Talk:Guru Gobind Singh/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Guru Gobind Singh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

dont know much about Guru Gobind Singh, but was he only 9 years old when he became Guru? I just feel that he was very young or unlogic to become a leader in such a young age. So the question is actually, are the date of birth and year of becoming a guru correct? Dhirad 23:56, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER: the age of a person does not determine his wisdom or spirtuality or even his logic.

I didnt ask qustion about his wisdom or spiritualty, only if a 9 year old child is capable of managing the whole sikh army --Dhirad 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and its happened, and it wasen't a army, Guru Gobind Singh Ji created the Khalsa.

Ram is refernce to god. and sikh is not different from hindu or muslim. brotherhood is the prime message of sikhism. Please do not distort the message to seek identities. for god is the one to judge.

He proclaimed himself the last living Guru (indeed, this was in Nanak's plan)

I'm wondering where this comes from? I know he was proclaimed the last living guru, but where in Nanak's teachings or sayings does it put forth that it was his plan? I don't mean to challenge this view, I would merely like to read further as to this matter. Thanks - Hidoshi 13:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about this, so I'd vote to remove the "(indeed, this was in Nanak's plan)" until the issue is clarified. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's appropriate to remove. It seems far too POV. - Hidoshi 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Guru Gobind Singh had proclaimed that after him the Guru Granth Sahib would be the Guru and Sikh's would not worship any living being as a guru. The tenets of Sikhism as we know it today are more based on Guru Gobind Singh than Guru Nanak. The 5 K's were not given by Guru Nanak either. It might be Guru Gobind's POV but that is how it is.Haphar 08:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article's organization (I have nothing to say on the content) needs to be cleaned up. There are two 'chronology' sections, which makes very little sense, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazirah (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

is there any account of gurujis death. if anyone knows it, please tell me on my talk page. thanks. nids 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC) i got the answer.nids(♂) 08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no "death" it was ascension Guru Ji ascended and were never murdered thats completly stupid this article needs to be re done or deleted and we are not related Hinduism what so ever so there is no relationship between Guru Gobind Singh and "Lord Ram"

This entire article needs to be reworded to be less biased and use less glowing language. It also needs historical verification, and it needs critiques on Gobind's statements, actions, and philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.96.252 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I do agree - the point of wikipedia is to be as factual as possible, putting aside your own emotions. Let Guru Gobind Singh's life, words, actions, and sacrifices speak for themselves. They do speak very loudly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazirah (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC) the guru Nank was the first Guru.

The final days of the Guru has been cleared up and is fair to all Sikhs and non Sikhs (all of it is factual) : 'The Guru reportedly passed away, along with his horse Dilbagh (aka Neela Ghora) on 7 October 1708 at Nanded, before which he had declared the Guru Granth Sahib as his successor.[34] A section of the Namdhari Sikhs dispute this version, and instead believe that the Guru did not die at Nanded: he secretly exited from the funeral pyre (which he had forbidden others from seeing). Later, he settled in Nabha, where he stayed for 103 years under the guise of "Baba Ajaypal Singh" and declared Balak Singh as his successor' - explains everything and incorporates all the Sikhs beliefs. Lets leave it at that.

Someone (possibly by the name of dave green) is reverting my edit in the box in "cause of death") The reference he cited is not a reliable source. Further the cause of death, as also described in the same ref. is the one i stated, which he is reverting.[1] it states he died eventually because of the wound. Does not state that it was immediatly after the wound. it does not mention that the wounds were sewn up, which can be found in my ref. That is , excessive bleeding due to re-opening of wound. The cause of death is re-opening of wound, and not attack. The cause of wound is attack by the two pathans. There is a lot of difference between, cause of wound and cause of death. Please don't manipulate the statements in ref. Ajjay (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it not be reliable source as the cause of his death is clearly cited in many references as having been stabbed by Wazir Khans merceraries, yes he was wounded and dies as a result of a STAB WOUND. Its even mentioned in the article, in fact some cites reference say he was stabbed and dies, so don't distort it by suggesting the wound was some act of divine will that appeared all by itself. That would amount to political abuse of historical facts. DG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No body is claiming that the wound was an act of divine will. Further the cause of death was re-opening of the wound which was sewn-up. The wound was sewn-up and re-opened two or three days later, which resulted in his passing away. So stabbing was an in-direct cause, not direct. Direct cause was re-opening of the wound. Even your ref. mentions that the guru passed away, eventually, because of the wound. it fails to mention sewing up,inbetween.

