Talk:Khalsa/Archive 1

Definition of Khalsa

https://sites.google.com/site/khalsastandardorganisation/ The opening Sentence of Holy Book 'Guru Granth Sahib' formally defines 'Khalsa' as Under :-

One WhoIsARelentlessPenpal^^^^, His(read God's)TrueName Writer, GentlemanTrueToHisName, FearlessLikeALion, FriendOfEvenFoes, Almighty's Living & NonIncarnatingIdol, Self Realised through the grace of TrueIdeas'Language and focused. --59.178.63.226 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singh & Kaur

Sorry, not a sikhism expert, but i was wondering if it was true that the members of the Khalsa adopted the surname Singh if male, or the surname Kaur if female. (I read this in a world religions book) If so, should we mention it in this article? Matt White 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just read the "singh" and "Kaur" articles. Matt White 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this coment into a proper section, also, yes they do. Superbun (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you talked about Singh as Lions the male counterpart, I really feel you should include female counterpart too; that is the Guru associated Kaur with Princesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimratkaur (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsens footnotes

It is quite obvious that you can’t continue to fight after decapitation. Such claims don’t belong in Wikipedia.

2007-02-20 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

are you catholic? Mauji 10:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also have some doubts about this claim, yet i have read the history books and seen the temples in punjab reffering to baba deep singh ji and would also like to hear an explination that would be more realistic, but i also believe that not all thing are as easily explained!! just becouse it sounds ureal dosent meen it is!!!!

they say the allmighty moves in mysteriouse ways, who are we to correct age old history

inda singh london uk [[]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.149.34 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would one explain the belief of Muslims in the wings of Gabriel, and the miraclous birth of Christ, by Catholic Christians.Religions are based on beliefs and faith, not logical conclusions.

The Khalsa fighting force under the command of Guru Gobind Singh fought many battles, in which they were heavily outnumbered.The battle of Chamkaur was fought by Sikhs who numbered only forty, pitched againest atleast a million combined soldiers of Mughals , hill Chiefs and provincial troops.Guru Gobind Singh has stated this fact in Zafarnama, a letter he sent to Mughal Emperor Aurangzab, " but for how long these starved forty sikhs, the bravest people on earth, could continue fighting a million soldiers".This is impossible from a reasonable point of view.But it is what actually happened.And the Guru escaped from un-harmed.

When Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa, he emerged from the tent with blood on his sword.There is no actual recored answer, in any official transcript, as to what happened in that tent. Some people think he slaughtered goats.But it cannot be assumed that he would start a religion on the basic foundation of a LIE.He fought all his life for truth and justice. The spies of Mughal goverenment were also present in that gathering.And in a report that was sent to authorities in Delhi, they mentioned that the Guru actually beheaded the persons, and later interchanged their heads and sewed the heads to bodies.But the firm belief of the Sikhs and their traditions state that the five people were first beheaded and then brought back to life.Ajjay (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is never claimed that the original Panj Pyare were actually beheaded. Even the stories say only that Guru Gobind Singh Ji emerged from the tent with a bloody sword and the Panj Pyare emerged intact later. The source of the blood is not defined as being that of the Panj Pyare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.33.179 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information by vandal: Maahaakal

Proper chronological usage of the term applied. 'Khalsa' is not a Farsi word, al-Khalisa is Arabic but does not have dual Middle-Eastern lexical derivations (Farsi, Arabic and Punjabi are distinct languages) hence removed POV

Please provide Farsi sources, not Sikh pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.2 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are around 119 books that say it is derived from Farsi [1]. And 73 say it is derived from Arabic [2]. A search for "Khalsa Origin" delivers about 775 results [3] and majority of the results associate Khalsa with "Sikhs" and trace the origin of the word to Arabic/Persian

Incase you didn't know, the term "Khalsa" was originally used to refer to lands directly under the control of the Emperor during Delhi Sultanate and Moghul rule. It has been in use in India since start of Muslim Rule. And Kabir was not reffering to Khalsa in his verse in this sense, for which it is used for Sikhs, as directly belonging to their Guru or God. Mahaakaal (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show where I implied (directly or indirectly) that Kabir used the term in any other way? The term was used initially by Kabir before any Guru (as incorporated in the SGGS) BUT you have not provided any Farsi/Dari (Persian) derivative. It may have been used later (as in the definition as provided by Encyclopedia Britanica) but that's not the issue here.

