Talk:Sikhs

Please remove grammer mistakes. Post a commanding photo of a sikh.

Please Comment

Sikh , non-sikhs or anything else, please comment on the following. REMEMBER THIS IS JUST AN DISCUSSION NOT PROTEST OR POINTING OUT OF FAULTS OR CRITISISM. I am just an 18 year old boy who has no resources and want to discuss the following with responsible, intelligent people in a FRIENDLY manner. The Sikhism scene in punjab is quit worsening these days.I mean Sikhism was Made to remove all the flaws and meaningless rituals of the society then but now people are building more of these just by wrong interpretations.

REMEMBER ITS JUST A DISCUSSION

• Guru Nanak Dev ji made the whole religion to remove belives like IDOL WORSHIP . But i've heard gurudwaras that keep Datun (kinda toothbrush) near the Guru Granth Sahib, Bath the whole Book (and flow it in water when it gets old) and thousands of people bow down to the book with their head covered and do not turn their backs toward the book ( with all my respects) as if all the gurus are actually in it . TELL ME ISNT THIS IDOL WORSHIP ITSELF ? what else did guru nanakji proved when he moved the whole Mecca along as the muslims moved his feet . We are idol worshiping . GURU GOBIND SINGH JI says Guru maane Granth ( Guru = Granth - a holy book). Its a metaphor. You can evaluate it as if the Granth is the next and only guru. But their also lies a deeper meaning that Guru is as diverse , powerful and true as a granth

• Caste and groups have flourished to an unimaginable level. We now have diffrent types of sikhs - Jatt Sikh , Ravidasia Siikh etc etc. Even today in the rural punjab , its still unimaginable that a intercaste marriage occurs. Why is that happening. Instead of resolving the issue of caste we are impowering it by stating that Jatts are the real sikhs because they are brave or something like All minorities or low castes are the real sikhs because the Panj Piyare( the 5 chosen ones) were all those. Isnt this a strict violation to the sayings of the GURUS .

• I DEEPLY RESPECT PEOPLE KEEPING ALL THE K'S but Why do we only consider only Turban wearing men, who dont cut their hair , keep a kirpan , wear a kada ,etc etc to be a Full Sikh. Does the Guru Granth Sahib state somewhere that a sikh should do that? Did gurunankji or his followers said that ? Come on they were Saints and they had their lifestyle so as to appear a man of god (or saadhu,sage ,saint whatever you call it) to the public then.That is why their depiction in art resembles a sardaar. All the other people in the baani like Guru Kabeer Das and Guru Ravidas etc are not considered SIKH and their followers are Denied the facilities of SIKH COMMUNITY . We have Gurudwaras where the priest denies holy rituals (marriage , crimination ) just because the person is a MONNA ( dont keep the K's). That really is depressing. Have you Honestly seen any MONNA reading the guru granth sahib ? no right !! Why ? Because they are not allowed to .WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Is the Beard or the turban going to read the baani ? SIKHISM WAS CREATED TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION AND WE ARE ONLY PRODUCING IT MORE.

I know Guru Gobind Singh ordered that but it was then to make the KHAALSA , an army . These were so designed to make a strict code of Discipline in the infantry . I BELIEVE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIGION. Beside WITH ALL MY RESPECTS Guru Gobind Singh ji's Baani is not even in the Guru Granth Sahib , his baani is in Vichtra Natak and other similiar installments and he even goes to a point cursing everyone who calls him guru shall go to HELL. He only considered himself of being an army leader . So why a discrimination is a Sardaar and a Monna

• the purest thing i found in the granth was to get the essence of god through a guru in person. but we are neglecting this and we are bowing our heads to a book ( I dont want to hurt anyone , i state this with all my respects for other people's belives). No body needs to technically go to a gurudwara , you can have god right next to you when you are meditating with the purest devotion right in you home just with a help of a guru. But what are we doing. We are Making the golden temple more GOLDEN when the money could have flourished 1000s of poor poeple's home and doing all the Sharaahn (stuff in the outer world) . I mean out of 10 sikh people i meet only 0.5 know what a guru is and what meditation is.( but that can be true maybe in only my case and maybe i havent met the more of those people) . We are wearing a turban, keeping all the K's and doing every thing worldy while deep inside our hearts we are becoming more political, more corrupt and more proud and egoistic. Something has to be done about that. I and my fellow youth have the power to bring back the True meaning of the word SIKH - a student.

