Talk:Guru Granth Sahib

message: *do you think it is necessary to add a section or at least write about the authors of the Guru Granth Sahib 17:36  05 September (UTC+1)
*The first sentence is completely wrong, isn't it?  What about Joseph Smith?  What about Muhammad?  There must be others also. Am I missing something, or does it need to be axed? Jwrosenzweig 00:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship of the Guru Granth Sahib 

message: "The text used is a script called Gurmukhi, which is considered a modern development of the ancient language called Sanskrit."
*I'm not sure what this line means.  How can a script be a modern development of an ancient language?  I'm sure it could be a modern development of Devanagari (which it is not, incidentally) but surely not a language.  All sources indicate that Gurmukhi was actually derived from Landa and standardised by Guru Angad Dev.  Sure, it was adapted and used to write Sanskrit and other languages in the SGGS, but it was itself not a 'development' from either of these.
Anyone disagree?
82.37.161.188 14:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gurmukhi 

message: dont refer to the limbs of the guru as pages. The guru is considered to be living and as such has limbs not pages. All sikhs refer to the guru as having 'angs' (limbs) so this FACT should be included in the article
:The Guru Granth Sahib is viewed as a book, because that's what it is.  Its significance as an eternal guru is mentioned quite regularly throughout Wikipedia.  However, this personification is not something that should be prescribed to in a neutral enyclopedia and as such, the pages are referred to as pages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  change it 

message: *Should the title be more respectful?  Is Guru Granth Sahib Ji more appropriate? BookwormUK 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guru Granth Sahib Ji 

message: It starts with this sentence:
:From about 1479, when Guru Nanak was abon the evenings. 
What does "abon the evenings" mean? It looks like this sentence was inadvertently cut off. But since I have no idea what is trying to be said here, I can't really help correct it.  Msalt 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of History and Writing Section 

message: It would be great if someone could explain a little more about which language the scripture is written in. From what I understand a good deal of it is in Braj Bhasa. Ahassan05 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The granth contains many languages, some of which were Hindi, old Punjabi, old Lahnda (Western Punjabi) and others.  However, please remember that even today, Punjabi and Hindi are quite similar and as the entire Granth is written in Gurmukhi script, it could be read by someone who didn't read Devanagari.
What I really want to know is which languages where used to write Guru Granth Sahib.
2012-08-01  Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Could someone with the knowledge create a section that outlines how often the different language were used? And whether certain languages were used for certain purposes, or in certain regions or eras.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: Look at this paragraph for example "A near-exact count is given in K.P. Agrawala: Adi Shrî Gurû Granth Sâhib kî Mahimâ (Hindi: “The greatness of the original sacred Guru scripture”), p.2, and in Ram Swarup: “Hindu roots of Sikhism”, Indian Express,
The name of the Hindu god Shri Ram, is recited 2,400 times, (the gods name whose constant repetition leads to salvation). Hari (Vishnu) over 8,300 times, 630 times by Guru Nanak alone, Parabrahman, 550 times, Omkara, (the primeval sound of OM) 400 times. Please note the names of countless other Hindu gods are also mentioned and are one and the same.
In contrast the name Mohammed is never mentioned and the name allah is used but a couple of times, merely as an example. It is interesting to note that the Granth itself contains banis from seven of the sikh gurus, two muslim Sufis, but eighteen Hindu saints and pandits.
The religious source of Sikhism is Hinduism, Sikhism is a tradition developed within Hinduism. Guru Granth Sahib reflect Vedantic philosophy, the Vedanta of Rishi Vedvyas who wrote the Mahabharat. The Japji Sahib is based on Upanishads."
Ram, hari, parabraham, and omkara are just ways to refer to the infinate one. Guru Nanak Ji maharaj has no interest in your hindu gods and such. in fact Guru Nanak Dev Ji says, aape patti kalame aap upar lek bhi toon. Ekko keheai nanaka dooja kahe koo. dooj kahe simre jamme te marr jai. ekko simro nanaka jo jal thal reha samai. 
Guru Nanak says why would worship others such as Devi devte when they too die and are in the cycle of kaal. He says worship the one who is always in teh ground and water and everywhere else the infinate waheguru.  
The religous source of Sikhism is not Hinduism, the source is Waheguru not hindu vedas and what not. Guru nanak in countless places puts emhpasis on how sikhs should not follow the vedas and puranas as they do not comphrehed the infinate. And the Japji sahib the most sacred bani in SIkhism you have just put down saying it is based on Upanishads. BS!! It is an original piece of work that comes staright from Guru Nanak Dev Ji.   
I say only sikhs should be allowed to edit sikhsim realted topics. Only few stupid Hindu missionaries are trying to make the divine Sikhi look like a little panth of Hinduism. We are anything but!! We are SIkhs a diiferent quam or religion. I am going to erase those paragraphs soon. Sikhs are not Hindus in any way or form. Follow your own belief and Gods, As we don't interfare in yours so we expect the same from you. To understand the god in SIkhism one must read teh holy Jaap Sahib by Shri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji. It illistrates how Sikhs view the divine and how they view your lowly earthly Devis, who cannot give you mukti. They too are joon like humans or aniamals they are just another living being who takes birth, lives and dies. No need to worship them. If Hindus want to fine but dont add your bs to pure sikhi articles. If Wikipedia is a nuetrals article it should have the truth on it not biased Hindu comments on it. Alawys trying to blend in teh two religions. yes Guru Nanak was from a hindu familky but he made his own religion by being enlightened by the Incomprehendable. LIke hwo Jesus came from a jew family but started Christianity. SAme concept.  
The most basic concept of Sikhism is God is One whereas Hinduism believe God in many form.  
Bhull chuk maaf.
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa!!
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!!
User:Sikhsta12
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa!
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!
The Guru Granth Sahib was in fact, complied by a Sikh. Its not Hindus trying to make it look like a Hindu book. Also, Guru Nanak Dev Ji mentions Hindu deities many times, and in fact, acknowledges their exsistance, except he said they are all One God, which is true. Allah, Ram, and Shiva are the same God. So it is not a Hindu trying to change it.
TurbanatorX (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindus trying to make SGGS look like a Hindu book  

