Talk:Guru Granth Sahib

Authorship of the Guru Granth Sahib

• 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)

Gurmukhi

"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)

Adi Granth

What is called the Guru Granth Sahib by some Sikhs is also called the Adi Granth by other Sikhs and by many scholars. It would be helpful to the article if someone knowledeable could clarify the subject. 12.74.168.70 14:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies things:

"The Adi Granth is often — incorrectly — used to refer to the Guru Granth Sahib. The Adi Granth only forms the portion of the Guru Granth Sahib which Guru Arjan compiled in 1604."

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the picture of the Adi Granth (as beautiful as it is) should be replaced by a picture of the Guru Granth Sahib, as that is what the article is about. It only adds confusion to the issue. Mandy Kaur 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Do you have suitable picture available to you? One that you hold rights to? If not, I'll see if I can source one from a free source. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

change it

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)

How can you call the Guru Granth Sahib ji a book?? When in the Sikh religion it tells us to refer to the Granth as Guru? its like saying Muhammed is not a prophet, he is just a human being, how disrepectful, no? - instead of pages, scriptures would be more appropiate word to use, and book? seriously no. - 'Holy scriptures' maybe if nessacary?

Guru Granth Sahib Ji

• Should the title be more respectful? Is Guru Granth Sahib Ji more appropriate? BookwormUK 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• No, we don't add honorifics such as 'Ji' as Wikipedia aims to be a neutral encyclopedia. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• This edit has raised this issue again. Anthony Appleyard 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

NEUTRAL? what a ridiculous arguement. The fact is the full name is Guru Granth Sahib Ji not Guru Granth Sahib. Its written in Sikh prayers 'Guru Granth ji Maneyoo' - please change it ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.188.208 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of History and Writing Section

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)

• I have found and restored the original, by ferreting back through the history. The damage happened in this edit: [1] Anthony Appleyard 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Languages

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)ahassan05

I thought it was written in Punjabi and Hindi! Or perhaps Urdu: I am not sure if Hindi was defined as a language of it's own in that time. Apparantly, many more language were used. Do anyone have a list of all language used to write Guru Granth Sahib? If possible I also want to know to what extent they where used.

2007-03-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

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)

Hindus trying to make SGGS look like a Hindu book

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!!

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)

• I have this controversial matter in a new file Hindu influence on the Guru Granth Sahib, so the disputing parties can argue about it there without continually disturbing the page Guru Granth Sahib. Anthony Appleyard 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Page Hindu influence on the Guru Granth Sahib was deleted as a copyvio; but its text is also at http://www.topix.net/forum/religion/hindu/TTIKLKNR3I2A8KB1S . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of “Guru”

The explanation of the word guru’s origin is a folk etymology. Actually, “guru” simply means “teacher” in Sanskrit.

2007-07-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Lead paragraph

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)

what's stoping you? but please make sure you don't mess up anything. Ajjay (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Urdu Wikipedia

• 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)

Juristic person

Here is references [2] (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)

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)

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)

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)

So how do you think it should appear?Ajjay (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I made this edit. What do you think? Relata refero (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Insecticide and fungicide

• 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)

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)

"Sant Bhasha"

Sant Bhasha is not a language, 220.227.179.5. As your own source states, it is "a melange of various dialects, often coalesced under the generic title of Sant Bhasha." The SGGS is written in archaic but recognizable and generally comprehensible Punjabi. Languages change rapidly through time; just because Early Modern (medieval) English is difficult for modern English readers to comprehend doesn't make it a separate language. Really, the difference between modern and SGGS Punjabi is smaller in comparison. Renaming old dialects with academic new terms suggesting a bigger difference than there actually is is easy to do. I have read much of the SGGS as well as several family members, and authorities from my Gurdwara have also agreed that is is more or less Punjabi. Twisting your own sources' words will not change this. You also show an annoying tendency to overstate the presence of other languages appearing in the SGGS compared to what the predominant language is -- Punjabi. Another of your sources states that Sant Bhasha is "contained" in the SGGS. Other languages definitely appear in the tome but rarely for more than a passage, and frequently only a few lines here and there. What you have to understand is that many pirs and bhagats of other faiths were asked to contribute, and in their own languages. I'm not sure what your purpose is for all these actions but if they are subversive I will call you out on it. Stop misquoting your sources, and don't question the quality of my edits, seeing that you have made poor ones yourself. I am more than able to admit a mistake, but my motivations are for the betterment of the article, as opposed to posting sources that you misquote to further an agenda, and assuming that sources make your edits ironclad. It depends on what the sources say, not a personal theory based on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3swordz (talk • contribs) 10:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you are removing references and adding information without any citations from reliable sources, but your "motivations are for the betterment of the article". And I am adding citations, but I have "an agenda"! Please learn to assume good faith.

