Talk:Sikhism
|
|
| Contents |
Guru's Name
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').
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)
NPOV on Sikh 'sects'
I'm a bit suspicious at this section and have removed it until it can be 'cleaned' up:
"There is an illusion about the sects of Sikhsim, such as Namdhari, Nirankari, Ravidasi, Balmiki etc. Actually these groups can not be called Sikh because their ideology and practice is completely opposite to the Sikhism. Namdharis have a living Guru and as such do not install the Guru Granth Sahib in the Gurdwara. Ravidasis believe in bhagat Ravidas (a pre-nanak saint of the bhakti-sant movement) as Guru Ravidas Ji, they do not uphold the 5Ks strictly and they perform Arti in the temple, which is called a Bhawan rather than Gurdwara. Balmikis install the Ramayana in the temple alongside the Guru Granth Sahib and honour Balmiki, the author of the Ramayana as Guru alongside Guru Nanak."
Points:
- "illusion" - in whose eyes?
- "their ideology and practice is completely opposite" - not the case at all. There may be points that conflict to mainstream Sikhism, but they are by no means 'completely opposite'.
- Why is this under the persecution of Sikhs section?
The link to Maya goes to a disambiguity page. Should it go to the Sikh meaning of Maya? -- Anonymous, Oct 30, 2004
Also, early in the article it is stated that Sikhism should not be seen as a blending of Islam and Hinduism. Why not? This may not be to the liking of some but it is very very obviously a blending of the two. Perhaps Sikhs are not comfortable with this because it reduces the specialness of the religion (not to me, but perhaps to some). But in an encyclopledia where you state that this religion arose in a region where Hinduism and Islam were prevalent before it, and it takes beliefs from both, calling it a blending of the two cannot be incorrect.
The part where it says that doing nothing but thinking of god is the path to salvation in this religion is very incorrect and in contradiction to later portions of the article which correctly state one of the primary teachings of this faith as: doing honest work, remembering god and sharing with others what you have.
I believe the 'event' was not the baptism, per-se, but that he was, in turn, baptised by those whom he had just baptised. --Dante Alighieri 00:59 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the more details you add to an event, the more likely it is to be unprecedented, and the less remarkable that lack of precedent is. I guess there are many other unprecedented events in Sikhism and other religions. To point out this event as "unprecedented" looks to me like an apology, and hence not NPOV. In the next paragraph there's a similarly dubious statement, which amounts to me like saying that the founders where alive when they founded the religion: nothing surprising. FvdP
- Hey, it's not my text. :) Still, it is notable that the founder of a religion defer to his disciples as worthy of inducting HIM into the religion he founded... right? --Dante Alighieri 01:12 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)
- Right. (And note that I did not delete that fact !) But "unprecedented" is a bit too strong. FvdP
- The baptism of Guru Gobind Singh seems to me very parallel to the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist. Not "unprecendented", but in fact an interesting parallel with Christianity. I think I'll wade in and point out the similarity (as NPOV as possible), and just to keep things interesting, I'll add a link back to here from the "Non-Christian baptism" section of baptism. I think I've been here enough to chance stepping on some toes! --Robertb-dc 17:32, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... "God inscrutably predestines all creatures and ordains that the highest creature, man, be served by lower creation. To argue which components of his beliefs are Hindu, which are muslim, is arguing like fools on which one religion in the world owns the intellectual right to profess the sole ownership of universal thoughts, ideas and movements such as kindness, giving, honesty, remembering the name of god, and respecting others." I find that POV in many respects. There are a few lesser POV problems elsewhere as well. I have not changed it, but I may have a go presently. Generally it's an excellent article I think, and maintaining the standard in an edit won't be easy. Andrewa 01:42 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
news item
here is an interesting news item [1] (http://www.myafghan.com/news2.asp?id=745039645&search=9/28/2003) that maybe someone might want to use for this article. Kingturtle 20:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is the only scripture in the world which has been compiled by the founders of a faith during their own life time.