HELP!!! NEEDED for Article on Sikh Rajputs

Someone put a tag on "Sikh Rajputs" article that it will be deleted in five days etc., this article can not be deleted as Sikh Rajputs exist and most claims made in the article are true as well known to local Indians in Punjab only the need is that some interested and knowledgeable editors with access to proper history books etc. can eventually come forward and develop the article properly in time, quoting credible sources. Foreign born and raised editors with no direct local Indian knowledge are requested not to vandalize it as per their own fastly held thoughts and beliefs.

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you belive that the article you mentioned shouldnt be deleted, then discuss it with the person who put the deltion tag on it, don't post about it on another talk page, as the article in question has nothing to do with this article Superbun (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming Dasam Granth is written by Guru Gobind Singh factually incorrect

I've tagged the claim "...Guru Gobind Singh in his book, Dasam Granth" as dubious as the current form of "Dasam Granth" is a collection of incoherent work and there is no certain content which can be called "Dasam Granth". The books circulating around today with this name have several different versions and have gone through several name changes over the period of history. Several notable historians and researchers have show there existed no such book before 18th century and this name and book his highly controversial. As such any such claim that this book is written by Guru Gobind Singh is wrong and extra-ordinary claim. The burden of providing extra-ordinary references and proofs of this extra-ordinary claim lies on the editor who introduces this claim on wikipedia. In some days, this content (marked dubious today) will be removed from wikipedia. If you feel otherwise, please express your views here so that we may discuss the matter further. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of divine powers by Guru Gobind Singh to cut and join heads

The article claims that the Guru cut the heads of "Panj Pyare" and then joined them using divine powers. There is no such consensus among Sikh historians and researchers. Many historians/researchers have mentioned that non of the Sikh gurus ever used any divine powers and their focus was on living a human and hard working life. Use of divine or supernatural powers is against the tenents of Sikhism. Even the Gurus were not beyond these tenents. All such stories circulating today are hearsay without any verifiability. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this is a completely unfounded statement. It was never implied that Guru Gobind Singh Ji (or any of the Sikh Gurus for that matter) had any "divine powers." Such a claim defies the basic beliefs of Sikhism. Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself said the following: "...whosoever regards me as Lord shall be damned and destroyed…I am but the servant of God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.33.179 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have stated it better myself. Reminds me of how people say that Guru Gobind hunted animals to liberate them, but didn't other sikhs hunt as well? Were they also liberating the animals. Something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.62.220 (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Khalsa" (it is Arabic)

In the article it says that the word "khalsa" comes from Persian. But the root word is Arabic, khalis,khalas,ikhlas,mukhlis are some derivations. The meaning of khalis is pure, purified, freed, gained salvation, detached etc...

But that's sure that it must have been passed through Persian.

Ryesiloglu (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)User:ryesiloglu[reply]

Unencyclopedic tone

I have removed unsourced and unencyclopedic sentences from the article intro - these are completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Some examples:

"the pinnacle of the Sikhism"
"only at the will of the Guru"
"by the grace of the Guru"
"mere reflection of free ocean inside"
"free inside, be contained by wordly fears of death!"

Also, removing verse by Guru Gobind Singh, which doesn't even mention the word Khalsa - it clearly talks about all Sikhs. The entire article is full of WP:MOS violations, containing honorifics like "ji" and using poetic descriptions. utcursch | talk 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Poem was "Khalsa Mera Roop Hay Kaas" in the transliteration 'them' is used instead of Khalsa, in the real Punjabi shaabad Khalsa is being mentioned in every line! The poem was clearly quoted. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of that, a poem doesn't belong in the lead section. A line of two is OK in the rest of the article body, but Wikiquote/Wikisource is the correct place for long quotations. utcursch | talk 16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Vickle1777 is hell-bent on adding this back, I have tagged the articles. Please don't remove the tags until the matter is resolved. Here is the rationale:

{{original research}}: The following paragraph, among others, is completely unsourced and full of POV/unencyclopedic tone: "The Khalsa is also the pinnacle of the Sikhism. An individual is commissioned into the Khalsa only at the will of the Guru which means the individual has already, by the grace of the Guru, overcome the inside-evils and therefore is free. The political sovereignty is a mere reflection of free ocean inside a Singh/Kaur. In other words, how could an individual, who is free inside, be contained by wordly fears of death! This is possible only when the Guru accepts an individual as Singh/Kaur by granting the "Amrit" or nectar of immortality. One should be ware that soldiery of Singh/Kaur arises out of Sainthood which is reciprocal of Amrit. Thence a Singh/Kaur is a "soldier like saint" rather than a "saint like soldier"."
{{over-quotation}}: An 18-line poem in the lead section is not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: this section is meant for defining and summarizing the topic.
{{citation needed}}: What is the source for "Khalsa is the final temporal Guru"? Guru Gobind Singh declared SGGS to be the eleventh guru.
{{clarification needed}}: "represented by the five beloved-ones" - unsourced statements, and the non-Sikhs don't know about Panj Piare.

utcursch | talk 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Utcursch is hell bent upon degrading the Khalsa's Guru Status. I am including the following link from the SGPC website. The content clearly defines the Guru's temporal authority bestowed upon the Khalsa and thence the Guru Khalsa. The same content also defines the Guru Granth Sahib's authority. This shall cease your doubts: http://sgpc.net/sikhism/sikhism4.asp Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For non-sikhs to know about Panj-Payare, they simply need to click on it and they shall know it..

It is very important/significant to have a poem here or somewhere because, this poem has been composed by the very being who constituted the Khalsa. For further reading, refer to "Khalsa Mahima" in Dasam Granth.. Guru Gobind Singh uses words like "true-Guru", "beloved-hero" "breath of life" and other praises for the Khalsa. Vickle1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I couldn't find a statement on that page which says Khalsa is "the final temporal Guru" (which implies it is the sole Guru). Here is the relevant text: "The Khalsa was given a position equal to that of the Guru. The Guru consists of two parts : the body and the Name. The Guru nominated the Khalsa, as his body and Guru Granth Sahib as the embodiment the Name. That is why we use the title of Guru-Khalsa." It's SGPC's interpretation which should be used with an attribution, unless you have a direct source (like the one at Guru Granth Sahib#Elevation_of_Adi_Granth_to_Guru_Granth_Sahib) which says Khalsa is "the final temporal Guru".

As for "represented by the five beloved-ones", how would the non-Sikhs go to "Panj-Pyare"? No link, and that article is about five men who are dead. How does the statement make sense to someone who has no idea of the concept? Wikipedia is written for global audience, not Indians, Punjabis or Sikhs alone.

As for the poem, I have already mentioned what the lead section is for - you can read the manual of style page. You can have a sentence like "In a poem, Guru Gobind Singh credits Khalsa with all his victories, ....". But it is highly unencyclopedic to put 18 lines in the intro.

utcursch | talk 14:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch: It seems like your knowledge on case of Sikhs is very limited or superficial. First of all, you agree that Guru Gobind Singh transferred his authority to dual agency of Body and Name. And at the same time you have a problem with "the final temporal Guru". It gives an impression of bias. Because Body is temporal (or temporary and perishes with time) therefore, the word 'temporal' has been deliberatly used. So, I don't see any problem with this.

In case of "Panj Payare", even though the original ones died 300 years ago, the institution still prevails and therefore, it is a valid and significant information. Your point can be considered and the page for "Panj Payare" can be improved.

Also, it is not unencyclopedic to write the thought of the Guru Gobind Singh to give a first hand reference. Also, SGPC being elected body of Sikh politics to manage the Gurdwaras would meen their interpretation presented above carries some weight and therefore can't be neglected. Of Teacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, did you even read the version that you undid? It mentions that SGPC considers Khalsa a Guru, and also mentions Panj Piare. As for the wording, you did not even address my argument above, which was that Khalsa is not the Guru. The rest of what you say is original research - find a source that directly supports your statement.

Secondly, please stop reverting the whole bunch of changes, if you have problem with one change.