As for the language, I know that Sant Bhasha is not a language, that's why I added "a melange of various dialects, often coalesced under the generic title of Sant Bhasha". What is your source that only "Punjabi" is the predominant language while the use of other languages is "cursory". Please stop distorting facts. The language "Punjabi" is different from the language of the SGGS.

Please note that Sikhism is a very modern religion, and does not have any official liturgical language. We don't revere any language as the divine language. The Sikh Gurus never believed in the exclusivity of their preachings, and traveled far and wide to spread their message to peoples of different cultures in their own native languages. The Gurus did not believe in the ideas of any language being 'sacred' or 'special'.

All the sources of creation, and all languages meditate on Him, forever and ever. (Guru Arjan Dev, Asa, pg. 456)

You non-Sikhs should try to understand this. Unlike your Hinduism, our literature is not limited to a single language like Sanskrit which 99% of you don't understand. Unlike Christianity or Islam, our Guru didn't limit themselves to Hebrew-Latin and Arabic. Our Gurus preached in all the languages which were spoken by the common people in their regions. Our Gurus did not love just one language like Brahmins love Sanskrit. Similarly, our Gurus did not hate any language, like the neo-Buddhists hate Sanskrit. They just let the divine words flow out of their blessed tongues in all the languages. Our Gurus were very knowledgeable and wrote in different languages. Guru Gobind Singh ji (who was born in Bihar and died in Maratha lands), for instance, knew Pujabi, Sanskrit, Braj, Persian, Khariboli and much more. His only hymn in Punjabi language is "Mitr pyare noo", but the most famous Persian poem is written by him (it is not part of SGGS, though).

Sikhism is a religion, not an ethnic group or linguistic group. There are Assamese Sikhs who speak Assamese. When I visited Nanded during Guru Gaddi, I have met Sikhs who speak Marathi. Non-Sikhs generally tend to consider Sikhism as a religion cetnered around Punjabi and Jutts, but this is not true. The contribution of Punjabi linguistic group and Jutt ethnic group to the Sikhism is extraordinary, but Sikhs are a global people, coming from all kinds of linguistic groups and ethnicities. Out of our Panj Pyares, only Bhai Daya Singh was Pujabi. Bhai Himmat Singh came from Orissa. Bhai Mohkam Singh came from Gujarat. Bhai Sahib Singh came from Karnataka. Bhai Dharam Singh came from Uttar Pradesh.

The language of the Guru Granth Sahib was simply called "Gurumukhi" (Guru = Teacher, mukh = mouth) originally. But, now this word is mainly used to refer only to the written script. The predominant language is not modern Punjabi, but various dialects used in North India at the time of the Gurus. The less used langauges include Marathi, Persian etc.

Now I've changed the wordings a bit to clear any confusion you might have. If you want to say that only "Punjabi" is the predominant and that the use of other languages is "cursory", please provide a reference for the same. Do you know what "cursory" means? According to the dictionary, it means "Hasty and without attention to detail; not thorough". This is NOT the case. Our Gurus respected languages of all the followers and knowledgeable people. They did not accord the status of divine language to their mother tongue Punjabi.

I request you to stop adding false information to a book that is the epitome of the ultimate truth. This is sacrilege. Please don't do this, just because you want to prove that you know more than everybody else. Please do not remove references. Add more, if you have any for Punjabi being "predominant" and others being "cursory".