Is this really unique? Given that this was about a century after the first Sikhs, is it so different from, say, the compilation of the New Testament by early Christians? And what about the Book of Mormon? Josh Cherry 21:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think the quote means to say that the hymns comprising the Granth have not changed since the life-time of the tenth Guru. Also, maybe, that the various hymns making up the Granth were written by the composers themselves, not by later followers (i.e. the Koran and the Bible were not written by Mohammed or Jesus or Moses or etc., but by followers). Too, I believe Mormons are considered a Christian sect. In any case Mormons believe the book was translated by Joseph Smith from a book compiled by a third party. It's been a long time since I read it but I do not believe the third party was a witness to the original events. —dcn, 3 Aug 2004
- After a bit of reflection it seems to me that the Janam Sakhis, "Life Stories," of Guru Nanak are the most similar Sikh works comparable to the Koran or the Bible. They relate events of the life of Guru Nanak as well as containing some of his poetry. Some may have been written during the life of Nanak but many were composed after his death by his most devoted followers. —dcn, 3 Aug 2004
- The Koran was not written by followers of Mohammed, insofar as it was not -composed- by them. The composition was the spoken word of Mohammed himself, inspired by God, and since the Muslims believe that the text itself was composed by divinity and that the poetry of the text is itself testamental, it is reasonable to assume that they would preserve the original Arabic text as spoken by Mohammed to the extent possible. This is analagous to the Guru Granth Sahib, which is the revealed word of god as given to prophets (the gurus). The Janam Sakhis would be better compared to the canonical biographies of Mohammed composed in the century or so after his death, e.g. Abu Jafar al-Tabari. The Gospels would compare. The Christians have no corresponding text to the Koran or the Granth. Graft 20:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. You are correct. The believers certainly believe that and an impartial observer would admit to almost as much. The point so inadequately attempted was that, unlike other religions, the Sikh scriptures were written down during the life-times of the founders. They alone determined which writings (whether Sikh, Hindu, or Muslim) were divinely inspired. —dcn, 4 Aug 2004
This was a very good article but needs editing to eliminate some redundancy (and a little evangelism around the edges, but that was kind of sweet!)
Regarding NPOV, I wouldn't consider the french laws banning religious symbols an act of prosecution towards the Sikh community. These laws are explicitly not aimed at any religion, but instead forbid wearing any kind of religious symbols of any kind or religion (not like Germany, for example, where some states try to pass laws that will ban the Hijab but will allow Christian symbols). It is therefore an act underlining the secularistic attitude of the french state. Nonetheless, this will be difficult to be followed by faithful Sikhs, hence it would be good if someone would edit this article in a way that expressed how important it is to wear a turban (afaik, it is not a commandment to wear a turban but just to wear your hair uncut. But i'm not really sure, especially as I heard in the radio today that five Sikh students have been expelled from school in France as they were refusing to attend school without a turban.)
- Please, gimmie a break. The law was enacted specifically to prevent the wearing of the Hijab even if it is a generic law against "religious symbols". It inadvertantly affected Sikhs. I think that maybe the persecution/discrimination section should be moved to another page and NPOV'ed a bit. Sukh 11:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Islamic view
Do Muslims consider Sikhism some kind of Islamic heresy? People of the Book? Dhimmis?
- I've read somewhere that Sikhs may be considered People of the Book, but generally most Muslims and Sikhs don't agree with this. And as far as my understanding goes, any religions after Islam can never be 'recognised'. Also, if you have a look at "Similarities in belief" in the People of the Book, you'll notice the only thing Sikhism has in common is the belief in one God. Sukh 11:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Sikh sex-"childlike curiosity"
"at all times" they must wear these?
What if they're having sex? Do they wear all the Ks then? And I've always wondered with the sword - surely that'll have to a) get sharpened sometime so they'll have to take it off; or b) when they go through those metal detectors-what then? Surely they cant take them through? Or maybe Sikhs dont travel? I dunno. Explanations would be awesome --Wonderfool 16:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Air India allows Sikhs to carry their weapon.
- For practical reasons, most Sikhs will obviously remove some of the 5Ks - for example when flying. Although this isn't always the case. And for most Sikhs the Kirpan is ceremonial and doesn't need much in the way of sharpening. As to whether it is worn when having sex - well I'm not sure to be honest. I have never asked. Sukh 11:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed this text from the section on Sikhs Today as it didn't seem relevant in the context:
Sikhs operate a security firm, Akal Security, that provides security for major facilities such as Los Angeles International Airport. Another Sikh security firm provided security at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City until it was destroyed April 19, 1995.
Isidore 19:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ek Onkar
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)
Entry Defaced
Some 'thing' has seriously defaced this article with obscene comments and remarks. I don't know much about Sikhism to even attempt to fix it and I created an account here simply to alert those interested in the integrity of this article.
Meat Eating
I thought that being a vegetarian was a major part of the sikh religion, but nothing of this nature can be found in this sikhism article?
- There is lots of debate about this - just do a quick Google search to find out. I think in general being a vegetarian is more of a cultural as opposed to a religous thing (although people will argue otherwise). Lots of Sikhs do eat meat. Sukh 11:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
nanak_panthis ?
Who are nanak panthi sadhus ? What is their relation with Sikhs ? Ramashray 12:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
People who only belive about Guru Nanak and not the other guru's.
announcing policy proposal
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)
NPOV?
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)