Besides, what is the difference betweem stabbed by Wazir Khans merceraries, yes he was wounded and dies as a result of a STAB WOUND.

Do you know that an English surgeon, by the name of COLE, treated Guru Gobind Singhs wound. It might be an out of nowhere fact for you.Ajjay (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did mention that in the article but thanks to you you deleted it

Shall I put it back up ?

[2]

"Guru Gobind Singh stabbed by Jamshed Khan, a hired assasin. Evening of the day when Baba Gurbakhash Singh left for Punjab, Guru Gobind Singh was visited by two Pathans. One of them was commissioned by Wazir Khan, Subedar of Sirhind. to assasinate Guru Gobind Singh. Wazir Khan was afriad of the ongoing talks between the Guru and Emporer Bahadhur Shah who had ordered Wazir Kahn to pay Guru Gobind Singh a sum of Rupees 300/day."

Hpefully a moderator will be able to see that you deleted it as it was referenced which as I understand you have had several warnings for already Ajjay.

One of the Pathans, Bashal Beg kept a vigil outside the Guru's tent while Jamshed Khan, the hired assassin stabbed the Guru twice. He was killed in one stroke by the Guru himself, while those outside altered by the btumult killed the other. The wound was sewn up the following day, by an English Surgeon, named Cole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a little scratch that got out of hand ????????? Get real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who needs to get real,not meAjjay (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The assasin in question was Jamshed Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So !, are you going to bring up his testimony!!Ajjay (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm here as the result of a request for a third opinion. It's hard for me to tell what the exact question I'm supposed to answer here, and I think the biggest problem I see is a lack of polite, respectful discussion. I'd ask the anonymous editor to create an account and log in; it makes discussions smoother.

That said, If the question is what to put in the info box, then it should be a summary of what is in the main text. I've only got one reference handy that covers the death, but that seems to match roughly with our (unreferenced) text here. So if I were looking for a non-controversial summary, I'd suggest, "complications from an assassin's wound". That conveys the essentials, which is all the box needs. If that were too long, I'd just go with "stabbed by assassin". Yes, he didn't die that instant, but there seems to be no question that the wound caused his death.

Another alternative is just to leave the cause of death out of the info box. None of the other Sikh guru articles have it now. William Pietri (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the third option is the best, as there is always going to be debate over how it should be written. I am removing the "cause of death" from info-box. Serves no purpose. Thanks for your help.Ajjay (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, cause of death due to 'complications from an assassin's wound' is apt. As for why there is no mention on how and why the other Gurus cause of death is NEVER mysteriously mentioned on wikipedia or left out beats me since most were butchered alive by the Mughal Emperors or imprisioned, but I guess that will be airbrushed out of history too, another sad but political abuse of historical facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the other articles, but I agree there's nothing particularly indirect about how he died. The one-word summary for his death would be "assassinated". The early US president James A. Garfield took two months to die of his wound, but he is still regarded as assassinated. If how the Sikh gurus died is culturally or historically significant, which 90.196.3.244 suggests, then it should be part of all the info boxes, rather than none of them. William Pietri (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you William, and thanks for pointing out about the lack of information regarding the assassinations of other Gurus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

about the lack of information regarding the assassinations of other Gurus???

Perhaps you need to go through these books.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5] (This book is by a retired indian foreign service officer (diplomat), and his knowledge is undisputable, plus he reveals facts, which were not known before, and lots of govt. hidden info. thats supposed to be TOP SECRET)
• [6]
• [7]

Besides there is a lot of difference between an assassination attempt and assassination. Further the identity of the persons who stabbed is given as varying in different accounts, and involvement of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah is also not ruled out.

I am placing an argument that was originally pointed by Sikh historian

_______

We live in a time when everyone thinks everything is on the internet. Yes you have a lot of quantity but not quality (the information is shallow 10% and does not cover the subject in dept 90% falling short). The only way to get more confidence in a subject is by reading books -they are usually far more reliable (8-10 times) than websites. It take aleast year to write book, 6 months for peer review research paper, whereas a web article 15 minutes by ANYONE!!!

best & most reliable sources of information:

Books Peer reviewed research papers These are Good books to get you going into understanding Sikhism (priority order):

• Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh ISBN-10: 8173802041 (One of the best 20th century *Sikh historians & scholars - if EVER in doubt you use one of his books to read)
• The Sikhs of the Punjab ISBN-10: 0521637643
• Khalsa: Sikhs and Non-Sikh Perspectives ISBN-10: 8173045801
• Understanding Sikhism ISBN-10: 1903765153 (cheap to buy)
• Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction ISBN-10: 0192806017 (cheap to buy)
• A History of the Sikhs ISBN-10: 0195673093
• Sikhism ISBN-10: 0140252606

Current Sikh websites don't trust 100% only trust with 40% confidence. Only exception being www.sikhs.org This is the MOST reliable Sikh site = trust 70% confidence. Therefore really with Sikhism you have to read books to understand -because most Sikh websites are RUBBISH.

• Ajjay (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay, its a well known fact that people try to change history to suit their political or other objectives, this is classed as the abuse of history. When we read many historical texts many years ago and compare with what teens splash out on the web which is based on cheap political sentiment, then its pretty obvious to the maturer reader of history to differentiate.

Yes, you say many sikh websites are rubbish but thats because you don't agree with historical facts so will subvert truth, integrity and honesty at its expense (which is a common phenomenon these days) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Sikh 'Historian'

You say "Besides there is a lot of difference between an assassination attempt and assassination. Further the identity of the persons who stabbed is given as varying in different accounts, and involvement of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah is also not ruled out"

You give too many reasons which contradict the many many sources that suggest he was stabbed by Jamshed Shah.

If you are a qualified legitimate historian, then use a real name.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wiki Policy on WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Also no original research[8] Ajjay (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

instead of inserting your comments as replies to comments that are more than a year old, why dont this user start a new topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turniplp (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The infobox needs a picture. But the picture has to be a real definitive photo that represents actual facial features. There is no actual picture of Guru Gobind Singh. In that sense it misleads the reader into assuming that Guru Gobind Singh looked like the picture. If a picture is to be put in infobox, it has to be in a way which does not make one see things in a particular manner. Turniplp (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I ve heard people saying that Guru Gobind Singh JI had 3 wives,but Guruji himself said that a true sikh should not have no relations other than his wife.

Bold text—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpnalhaslo (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guru_Gobind_Singh"

The article page in its current form says the following:-

Problems:-

1. . Any form of Dasam Granth is not considered "Holy" as claimed by those lines above.
2. . There is no one book which can be called "Dasam Granth". There are several versions of this book circulating today under this name.
3. . There is no proof that the the various forms of current versions named "Dasam Granth" were entirely written by Guru Gobind Singh. The name "Dasam Granth" is also fake and has been imposed long-long after demise of the Guru to project this book on Sikh minds.
4. . There is no consensus among historians and Sikh theologians that the chapter "Bachchiter Natak" is either written by Guru Gobind Singh or if that is his autobiography. Many history researchers have done extensive work to show that major events from Gurus life are not mentioned while trivial ones are mentioned and there are several other flaws in this chapter.
5. . There is no consensus that Bhai Mani Singh compiled this current form of book. The only source of information (which is debated) being used is a letter allegedly written by Bhai Mani Singh. Historians have shown several flaws in that letter like the use of different punjabi style which was not prevalent in Bhai Mani Singh's time. Therefore, this claim is unverifiable.

All the claims made by the lines in question are extra-ordinary claims and must accompany extra-ordinary evidence. Otherwise, wikipedia readers should not be exposed to such baseless misleading claims. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it 30 March 1699 or 13 April 1699?

An anonymous user changed it to 13 April 1699, but the SGPC site says 30 March 1699. So, I'm reverting this edit.

Fundamentalisms observed‎ (Page 59) by Martin E. Marty etal. says "...the unusual happening of 13 April (some say it was on 30 March) 1699" -- maybe we can mention this in the article. utcursch | talk 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"The impression of Guru Gobind Singh has not only elevated and altered the constitution of the minds of the Sikhs, but has operated materially and given amplitude to their physical frames." I have read this several times, and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. It needs, at the very least, a reference to justify it, but I think it also needs to be rewritten in a more "international English" style - it sounds like Indian dialect to me, and may therefore be difficult to understand for others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reframed for readability. My impression was that the sentence was trying to convey that his life and teachings influenced Sikhs ideologically as well as in their daily living. So reframed. prashanthns (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

as in the published diary book of Letts, the birthday is different from what it is written in this topic--222.64.221.26 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the publishing company's website is at www.letts.co.uk --222.64.221.26 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

info about his birthday from Google scholar

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=birthday+Gobind+Singh+Ji+22+December+1666&btnG=Search

--222.64.221.26 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Gobind+Singh+Ji&btnG=Search

--222.64.221.26 (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Guru+Gobind+Singh&btnG=Search

--222.64.221.26 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Hello everyone. I'm editing the last lines because the English is not clear. Also, no disputes should be taking place over "Lord Ram" and his relation to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, because no such relations exist and never will exist.