Also see WP:SOCK. utcursch | talk 13:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch: It is not nice of you to do the same that you preach to others. I have been watching you very closely since last tens of edits. And you don't have any point to make apart from asking references. And the changes you make, it can be smelled that your intention is not good. Even if you are a qualified wiki admin, i would strongly suggest you to not mis-use your powers. As you are an Indian, I would suggest you to take care of India rather than the Khalsa. Of Teacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you have regarded and written that the Khalsa (represented by 5 Beloved) has the spiritual authority, it is absolutly wrong, as wrong as you say 2+2 = 5. The Khalsa has the political/temporal authority. The seat of the Khalsa is the Akal Takhat. You need to do a bit of research before touching the articles especially related to history of South-Asia. Of Teacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those following this thread: Of Teacher (talk · contribs) as been blocked permanently after a sockpuppet investigation. Vickle1777 (talk · contribs) has also been blocked temporarily. utcursch | talk 13:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Utcursch, to be honest I don’t like the edits you are consistently doing to this page.

You can’t use [[cite book|last=Sri Guru Gobind Singh |first= |title=Dasam Granth |publisher= |date= |pages= |url= |isbn=}} to justify a statement. If you do want to reference the Bahitar Natik Granth include the page number at the least.

It also seems that you think that this topic is only supposed to have basic information? Adding information about details always seem to be removed eg denoting the concept of a new lunar month of the Vikram Samvat system and the cited core beliefs of the Khalsa “The Khalsa is expected to perform no ritual, either Hindu or Muslim, and not believe no superstition of any kind but believe in only one God who is the Master and the Protector of all the only Creator and Destroyer” was also removed.

Further you removed references eg from pure and free, and also many other references, why you did this?

Furthermore your writing sounds very criticizing in nature and you don’t seem to believe in the topic making it hard for readers to read.

So please if you want to write something with an encyclopedic tone your view should not come across. The reader should not be able to tell if the writer supports or rejects the concept. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad about the references -- I reverted the article to a wrong version, failing to notice the content added after that version. Thanks for fixing that.

I don't know what you mean by "criticizing in nature" - not a single sentence in my version criticizes the Khalsa.

Anyway, I don't want an edit war, so let me list what is wrong with your version:

"the final temporal Guru/leader of the Sikhs" is wrong because "the" implies that Khalsa is the only Guru of the Sikhs (which is wrong - Guru Granth Sahib is not called "Guru" for no reason)
The statements like this one are unacceptable here -- it doesn't matter if they are supported by a source: "The Khalsa is also the pinnacle of the Sikhism. Once an individual becomes a Khalsa they overcome the inside-evils and the shred weakness of the body, mind, and heart, and become brave as lions." This is an encyclopedic article, not a PR piece.
The article has excessive images in the intro, and many of the files you have uploaded to the Commons are not freely licensed (e.g. File:Sahibzada Ajit Singh Ji battling Gujjars.jpg - this is a modern painting, not the reproduction of a public domain painting)
The authenticity of the "52 Hukams" is questionable, and not supported by any reliable source.

If you don't agree with these points, I suggest we seek a Third opinion

utcursch | talk 02:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch: The temporal authority of Guru Khalsa is one of the basic pillars of Sikhism. A third or any Nth opinion cannot change that. Your point is valid only if it mentions "The final Guru/leader..." but it is "The final temporal Guru/leader...". Do you understand the difference ? It is not criticism. It is distortion of an established religious principle. You are misusing your privileges as an administrator. Jacksinghsully (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Temporal mate, SGGS is the Spiritual Guru, read the first paragraph of this article.

2. You don’t know see this page - it’s a professional way about writing about these extraordinary things. If you disagree feel free to add a cited reference opposing it near the end not with every statement.

3. I agree somewhat with the pictures but not 100%, my perspective is to keep the older primary ones eg, Baba Taru Singh and add a few more images to make a gallery at the very end and move the newly made images and interpretations there to the bottom like {The creation of the Khalsa; initiated by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru.} The pictures are clearly created to be shared and not for commercial use how could you assert that they are not old enough without any evidence? The current setup is good especially for people that have never seen a Sikh or know nothing about the Khalsa.

4. There isn’t a single Singh that doubts the 52 hukams nor is its validity ever doubted the exact origin may be but most of these hukams are easily identifiable in Sikh culture today around the world. The 52 hukams are absolutely necessary as it’s hard to define the code of conduct without commandments.