Anudeep Toora - A sikh only at the heart but a monna at the world

Finally done with Sidhu

I want to thank the person who removed the photo of Navjot Singh Sidhu . I tried it several times but someone replaced it back .Although he was a good cricket celebrity but he aint that good to symbolise the whole Sikh Community. He also Talked to much though and we have better people to put their.I mean no photo of the Ten gurus , No photo of the Bhagats , just Sidhu !!! that was unfair to people who have made major and significant contributions and even had sacrificed their lives. Dont they desrve just a picture on wikipedia. PLEASE someone put a photo there of those people not some cricketer.

Sikhism Website

In the past I have tried to add the link to my site on Wikipedia, but apparently everytime I added the link, someone deleted it. My website address is *Kabira - It's an amazing Sikhism related website with wonderful pages relating to the Sikh religion and it has fascinating Sikhism related pictures as well as links. Anyone who wishes to monitor my site or check if it contains any inaccuracy may do so. PLEASE DON'T DELETE MY WEBSITE FROM WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.42.53 (talk • contribs)

WP:NOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_original_research Check that out. 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Archived discussions

• Archive 1: May 2004 to June 2006

Recent changes by Inderjeet1012

I've reverted your changes because:

• Replacing the images with an image that has questionable copyright status is likely to be illegal
• Persistent use of honorifics such as 'Ji'
• POV statements such as "The great sikhs include the martyrs like "
• Excess repitition of Sikhism's disapproval of the caste system

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Turban issue?

I'm not sure how much of an issue this is outside of the United States, but I wonder if we should include a section about how turbans have led Sikhs to be mistaken for Arabs and/or Muslims and consequently subject to harassment. At the very least, turbans should be mentioned in the article if they are part of the customary (or required) dress for Sikhs. I know very little about the religion, so I don't feel I'm qualified to write such a section myself. -Juansmith 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself. BTW, I do believe it's primarily a problem in the US only. BTW, although I'm not a Sikh myself, I do know a little bit about Sikhism and to my knowledge the turban is not required. However Sikhs are not supposed to cut their hair. For men, the turban is therefore a good way to keep the hair tidy. Nil Einne 12:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics as a Sport

"and are significant participants in sports such as field hockey, cricket and politics."

Maybe in certain cultures politics is considered a type of sport? Why is this statement made?

loL. BTW, please sign your posts! MrASingh 00:57, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism Website

I have tried to add a link on Wikipedia, but someone deletes it. The website address is *Raj Karega Khalsa Network - It's a popular Sikhism related website with a lot of multimedia being provided by Sikhs worldwide as well as articles on Sikhism. Please don't delete the link as it is an important site providing people with free sikh multimedia and articles from which they can learn about the Sikh religion and is directly related to the page it was posted on.

Hardev Singh Khalsa

Thanks for the link to your web site. However, please read Wikipedia:External links. Specifically the point:

"A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."

Please don't add your own web site. This is tantamount to using Wikipedia as an advertising board. If other, unrelated contributors feel your site is good enough to be added, they will do so. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an above average site on Sikhi and should be on the external link section - I have no direct link with the author of the site. But the site is included on Sikhiwiki as it is regarded as a good site with a broad range of material. --Hari Singh 13:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Racial Classification of the Sikhs

I remember that, according to British law, the Sikhs (as are, I believe to an extent, the Jews) are regarded as having distinct racial classifications to other groups.

Discriminating against Sikh individuals (and, also, I think, Jews) is regarded as racial discrimination.

That is to say, the notion of Sikhs as a racial grouping does exist (Hopefully, there would be a way to define this using modern day science. But it would probably be best not to).

AsSingh | 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sikhs are protected as an ethnic group (which is not the same as a racial group). That is, they share a common linguistic, religious, and cultural background. I don't think it has anything to do with a genetic definition of race, which would be problematic anyway because there are Sikhs that are not in anyway genetically related to the people of the Punjab. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly beg to differ with your viewpoint Sukh. There are a great many logical and scientifically well-founded reasons for thinking of Sikhs as being a racial group. Firstly, Sikh history is deeply embedded and intertwined with the Sikh struggle for survival and independence at the hands of a great many imperialist and other expansion forces that intended to subdue (or, in some cases eliminate) the Sikh people and those of the surrounding Punjab region (the most obvious ones being the Mughals, who weren't known for their hospitality).