message: Hi guys. In my humble opinion, the lead paragraph lays undue stress on gurmata, which detracts from the main subject of the article and is confusing. Can we move that to some part later in the article? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: what's stoping you? but please make sure you don't mess up anything. Ajjay (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: * The title of this page's corresponding page in the Urdu Wikipedia is گرنتھ صاحب, i.e. merely "Granth Ṣāḥib" without the "Guru". Is this correct? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urdu Wikipedia 

message: Here is references  (PDF Document)
The court does not equate it with an idol, and recognized it as a sole successor of sikh gurus.
Also i was only adding, what i thought was relevent information, you can delete the whole para , if you find it is not relevent.thanksAjjay (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I believe it is relevant, though perhaps not in the lead. The SC seems to have said "The Granth replaces the Guru  after the tenth Guru. We unhesitatingly hold Guru Granth Sahib to be a juristic person." But also clearly lays out legal dispute-related reasons why it would be necessary to do so, so I think both perspectives need to be mentioned clearly. Relata refero (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the court also states that it cannot be compared to an idol, or other religious texts. And the succession was invested by the last guru...now it is a living guru of sikhsAjjay (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but that is the historical background. After that passage, the Court says "In this background and on overall considerations..." before going on to deliver the judgment. Relata refero (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: So how do you think it should appear?Ajjay (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this edit. What do you think? Relata refero (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it is ok, but we need a clear elaboration on differnce between deity and the granth. Besides , as the judgement pronounces, "a gurudwara cannot be without Guru granth placed in it.Ajjay (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: How is this re-wording? I think it is just fineAjjay (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juristic person 

message: *What does Sikh religion say about treating a copy of the Guru Granth Sahib with insecticide and fungicide to prevent or stop attack by insects (e.g. bookworm) and fungi? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any as such. In sikh religion, the Holy book is opened and taken care atleast twice in a day(It is mandatory). A clean dry cloth is kept, with which pages are cleaned, before reading and turning over of pages, this prevents fungus etc. You cannot keep the granth lying idle ( like in a store or bookshelf). It has to be kept carefully wrapped in a special cloth, that is changed daily. When a book gets old, or becomes unusable, it is taken and burned on a pyre, just like a dead human, on a special day. I hope this answers your query.Shalimer (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insecticide and fungicide 

message: It would be appropriate to say which version of Rehat Maryada proscribes the etiquette required for the SGGS.  It is important for people to know that the etiquette is considered required, but it is also important to know if every Sikh requires it or only some.  It seems some--or heretics--may not require it, and it is important to know if the general agreement is sort of like when the Vatican considered it a high crime for non-priests to read the Christian Bible or like when it started to be allowed (and the Orthodox may have already allowed.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.238.5 (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rehat Maryada]] 

message: Should this section really be on Wikipedia? It's just a bunch of links to a website selling books. I'm sure there are others (not to mention free translations of the text), so why include these links?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.238.144 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, good catch! I deleted it, it was obviously an attempt to advertise a site.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section entitled "Available Translations" 

message: This sub section should be improved . It should contain an author index. 
I propose it reads:
" The Guru Granth Sahib contains  compositions by The Gurus , Bhagats and Bhatts . 
Gurus  	Guru Nanak , Guru Angad, Guru Amar Das , Guru Ram Das, Guru Arjun , Guru Tegh Bahadur , Guru Gobind Singh
Bhagats	Beni ,Bhikan , Dhanna , Sheikh Farid , Jaidev , Kabir , Namdev , Pipa , Ramanand , Ravidas, Sadhna ,  Sainu, Sur , Trilochan
Bhatts 	Bhalhau ,Bhika ,Das(Dasu), Ganga , Haribans , Jalan, Kal , (Kalu, Kalhu) , Kalasu, Kalasahar , Kiratu, Mathura, Nal , Rad, Sal(Salh)
The Adi Granth ,or the Holy Scriptures of the Sikhs Translation by Dr Ernest Trump , Published by Munshiram Manoharlal,,Sri Guru Granth Sahib Author IndexSri Guru Granth Sahib Authors & Contributors
There are also  composition by Bhai Mardana , Satta and Balwand and Baba Sunder "
Two of the references I have provided are from two different websites , if someone can improve  citations please do.
I have provided the wikilinks , that I could find , sometimes these can also be improved ...any suggestions . 
Intothefire (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Composition