I don’t think that we need a third option yet as we both seem to be on the same track more less we should be able to compromise. I am a fair guy and will compromise if I can understand your point of view.

I assume number 1 is agreed and number 3 should be agreeable.. get back to me on number 2,4. Number 4 is the most important for me otherwise one would have ::to write out a lengthy summary about Khalsa’s practices and ideology to match the amount of information in those points.

Remember that this is about the interested end reader and what’s best for them. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments - I appreciate you posting your comments in a civil manner unlike Vickle1777. I still have a different opinion, so, I have sought a third opinion. I'm creating a separate section below for others to comment. utcursch | talk 18:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion needed on following points

Article should not have any distortion established religious principles. ("the final temporal Guru/leader of the Sikhs")
- Jujhar.pannu: This should be left as it is: Khalsa is the temporal guru of the Sikhs, while SGGS is the spiritual Guru both are referenced from published sources. Saying non sikhs should be part of the Khalsa Panth is an opinion of Utcursh not of the Sikh faith nor Guru Gobind Singh. Non Sikhs are welcome in the Sikh Panth but Khalsa Panth is only for those who are intiated into the Khalsa and follow the Khalsa's guidelines. Guru Gobind Singh Je said the Khalsa panth to be the next Temporal Guru in Sikh Scriptures and it is a well known fact universally accepted by the Sikh faith. The 'Panj Payre' represent the temporal Khalsa leadership at time of a Sikh baptism everywhere around the world.
- Utcursch: This is an intepretation of the Khalsa Sikhs, who believe that "Guru Panth" consists exclusively of initiated members of the Khalsa (and not other Sikhs). Consequently, it should be mentioned with a sourced attribution (e.g. "According to SGPC, Khalsa is the temporal Guru of the Sikhs, while Guru Granth Sahib is the spiritual Guru.[ref]"). A relevant quote:
  "Sikhs normally employ the phrase Guru Panth in two senses: first, they speak of the Panth of the guru, by which they mean the Sikh community; and second, they speak of the Panth as the guru, by which they mean the doctrine of Guru Panth. [...] For this reason, the elite corpors of the Khalsa has invariably asserted the right to speak authoritatively on behalf of the whole Sikh Panth, although at times Sikhs who do not belong to the Khalsa interpret the doctrine of Guru Panth as imputing spiritual authority to a more broadly defined community." (Jamie S. Scott (15 March 2012). The Religions of Canadians. University of Toronto Press. p. 318. ISBN 978-1-4426-0516-9. Retrieved 21 March 2013.)
  
  For those who are not familar with the topic:
  "...he declared that the Guru henceforth would be the Granth Sahib. The authority would rest on it, and the Panth or community. It was thought that the physical presence of the Guru was no longer necessary but could be mystically present when a group of faithful devotees gathered to sing the hymns of Nanak, and that any decisions reached at these communal meetings, provided they were made in the presence of the sacred scriptures would be accclaimed the will of the Guru. These assemblies became known as the Guru Panth." (Robert Crawford (17 November 2003). What is Religion?. Routledge. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-203-39850-0. Retrieved 21 March 2013.)
  
  Guru Gobind Singh symbolically transferred his authority to the Panj Piare (the initial members of the Khalsa). The eighteenth century work Sri Gur Sobha quotes Guru Gobind Singh as saying that he would assume the form of Khalsa after his mortal life. Based on these, the Khalsa Sikhs claim to exclusively form this "Guru Panth".
Statements like "pinnacle of the Sikhism", Once an individual becomes a member of the Khalsa they overcome the inside-evils and the shred weakness of the body, mind, and heart, and become brave as lions.^[1]
Jujhar.pannu: The first part is basically saying the Khalsa is the ultimate end point of devoted Sikhs which is imporant because people of little knowledge may not be familiar with the context, the next part is a quote and quotes can say whatever they want as long as they are referenced and relevent to the topic. Quotes may only be removed with benift if something better is used in its point. If the user feels the word pinnacle to be subjective I would be alright if the the first statement is changed to - Once a Sikh becomes baptized he is called a Khalsa.