The point I suppose that I am trying to make here is that, despite significant ethnic diaspora from that region throughout the world, there are many Sikhs who are still, in a very scientifically verifiable way, linked by blood and genetics (if I programmed a clustering algorithm to search through the genome sequences of 2 Sikh individuals, there would a much higher level of similarity than there would be between 2 randomly selected individuals from the human population). The reason that there would be such a high *scientifically verifiable* link between any 2 Sikh individuals separated by such large distances would be due to the *historically* high level of selection pressure present in that part of the world before the 1900s (there are, of course, large areas of human genetic anthropology that discuss and examine this, but conversations along these lines get pretty messy pretty quickly). I suppose that the point that I am trying to make here is that if a computer tells you that 2 individuals are similar, and it arrived at that conclusion in an agreeable way (using colour-blind and widely accepted pattern recogntion algorithms that you have no problem using when you implement OCR for reading scanned images and converting them into text), then it is difficult to accuse a non-emotive agent (like the computer) of being racist or subjective.

As for your last point, viz : "I don't think it has anything to do with a genetic definition of race, which would be problematic anyway because there are Sikhs that are not in anyway genetically related to the people of the Punjab. "

This is quite a peculiar point. It is a general instance of stating that a general rule is absolutely incorrect (the notion of the Sikhs being a race), just because it is not absolutely correct (there are 'Sikhs' who are not genetically related to Punjabi populations). Something along the lines of 'the law of the excluded middle'. However, there is a problem with this viewpoint in that when the general rule is something along the lines of 'driving at speeds much higher than 100mph will kill you', it is possible to state that that rule is incorrect as there are 'people who drive at several hundred miles per hour and do not kill themselves'. Obviously, there are only a small fraction of people who can afford to deviate from the rule signficantly. That is to say, morally, most would agree that the general rule is a good norm, but there will always be a minority who 'don't fit in'. This does't mean that the general statement is false - statistically, by some realistic and universally respectable measure, the general rule might be 99.9999% correct (so 99% of Sikhs are, say, within 1 or 2 'blood linkages from one another', a high level of certainty by most human standards).

Thus, mathematically and as objectively as possible, the Sikhs are pretty much a race as much as most white people write on their censuses that they are members of the 'white race' (despite the fact that Eastern Europeans, Russian, Ukrainians and Yugoslavians have been busy killing each other for years, whereas most Sikhs have been living relatively politically stable lives since the independence of India, apart from odd occasions).

OK, this could turn into a messy strand or thread. Certainly I'm not saying that Sikhs are not Indian (they are quite spread out now in India), nor am I saying that they are not a significant ethnic group within India (their over-representation in many strands of cultural life shows to the contrary), but the idea of a white Californian calling himself a Sikh is as contrary to any sensible Sikhs' natural instincts as is the idea that Sikhs have not historically had to live by the fact that they were quite different from a lot of the peopl who wanted to move into their territory (Afghans, Mughals, the British, and the list goes on....).

Note: The above is not meant to be a scientific essay, but it is meant to outline some ideas/threads that would allow for a scientific basis for Sikh identity. This basis seems pretty related to blood to me.

AsSingh | 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Singh

Meaning of Singh "is not Lion" We are not wild animals. Singh means Knight. Adding singh to a person's name, after baptized is given a honour to person "Like, Sir in english and sahib in indian languages" Singh means Star " in Cantonese" He has attitudes like a worrior, army personal, a disciple, then to be call "a Sikh". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.107.103 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the literal translation of Singh is Lion. It derives from the Sanskrit Sinha (or Simha) meaning the same. If you have established for your alternative interpretation, please provide them. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree with Sukh. SINGH definitly means Lion in sanskrit. It is just used as Lion Symbolizes Bravery. -Anudeep Toora

Added back information on surnames

I have added back information on surnames since Sikhs indeed use "Singh" and "Kaur" as a middle name. 192.206.28.62 01:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The information on Singh should be restored to the entry. It is helpful for readers, who shouldn't be forced to go to the discussion page for it. --April 21, 2007

ethnicvity

Are all sikhs punjabi?

all sikhs are not punjabi, you can be sikh and not be punjabi, you can be punjabi and not be sikh.

also sikh are not a race, there are white people (like in canada) who have converted to sikhism and they are considered sikh, they may stick out becuase there white and have turbans but they are not considered any less sikh, if fact white converts are usally more devout. many sikhs sitll do believe in caste, for instance a rajput-sikh and a jat-sikh are NOT considered the same race or ethnicity or anything, there considered as having the same religon but different ethnicity

