was some centuries before Christianity was even considered a separate religion from Judaism, and Islam considers Judaism and Christianity to be earlier and subsequently corrupted incarnations of Islam. Buddha is seen as a Hindu reformer in many circles, and I've even heard Hindus say that since they're corrected the errors of Hinduism addressed by Buddha, that Buddhism is no longer necessary! (Not saying the claims are true, but it does show that many consider Buddhism to be a sect of Hinduism.) I don't know about Sikhism, but if the teachings of Hindu and Muslim scholars are accepted as scripture, then it's safe to say that there are at least Hindu and Muslim influences in Sikhism. kwami 18:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed edits by Harprit 

message: A question...
I just noticed that all of the major religions have a "series box" with the subtitle "Part of the Series on _" except for Sikhism and Hinduism. Should one be added (for both pages?)
And BTW, how do I sign my username? I'm newly signed up (though I've edited pages before this.) Ridan 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's up to you!  If you've got the knowledge to do so, go ahead!  To sign use four '~'.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to, myself, or I would have. I'm just putting it out in case anyone who reads this does know. Ridan 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Series" box 

message: I've kept an eye on this article because it's been in recent edit wars. I noticed that one of the statements was was deleted from the History section, and then restored with the latest edit by Sukh, is quite POV: 
:From the very childhood, Bibi Nanki saw in him the Light of God but she did not reveal this secret to anyone. 
This is inherently unverifiable, and therefore ahistorical. It's fine to include it in a section on Sikh doctrine, but not Sikh history. kwami 18:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was a blind revert to the original version.  If you compare the difs  you can see why I reverted it.  I'm actually indifferent as to whether it is kept in the page or not.  Are there any sources that claim to acknowledge this fact?  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, definitely a worthwhile revert over all. I have no idea myself about Bibi Nanki (I know practically nothing of Sikhism, except a very little I've picked up from Sikh friends who don't talk much about their religion), but I don't think it matters. If she kept it a secret, no one would know, unless it was revealed to them, which is POV. Unless perhaps she told this to people as an adult, in which case that should be made clear. But regardless, a simple statement of a religious revelation presented as fact presents the religion as objective truth. kwami 20:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV statement 

message: There was reference to the pillars at Langar, but, oddly, no article, so I added one.  I'd appreciate expansion and review of it.  Please see the talk page, and apologies for any errors I may have made, or controversies I might have unwittingly stumbled into. -SM 12:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Three Pillars of Sikhism]]

message: OK I understand your points clearly. 
"Sikhs" refer specifically to followers of Sikhism. As you say, we can have a small para in the article Sikhism, and a link to the article on followers of Sikhism. This has been done with Sikh religious philosophy. 
The size WAS an issue, becoz the Wikipedia had specific recommendations about the size, and anybody editing the article would be warned that it was already oversized.
I don't think "Sikhs" should re-direct here: (1) Sikhism obviously is very clearly linked in the opening sentence of that article, and (2) the culture, communities sub-sections are so unitedly about the people, so what's wrong with having a different article on Sikh people? By themselves, these sub-sections would be too small. 
===Action===
I think we should take action and organize the article Sikhism as you say. There should be a para on Sikh people, an intro to the main article Sikhs, which goes into the details of the Sikh community. This combines the crux of your and my arguments in my opinion. 
Sikhism
Separate Articles Linked from Above: (1) Religious Philosophy, (2) People (which includes communities, across the world, community history, culture) 
Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow
:Well, I definately do think there needs to be expanded articles about Sikh people and the Sikh community.  However, I still believe Sikhs should redirect here.  Sikh, Sikhs and Sikhism are all about "Sikhism" or "Sikhi".  From there on, we can have "Sikh people", "Sikh community" etcetera.  Another reason why I think we should have them redirect here, is that many wikis link to Sikh and Sikhs and it would be more relevant to have a general introduction on Sikhism as opposed to an introduction on Sikh people.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Sukh on above debate

message: I think we should take action and organize the article Sikhism as you say. There should be a para on Sikh people, an intro to the main article Sikhs, which goes into the details of the Sikh community. This combines the crux of your and my arguments in my opinion. 
Sikhism
Separate Articles Linked from Above: (1) Religious Philosophy, (2) People (which includes communities, across the world, community history, culture) 
Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow
:Well, I definately do think there needs to be expanded articles about Sikh people and the Sikh community.  However, I still believe Sikhs should redirect here.  Sikh, Sikhs and Sikhism are all about "Sikhism" or "Sikhi".  From there on, we can have "Sikh people", "Sikh community" etcetera.  Another reason why I think we should have them redirect here, is that many wikis link to Sikh and Sikhs and it would be more relevant to have a general introduction on Sikhism as opposed to an introduction on Sikh people.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Action

message: Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim  1m 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New portal on religion 

message: This is a defining chracteristic and should be the first thing mentioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
67.183.93.122 14:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This belief needs to be mentioned, but it's not held by everyone.  I've moved the information to the paragraph below because I don't believe it's the most important aspect in describing the religion nor do I think the phrase "was notably supported by the Mughal emperor Akbar" is relevant in that section either.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhism is a syncretic religion of Hinduism and Islam  

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: See, this is a problem.
Language.
We seem to need wrods for everything, and it is this human construct that limits our thought.
Sikkhism is a religion, yet it is not a religion.  It is different from Islam and Hinduism, yet it attempts to reconcile and watch over them (and all other beliefs).
You have to understand the fundamentals and the context of what the Gurus were trying to achieve...and with whom they were trying to achieve it.
As educated and as knowledgeable as we become, examples are abound of intelligent human beings who resort to disgusting behaviour both indivisdually and in large groups (Atheists are no better, just look at th history and current state of Communist China).  It is this human nature that the Gurus were trying to battle against.  Of course, we are limted as humans and we need some kind of solid 'form' to point at and say "hey, that's a symbol that represents 'x' principles!".  That's what the ten gurus did over their lifetimes, taking Guru Nanak's border-destroying philosophy, and then fortifying it with new borders to protect IT from being destroyed.
It's a fundamental paradox, especially when viewed out of context.  But it's obvious that balancing the spiritual and the practical ('miri' and 'priri') are both required for surviving in the world.
== Removed from Sangha ==
I removed this from the Sangha article because I don't really know what it means. "In Sikhism, Sangha is a Punjabi Jat Sikh community and there are two kinds. One is Ludh Sanghas and the second is Asees Sangha." I thought someone from this article might know what to do with it, since I don't. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: I removed this from the Sangha article because I don't really know what it means. "In Sikhism, Sangha is a Punjabi Jat Sikh community and there are two kinds. One is Ludh Sanghas and the second is Asees Sangha." I thought someone from this article might know what to do with it, since I don't. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from [[Sangha (Buddhism)|Sangha]]