Utcursch: These phrases are completely uencyclopedic and should be removed.
Images in the intro - Utcursh thinks that images are excessive.
Jujhar.pannu: File:Sahibzada Ajit Singh Ji battling Gujjars.jpg is a free image. File:Nishan sahib golden temple.jpg is best suited to depict the Khalsa flag. Saying that the Nishan Sahib is not a flag of the Khalsa is absurd and I find offensive.

Utcursch: Many images uploaded by Jujhar.pannu as PD-Art are not free images, and copyvio (I'll address this issue separately on the Commons). File:Punjab flag.svg (which is Nishan Sahib) is better suited to depict the Khalsa flag (or this one). I never said "Nishan Sahib is not a flag of the Khalsa".
52 hukams mentioned under the section Khalsa#Code_of_conduct
Jujhar.pannu: The Sikh community follows these Hukams worldwide and they are an essential part in understanding the code and concept. There is lots of gain for readers and it can easily be said 90% of readers visiting the page would want to read about these so I suggest adding another line discussing the known acceptance of the hukams and a line mention that the exact origin is not known but it does appear and is mentioned in the following text by these Sikh scholars.

Utcursch: While these are worthy of following, the authenticity of these 52 hukams is questionable. Various Sikh forums have discussions on this topic. To quote User:CorrectKnowledge [4]:
"This book appears to be the earliest modern compilation of Guru Gobind Singh's 52 Hukams purportedly written by Baba Ram Singh at Nanded in 1708 (a later edition/translation is available here). The author of this book claims that he came across these instructions in an old manuscript which, according to various internet forums, nobody has been able to find and was probably lost in 1984. I was hoping to find a claim about such an important historical discovery substantiated in independent works, but there is nothing about it on GBooks. It also seems unlikely that if such a work existed SGPC would ignore it in its compilation of Rehat Maryada published in 1945. To me this appears to be one of the many modern day myths that become a part of popular religion but have no historical or scriptural authenticity; a bit like new Upanishads or modern day Vedic mathematics (not to be confused with mathematics in Vedic period)."

utcursch | talk 18:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a note at WP:NPOVN. utcursch | talk 00:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Singh, Kartar (2008). Life of Guru Gobind Singh. Ludhiana, India: Lahore Bookshop. p. 126.

Jibberish

Can people stop adding not WP:Reliable refernces onto this article. www.sikh-info.com is a classic example of absolute rubbish and driss which is reproduced on other sites. Thanks SH 10:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nirbhauk edits

Nirbhauk: please stop edit warring. Please explain your concerns after checking the cited sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirbhauk: Welcome to wikipedia. Please explain your repeated deletion of sourced content and sources on this talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CushionMail / Js82 edits

@Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93: CushionMail (previously known as Js82) has been reblocked again. I went through the series of edits by CushionMail/Js82 in April 2018 in this article which removed peer-reviewed scholarly sources and sourced content, and added a lot of unsourced content. These, in the past, I was unable to find sources for. If and when your time permits, would you take another look, make an independent attempt to find RS and improve this article further. Or, in case you know of other active editors with resources and background knowledge on Sikhism, would you ping them and invite them to collaborate here. This is an important Sikhism article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you have been going back and forth here?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: What do you mean? Please compare the two versions. I don't think questionable sources such as chardikalaa.com, amritsar.com, scroll.in, patheos.com, etc or unsourced paragraphs with OR added by Js82/CushionMail/anyone is acceptable? is it? I don't think removing scholarly sources and the deleting of content summarized from publications from the Oxford University Press, University of Penn Press, Journal of the American Oriental Society, etc by Js82/CushionMail/anyone is acceptable? is it? Aren't quality peer-reviewed scholarly sources necessary for building this article, improving this article further? I welcome your/Kautilya3/Vanamonde/anyone else's feedback and suggestions on how to proceed here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. I noticed the repeated additon and deletion of your edits; I understand that you're carefull, and appreciate a second opinion. I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look; it's too much for me. I trust your ocean of knowledge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JJ: Thanks for the kind words. I hope someone will put in the effort to check the sources, ascertain their quality and what they are stating, then collaborate with me to further improve this article. There is a systematic disruption of Sikhism articles. Peer-reviewed scholarly sources are deleted, blogs or websites or WP:SPS or other WP:QUESTIONABLE sources are then inserted which either do not verify the alleged summary or they simply plug fringe/soap that the scholarly sources do not support. Js82 / Nirbhauk / Bdss / etc has been one such party; but there are others such as 117.223.238.247, Casktopic, etc. For evidence, you can see my AGF effort in these edit summaries and talk page attempts above, which I just recovered from the archive for convenience. Yet, they do the same disruption in wikipedia, without constructively addressing the concern about questionable sources, or the lack of sources, or OR, or other issues in their contributions to this article. The issue is widespread, for example here and here, see the Sikhism main article and its talk page, and other related articles. We can't keep repeating the same edit summaries, the same requests on the talk page in this article and others. A collaborative effort would be much more constructive in helping build this article and other wikipedia articles. @RegentsPark and Dlohcierekim: Since you follow Sikhism articles in your admin capacity, it would help if you can guide here and ping in someone you have spotted who could collaboratively review and build this article further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to unsourced, non-RS and failed verification content