If you want to learn more about our holy book and verify the references, you can search books: http://books.google.com/books?q=sant+bhasha+guru+granth+sahib&btnG=Search+Books

220.227.179.5 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

First off I am a Punjabi Jatt Sikh, not a Hindu. Don't insult me, if you please.

Second, I am glad we seem to agree that the SGGS is written predominantly in archaic Punjabi, and that wasn't deleted. That was really the only point I wanted to get across. And for the record: I only stated Punjabi's predominance in the SGGS, not its divinity. I also never said that modern Punjabi was the language of the SGGS, don't make up accusations.

I concede that "cursory" was a poor choice of words on my part, and for that I humbly apologize. I probably meant to say "sporadic" or "secondary" or something along those lines. I wouldn't knowingly disrespect my own religion, or the Gurus' choice of script/tongue.

If you are citing references, use them properly. Say exactly what the source said without any change in meaning. There was a notable difference in what the sources implied and what you implied. Don't change the meaning of the source for your own uses. I simply quoted your sources more accurately. You ought to have done that on your own, and you should know that people are going to check your sources; putting up a multitude of little source numbers to impress the readers won't stop me from doing this. I've seen plenty of misused sources, dead links, uncredible sources etc. on many article so I am naturally wary. Your sources seem legit but your changed the meaning of what they said.

I absolutely can accept that there are non-Jatt Punjabi Sikhs. Our Gurus were well-traveled men of the world, and in the case of Guru Nanak, traveled from South India all the way to Mecca, and no doubt all learned many tongues. Two of the Sikh Takhts are not even in Punjab: Takht Hazur Sahib is in Nanded, Maharashtra and Takht Patna Sahib is in Bihar. But the other three are in Punjab, and that is no coincidence. (Remember what I said about overstating lesser influences?) Sikhism caught on mostly with Punjabis, as a matter of fact I'd be so bold as to say nearly all Sikhs are Punjabis, and a nice big chunk of those were indeed Jatts. Jatts did indeed play a crucial role in Sikhism's influence and survival. It was mostly Jatt clans, like for example Gills, Maans, Dhillons, etc. that were the earliest converts to Sikhism, during the time of the Gurus, and these clans often converted wholesale, which is why the majority of Jatt clans are Sikh-only. It was Jatt martial tradition that was one of the big factors of Sikh martial tradition. Punjabi Jatt culture has influenced Sikh culture and vice versa. Other ethnicities also converted, like many Rajput and other ex-Hindus, during increased Mughal aggression, and Hindu families would offer their eldest sons to the Khalsa for protection and support. In other words, many Jatts were among the original SIkhs, and others converted later. I do not consider myself a better Sikh than you because I am a Jatt, and if you have an inferiority complex about not being one I advise you get past it. I am a proud Sikh but I will not throw away my proud, independent, martial Jatt heritage that gave so much to Sikhi as it is today. But enough itihaas.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this case, but I'd advise you to use your sources properly, and to keep all facts in proportion. Peace, and Chardi Kala.3swordz (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rehat Maryada

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)

Section entitled "Available Translations"

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)

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)

Composition

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)

,

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)

Care and protocol

Personal behaviour

Any person carrying out any Service or Sewa must observe the following:

• Head must be covered at all times.
• Shoes and socks must be removed outside the Darbar Sahib (Guru's room).
• Basic standards of personal hygiene are to be observed especially relating to cleanliness
• Eating or drinking while in service is strictly avoided.
• Being under the influence of any intoxicant including alcohol, tobacco...etc. is strictly forbidden.
• Consuming meat in the premises of the Gurdwara is strictly forbidden.
• Complete silence is observed while in Guru's service.
• Respectful attitude towards others who are present. No Discrimination while doing Sewa
• Doing sewa outside of Gurudwara is what matters ultimately according to wisdom of Guru Granth Sahib ji.