Sikh Rajputs: Hinduism, Sikhism and Punjabi Hindu Rajputs

Punjabi Hindus hold Sikhism in high regard, many Punjabi Hindus not only in India but worldwide today visit their local Gurudwaras regularly and adhere to the preaching’s of the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus from invaders. There has been a long standing practice in Punjab which still continuous where Hindu families give their first born son to the Guru to be baptized as a Sikh and join the Guru’s army of protectors. Many Punjabi Rajput families too have been giving their sons to be enrolled in the Guru’s Army and baptized as Sikhs. Thus there are many Hindu, Punjabi Hindu Rajput and Punjabi Hindu Mair Rajput families whose kin are proud followers of Sikhism today. Thus there are many Sikhs who call themselves "Sikh Rajputs" today.

Atulsnischal 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have commented above is not very true. Even though Sikhs have protected Hindus and other oppressed people from the tyrant kings your statement "Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus from invaders" is wrong. Sikhism started with the first master Guru Nanak and his philosophy of doing away with useless rituals in which the society he was born in got involved, believing in just one omnipotent, omnipresent, formless GOD, working for the society, giving away caste system and considering all humans as equal, considering women as equal to men etc. There is no practice of giving the elder son to become Sikh by Hindus in Punjab at the present, this statement is again wrong. There is no thing as Sikh Rajput, where are you getting this information from? This is totally against the philosophy of Sikhism as it does not believe in classifications like the one you are mentioning. Whoever is doing such classification does not understand the principles of Sikhism. A. S. Aulakh^Talk 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend, however much you may seek to deny this, it is a fact. Yes, Sikhism is an independent religion today. But, the influence of Hinduism cannot be DENIED. Your point on there being no practice among Punjabi Hindus raising their eldest son as a Sikh is wrong too. Yes, due to religious fanatics (both Hindus and Sikhs), this tradition has all but died out. But to say that it never existed is WRONG. I am myseld testament to this. I belong to a Arora-Khatri family and let me assure you that my "par-dadas" and "par-nanas" included Sikhs too. Your comment infuriates me especially because it is people like you who seek to deny Sikhi's Hindu heritage. YES, SIKHISM IS AN INDEPENDENT RELIGION. All of us accept that. It is however people like you, who need to accept that the founder of the faith was born into Hinduism, his followers (in most part) were Hindus and finally, the bulk of converts to Sikhism in the following centgury after Guruji founded Sikhi (including your own caste, the so-called "Jutt Sikhs" (If there are no Sikh Rajputs, there should be no Jutt Sikhs too.) were Hindus.

A piece of advice: Do not use "Aulakh" in your name if you do not believe in caste. People like you (and also Muslims and Christians) have always browbeaten Hinduism with this "Caste System stick". And like shameless hypocrites you continue to call yourself Jutts, Khatris, Aroras, Mazhabis, Rangrehtas, Churahs, Chamars, Kambojs....I do not need to go further.

Dear (what should I call you? IP Address!), please read my previous comment carefully, where did I say that there was no example of Punjabi Hindus raising one son as a Sikh? There might be some examples in the past; what I am saying is that it is not true today (which was reflected by the comment above). I agree, that religious fanatics do harm but I do not agree to your so called "influence of Hinduism on Sikhism". Yes Guru Nanak was born in a Hindu family, but why do you choose to neglect the fact that he did not accept most of the tenets of the religious affiliation in which he was born? Read Guru Granth Sahib carefully yourself (without depending on the "sants") you will yourself find out the truth.

Also, the statement "Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus....." is an insult of the philosophy of Guru Nanak. Sikhism is not a religion by the warriors, its other way round - its the Sikh Philosophy which has produced the warrior who have fought tirelessly against the oppressors. Also, if you do a little more research, you will come to know that Sikh philosophy also does not believe that one becomes a warrior, priest, teacher, Sikh etc just because he/she was born to one. In fact, one becomes what he/she is from his/her own beliefs and practices.

Towards the end of your comments your language is going quite explicit. I need not get involved into the war of words as to an avid researcher and one who strives for truth, it will eventually become clear that Sikhism and Hinduism does not go hand in hand. Yes, it is true that Sikhs do not (or should not) hate and ostracize Hinduism but anyone saying "Sikh's Hindu heritage" .."influence of Hinduism on Sikhism" kind of things is, I believe, simply wrong and is either part of or is a victim of propaganda.