@117.223.238.247: Please stop reverting the article to unsourced, non-RS blogs/websites such as chardikalaa.com and amritsar.com, and failed verification content as you did here. You reverted to much unsourced content and OR such as:

There is also another word from Arabic "خالسا" which is pronounced as "Khalsa" and is adapted in Punjabi/English/Hindi and many other languages. So, there are two different words in Arabic: "خالسا" (Ḫālsā) and "خالصة" (Ḫālisa(h)). Furthermore, there is a word in Persian "خالص" meaning "pure" and pronounced as "Ḫalis". A reader of Urdu can testify the "Ḫalis" in the Persian script and language as described below.

If you have concerns with any scholarly sources that have been added to the article, please explain. Please do not edit war. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be so sure , reading from shahmukhi and knowing of that term used/is used to listening for to sufi/kirtan music as a syn for Sarmast , that word akin more "trance/esctatic " is adj, part of speech خلسه" ایدر خلسه برا خلسه / -خلسه" "im in trance! going in estatacy/ Going in esctacy" Khalsa is a shortening and here,خو لا یش". its base form. Also fits semanticly that their head whent with/taken by Gru Gobind sing

Synonom for Sarmast, and پک Pak is "pure" in persian, why go further then that wich was used in the 18thcentury and still is? and "خالص" is from arabic khalz- , ya khalaz, and its not used as "pure" for its a verb, closes to pure is it like meaning " emptying/freeing " but verbal noun-form anyways and ya khalz "forget about it" and "Khalz-e/ Khalz-a" means its lose, "like the shiftgear is" خالص lose, and starting like this (ma-khalz--). Can a reader of urdu testify does he live in Makhalzunastan or Pakistan? :=)

Just adding further info on the talk page since noticing that may be these farsi etomolgy from India/pak/punjabi pages(specially punjabi) mostly from tradition or with source then its edited in wrongy=writing a noun but the whole title in english. For the non farsi speakers ( , .Bennanak88 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Nanakpanthis.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nimratkaur.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsa as the 12th Guru of the Sikhs

There is discussion amongst experts and practitioners in Sikhism that the Khalsa was meant to be viewed as a Guru in of itself, as the Guru Khalsa Panth, with the Guruship being passed on to both the Guru Granth and Guru Panth (with evidence given in the links below to support this view). How can we work towards including this information in this article and other articles relating to Sikhism? With how they are currently written, the Khalsa Panth's authority as a Guru is missed entirely.

Please see this presentation by the Sikh Research Institute, the speaker is Inderpreet Singh:

1) https://sikhri.org/podcasts/sikh-cast-ep90-12-gurus-series-guru-khalsa-panth

Also, this two-part educational lecture on the topic at-hand by Baljeet Singh at Basics of Sikhi:

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iblVM0YBaM

3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tthFldR2wrk

Finally, an investigative article from July, 2021 by SikhNet. The author is Harijot Singh Khalsa:

4) https://www.sikhnet.com/news/recognizing-12-forms-our-guru

ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Singh, Kartar (2008). Life of Guru Gobind Singh. Ludhiana, India: Lahore Bookshop. p. 126.

[1]