message: What's the point in stating that Pearl Buck is a Nobel laureate?  That sounds like a fallacious appeal to authority to me.  Doctor Whom (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has explained the relevance, does anyone object to my removing the reference to her Nobel prize? Doctor Whom (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess not. Doctor Whom (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl Buck 

message: I am not very familiar with sikhism, but from what I read in Wikipedia I see no real difference between these two designations. I read here in the Talk page that Adi Granth is an early recension of the Guru Granth Sahib, but on this page (and in Adi Granth, Sikh scriptures and Sikh gurus) both names are treated as synonyms, with the only difference that I can see on these pages being that Guru Granth Sahib is a title (the status of living Guru) bestowed upon the Adi Granth. But, are there two different sets of texts? Is Adi Granth an "historical" term only? Is Adi Granth just a part of Guru Granth Sahib? Do sikhs call their scripture "Adi Granth" or not? Is it worthy to mention them separately, as if they were really two different things, or is it enough to say that the Adi Granth had a first version by the Fifth Guru, and a later addition by the Tenth Guru, but it's still the Adi Granth, also called Guru Granth Sahib since it was considered the living Guru?
Please, again excuse my ignorance on the subject. I would very much appreciate clarification on these issues, and to see that clarification included on the respective pages, since, as it is now, I don't see the specific need of having three different pages (Adi Granth, Guru Granth Sahib, Sikh scriptures) on this subject. To me it is more confusing than illuminating. --Nazroon (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Adi Granth and Guru Granth Sahib are different because the Guru Granth Sahib has Guru Tegh Bahadur's Bani in it wheras the Adi Granth does not therefor the Adi Granth cannot be considered the Guru Granth Sahib. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guru Granth Sahib Vs. Adi Granth 

message: The book isn't living in any sense; that's a purely religious, almost idolatrous, characteristic ascribed to it by members of the religion. The opening sentence is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Anyone with common sense knows that a book cannot be considered "living". I will proceed to edit it to something more neutral. JDiala (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Living Guru? 

message: Guru Gobind Singh said aad ant ekey avtara soyi guru samjheyo hamara. There is one guru of sikhs and i.e hukam (153.110.241.231 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Granth is not Guru of Sikhs

message: @Js82: I have reverted some of the Prophet, revelation, SGPC and other language you added. Per WP:BRD, please get consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead edits and WP:BRD 

message: Please do not edit war. Is this source reliable or peer reviewed anywhere? Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: *Why does the Punjabi font have Ji written at the end ?
*The article is located at Granth Sahib at Urdu Wikipedia, stating their policy not to use honorifics like Guru. Then why are we using it ? 
Thanks, hope to clear my doubts. South Indian Geek (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Two doubts

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. No prospect of consensus to move; Arguably a rough consensus that it's best where it is. Andrewa (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Guru Granth Sahib →  – COMMONNAME, see ngram chart, also, Guru is a MOS:HONORIFIC. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

text: *Adi Granth =/= Guru Granth Sahib. Please reread the sources. Your Ngram analysis is flawed; e.g. if you do a search of "book" and "Guru Granth Sahib", "book" is most common, but that does not mean this article should be retitled to "Book". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Talk:Adi Granth, where sources are raised that demonstrate that Adi Granth and Guru Granth Sahib are nearly the same, except for a stanza or two. Granth is almost exclusively used to refer to Guru Granth Sahib and Adi Granth  and is like a term that covers both, and is the most common term. 86.99.13.167 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the old discussion with non-RS links? It is not persuasive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

text: *Guru Granth Sahib and Guru Granth are also the common-names, BTW. Yes, in RS and elsewhere. Granth is a Sanskrit word that is common in non-Sikhism literature. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was:  Andrewa (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 September 2017 

message: Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Scripture:
[Titles of [[Scripture|s]criptures]] of large, well-known religions should not normally be italicized. For example, the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Adi Granth, the Book of Mormon, and the Avesta are not italicized.
(Emphasis added.)  Given this, I believe that "Guru Granth Sahib", including the article title, should not be italicized.  Any thoughts? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Changed. Batternut (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicized article title? 

message: An IP user made a variety of changes to the page in this edit on 26 February 2021. I don't know enough about this topic to be certain about changing them back, but I was suspicious because they changed "There are also adulatory verses for the Gurus such as Guru Nanak fused into some pages" to "There are also idolatry verses for the Gurus such as Guru Nanak fused into some pages". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious edit 

message: Plz use word "shri" at front of the name and "ji" at the end of the name of sikh Guru's 2409:4055:4E14:4289:3112:7079:9190:9D8 (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review MOS:HONORIFIC, which states quite clearly why Wikipedia does not. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need of some alteration in this topic