Also, most of the last names like Randhawa, Sandhu, Pannu etc. come from the name of the villages in the Punjab region, there is nothing I have mentioned which may provoke your attack on me unless you are venting your frustrations. Thanks for calling me a "hypocrite" that is what exactly Swami Dayanand Saraswati called Guru Nanak. That off course, does not make me Guru Nanak, but yes it gives inspiration and knowledge how people get explicit without even knowing the facts. Cheers! A. S. Aulakh^Talk 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So I am a victim of propaganda, eh? Well, if I am, so are u sir. I know your location. Let me guess: Kaneda, Amreekka, Englaand? Vancouver? Toronto? London? Birmingham? New York? I presume you are living there on "grounds of political asylum".

I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN as to whether Hinduism and Sikhism are the same religion or not. As such Bhai Kahan Singh of Nabha, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, "Sant" Bhindranwale and "Baamani" Indira Gandhi decided that long ago. Also, the Punjabi Hindu community today no longer cares about the long intercourse we have had with Sikhs. If you do not care, why should we?You have your own faith and have full rights to practise it. That has been one of the strongest advantages for Hinduism: Religious freedom. We have not inherited the intolerance that goes along with some religions of the world, namely of the "My God is the one true God", "My religion is the best religion", "Idolatry is a sin" and "We are not polytheists" types.

But, when I talk about, the "so-called" influence of Hinduism on Sikhism, I am referring to two different perspectives:

(a) The Religious:

The Holy Granth, which is full of allusions to Hindu myth and folklore from various Hindu texts such as the Vedas, the Puranas, the Upanishads and others. I remember listening to a discourse by Gyani Sant Singh and he kept referring to various passages in the holy book, which had referrences to the much-maligned "Hindu gods and goddesses".

(b) The Sociological:

Please understand also, that when I talk of the Hindu influence on Sikhism, I particularly emphasize on the "Hindu Social System", which is very different from "the Hindu religion". From a sociological perspective, the Sikh faith was very much a part of the Hindu Social System. For that matter even the Muslims and Christians of South Asia, have ingrained a lot of practises which set them apart from their counterparts across the world.

As for you point of there being "some" examples of Hindu families in the past raising their sons as Sikhs, well please answer a simple question: Did the Sikh people appear out of nowhere? Was there some miracle and the entire Sikh qaum was born? No. Even if you do not agree with the "Hindu families-raising-eldest-son-as-an-Amritdhari-Sikh", you can at least agree with the point that most converts to Sikhism, were Hindus. Khushwant Singh, in his "History of the Sikhs - I", documents the fifth Guru's travels in the Punjab, during which he founded four towns (Amritsar, Kartarpur, Sri Hargobindpur and Tarn Taran) and also "brought into the Sikh fold, hundreds of thousands of Jat peasants of Majha, the sturdiest peasants of the Punjab." Now, before they became Sikhs, they must have been Hindus, or Muslims ( Although I doubt whether any Muslims, especially during those periods of the Mughal era, when Islamic fanaticism was at its peak, would have converted to Islam. The only notable example that I can come up with is about the Muslims of Sirhind, a substantial number of which, after the Battle of Chappar Chiri, became Sikhs to avoid massacre at the hands of Banda's forces).

I have never agreed that Sikhism was born as a religion of warriors. When that issue comes up, you have to look up to which kind of Sikhism are talking about: The peaceful mission of Nanak, which sought to unite Hindus and Muslims and do away with injustices and evils in the society? Or Gobind Rai's Khalsas, a movement dedicated to remove Mughal tyranny and hegemony from the Punjab?

This my dear friend brings me to the point that I made about castes in Sikhism. The Gurus did verry much say that Caste was anathema to Sikhs. But the system was so deeply ingrained in every quarter of South Asian society that even religion could escape its virus. I know jolly well that Pannu, Dosanjh, Gill etc. are village names in Punjab. But,

Let us suppose there are eight Sikh Sardars by the following names:

• Daljit Singh Bedi
• Jaswant Singh Arora
• Gurshaan Singh Bhatia
• Sardul Singh Minhas
• Moninder Singh Cheema
• Raminder Singh Virdi
• Iqbal Singh Chhibber
• Nawab Singh Ahluwalia

Now, surely Bedi, Arora, Bhatia, Minhas, Cheema, Virdi, Chhibber and Ahluwalia are not village names. Why are they there in the first place then?