Environment

• The room should be kept clean
• The clothes that are used to cover Guru Granth Sahib Ji are kept clean and changed daily. Some people choose to use decorated cloth, but this is not necessary.
• The Guru Granth Sahib Ji is always placed on a Manji Sahib (small handmade throne).
• A canopy is always placed over the Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
• A Chaur Sahib (artificial hairs bundled together to fan over the Guru Granth Sahib) is provided besides Guru Granth Sahib Ji with a small platform to house the Karah Parshad (sacramental food) and other offerings.
• Everyone should cover their head and take off their shoes before going in the room.
• Applying the wisdom of Guru's in keeping the sanctity of Guru Granth Sahib.

On the move

While Guru Granth Sahib is on the move the following is observed:

• Five initiated Sikhs accompany Guru Granth Sahib at all times when traveling
• Another Sikh does Chaur Sahib seva
• The Main Sikh carrying Guru Granth Sahib must put a clean rumāl on his or her head before carefully and respectfully placing Guru Granth Sahib on this rumāl. At all times, Guru Granth Sahib should be covered with a small rumāl so that Guru Granth Sahib's form is always fully "covered". Also the Sikh carrying Guru Granth Sahib should have "Keshi Ishnaan" or washed hair to show respect.
• There should be recitation of "Waheguru" at all times.
• Applying the Guru's wisdom at all times, while going through each day of life.

Other considerations

• No one sits on a higher platform than the Guru.
• No one is to come in front of guruji without his or her head covered.
• Guru Granth Sahih ji is to be considered a Guru which asks for nothing, only gives knowledge to the poor souls.

Pearl Buck

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)

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)

I guess not. Doctor Whom (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Guru Granth Sahib Vs. Adi Granth

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)

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)

Living Guru?

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)

Granth is not Guru of Sikhs

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))

lead edits and WP:BRD

@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)

I have taken out the misleading mention of "low caste" angle only from the lead, because three of the Hindu bhagats revered in Sikhism were Brahmins, and many others were not from the low caste (yes, some were). If this is due and important, it needs to be stated more clearly and in an NPOV manner with reliable sources cited. Mentioning one without the other is misleading. Similarly it is important to mention that 13 of 15 bhagats were Hindus and 2 were Muslims. I have done so, with sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Translation

@45.74.44.32: 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)

Two doubts

• 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)

Requested move 30 September 2017

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)

---

Guru Granth Sahib → Granth Sahib – COMMONNAME, see ngram chart, also, Guru is a MOS:HONORIFIC. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC) King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I think this move request is motivated by proper intentions, and certainly Wikipedia's article on the Christian religious text is located at Bible rather than the common Holy Bible. However, for the readers, the article on this text needs to be located at the most common name used in English, and that seems to be "Guru Granth Sahib". I'm not convinced otherwise by the ngram, which shows a tiny difference between two almost identical phrases ten years ago. Moreover, if "Guru" is problematic, then so is "Sahib", which is equally an honorific for a man. In addition, if this is moved, there needs to be due consideration for the title "Adi Granth", used as the principal title by Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford University Press among others. The article correctly notes that these titles aren't considered synonyms by practicing Sikhs, but that merely means that the distinction should be explained in the article, which it is. If a title without honorifics is desired, then surely "Adi Granth" is superior to "Granth" alone. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a good faith suggestion, but please see tertiary sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Move to either Granth, Adi Granth or Granth Sahib. Britannica uses Adi Granth with Granth Sahib and Granth mentioned as other common names. Ngram shows Granth as most common, followed by Granth Sahib, Guru Granth Sahib and Adi Granth. 86.99.13.167 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

@Ms Sarah Welch: 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)

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)

• Strong oppose It's not an just an honorific, but something conferred in line with a lot of actual spiritual leaders (who are all called gurus), please read Guru#In Sikhism, Sikh gurus for further context, COMMONNAME is a wrong policy to use here, especially the flawed ngram which doesn't prove a point. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 08:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italicized article title?

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Scripture:

[Titles of 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)

I agree. Changed. Batternut (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC) how I can citisource or give reliable source to Wikipedia to improve the article kindly give me the way

Suspicious edit

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)

Need of some alteration in this topic

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)

Please review MOS:HONORIFIC, which states quite clearly why Wikipedia does not. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)