And finally, on my family background. Well, yes, I have been born into a family that follows the teachings of the Arya Samaj. But my parents have never coerced me into following any set of rituals. No wonder, I am a "self-professed" agnostic and only believe in the following maxim: "God did not create man. But Man did create God."

All the same I am proud of my Punjabi heritage, my Hindu heritage and even my (lost) Sikh heritage.

I am sorry if any language I used here is inflammatory. But I firmly believe that every religion in South Asia to some extent has been influenced by Hinduism. Nobody can deny it. Yes, we are different now, but we must never forget the past that binds us and divides us in equal measure.

This is my last post in this matter. It was a pleasure to interact with you, Aulakh Sahib. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.129.66 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Images

I think for too long this article has been twisted by editors around the world, each of whom has his own version about Sikhism, Sikh practices and most importantly notable Sikhs whose images should be placed in the image box. Some feel Canadian Sikh MPs' snaps should be displayed. Some are bent upon displaying Dr. Manmohan Singh's photo. I am not implying that the good doctor is not the pride of Sikhs (or for that matter, all Indians). But Sikh history throughout its 500 year old history, is replete with great figures, both men and women, in almost all walks of life.

Therefore, I suggest that experienced editors, who are well-versed in Sikhism should get together and decide once and for all, who should be in that box and make a permanent collage (as in the Punjabi people page). Also, editors should desist from writing their own versions of history on this page, unless they are backed by sufficient evidence. I congratulate all the editors, who worked on the Sikhism article to make it featured. If we cannot make this one featured, we should at least desist from despoiling the work of others.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.129.66 (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Confusing World War Statement

"Sikhs fought in both World Wars, such as, fighting in disproportionately large numbers, approximately 10 fold" this statement at the beginning of the WW1 and WW2 section makes no sense. Disproportionate to what? and ten fold of what? and what is "such as" doing in there?

I tried to look in the referenced article for where they got this but could not locate a similar statement. If no one can clarify this to make sense I may come back and rewrite it altogether. Perhaps inserting this statement "In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded." - Arch NME 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about the Golden Temple?

I'm surprised not to see any link to the Golden Temple in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.217.37.156 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Manmohan Singh

What's the deal with the random picture? Shouldn't there be a caption like... first Sikh PM etc etc. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

are Sikhs born Sikhs?

question: is a child born to Sikh parents automatically viewed as belonging to the religion (as is the case with Judaism or Hinduism), or is there some kind of ceremony that makes someone a Sikh (equivelent to the Christening in Christianity or the whispering of the Adhan into the ear of the infant at birth as with Islam)? If the latter, then I really don't see the point in using the ethnicity group template for this page. If someone is not born a Sikh it really can't be viewed as an ethnic category of any kind. --Krsont 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already a page entitled Sikhism for the religion so if this isn't an ethnic group the pages should be merged. - Arch NME 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the concept of a follower of a religion is seperate from the religion itself; for example there are different pages for Christian and Christianity and Muslim and Islam, even though neither Christian nor Muslim are ethnic categories. My point is that the use of the ethnic template is misleading for this article if being a Sikh has nothing to do with ancestry, not that this article shouldn't exist at all. --Krsont 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a discussion of the origins or history of Sikhs. Mleaning 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV haha! "It can be truly described as the universal religion."

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.112.155.57 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Beant Singh - Satwant Singh

they are black spot on sikhism, they were given duties to protect mrs gandhi. thier act was a shame on sikhism bravery, they could have resgined as body guard and killed her they could have been real brave.

like udham singh who served GEn diar, but he left his job and killed him openely.

i suggest these names must be removed from Achieved Martyrdom for respect of Sikhs

• • • • ------****

Non Sikhs could have different views for Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, but both of them are great heros for Sikhism and their pictures are proudly displayed in Central Sikh Meusuem in Amritsar. Sikhs love both of them to such an extent that Beant Singh's widow was elected as a Member Parliament (of India) with a huge margin immediately after her husband's martyrdom. Her victory echoes sentiments of Sikhs in India.

• • • • ------****

Duplicate Paragraph

The opening text is a complete total duplicate (word for word) with the "Definition" section. I'd suggest deleting the entire "Definition" section and figuring out how to make the introduction text flow around the table of contents. Thought I should leave it to someone who knows how to do the latter. 74.103.98.163 14:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)