---

Top of page states Guru Gobind as passing 19 October 1708. Bottom of page states 7 October 1708. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.216.156 (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's 7 October, according to the references cited in the article as well as other sources. utcursch | talk 12:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs many improvements. i dont think it is upto the acceptable quality. the material is not very well organized , and misses out on many important aspects of guru gobind singh ji's life. There should be more additions to the content and reordering/rewording of the existing content.

---

Yes, I agree too. The final part of "Final Days" needs a a quality check.

Prasadksap (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the last couple of lines regarding the Namdhari POV ought to be removed, or simply modified to maintain something along the lines of, "Although disputed, it is commonly believed that..."

Considering the mythical nature of the region's history, minor discrepancies are aplenty for all of the region's main actors.

I am deferring until consensus is made.141.217.232.90 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Guru Gobind Singh had stated that he is a descendant of Lord Rama, through one of his twin sons, Luv. Is this a true statement that is recognized by all Sikhs?

Thanks.

Raj2004 14:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you be a decedent of a mythological Hindu god? its not possible --Street Scholar 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

dont presume Rama was a myth.

I presume you mean 'descendant'? Many people believe he existed so yes, it is possible. However, whether he actually was a god is another matter altogether. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib has elucidated and elaborated his genial descent from the Suryawanshi Ishwakoo Rajput lineage of Rama of Ayodhya through Rama's son Kush who had settled in Madra earlier Punjab, in his own biography the Vichitra Naatak.Lutfullah (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Guru Gobind Singh himself wrote about it. It is also mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

No, Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib's lineal descent from the house of Ramachandra, king of Ayodhya, is no where to be seen in Sri Guru Granth Saahib Ji. This is a misstatement! In fact the Holy Granth does not carry a single line composed by the pen of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib!Lutfullah (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

No, neither it is true nor Guru Gobind Singh had written about it. There is no claim or refrence in Guru Granth Sahib about this. Please be confirmed and make a research before posting such a bogus claims. TheSingh 12:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys --- Whatsoever is written above and few quotes of fgangu

---

Please do a proper investigation before positing such bogus claims. There is no relationship between Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee and Hindu Ram.

Gobind Singh jee Bani is compiled in Granth named Dasam Granth. A Sikh daily routine of reciting 5 Banis in the morning contains 3 Banis recited by Guru Gobind Singh Jee.

There are many occurrences of word RAM in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and they all refer to Almighty God (Akal-purakh).

---

Nope that is not true that is what many Hindu extremist groups are saying to convert Sikhs, sad really.

Go to www.sikhlionz.com or go to google and type in sikh lions, then go to one of the top links which is probably called anti Sikh groups or something, read those articles.

I've heard something along these lines was written in Bichitra Natak. However, I'm in no position to decide whether that's legitimate or not. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It is true. I request to people who are actually intrested to know shoul read dasham Granth. Where one can find out that Guru Nanak Sahib was from Kush Vansh and and fourth guru fro Sodhi's was from Luv Vansh. There are four Yugas ie Satjug,Dwapar, Treta and finally Kaljug. God had taken Visible forms in all the yug and with seperate powers. Like 16 kala avtar. 9 kala avtar in Kalyug with sarv ie all kala avtar in the form of Shri Guru Nanak Sahib. The same jot ie Spirit transformed to ten gurus. No one can challange that, as the only true path for salvation as was in oldr yugas in Kalyug is Sikkism.

i dnt know about that, but all i know is dat in sikhism not hinduism there are 11 gurus an Gods name is the highest. Our goal in life is to reach God.

Those are just coincedinces, they don't mean anything!

He never said anything relating to this

This only goes to show how ill informed and parochial today's Sikhs have become! Like modern day Muslim fanatics who lack the basic facts of Islamic history and are eager to have their say however ridiculous! The topic here is whether Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib was born to the family of Ayodhya's king Ramachandra. The topic IS NOT about Sikhs recognizing or worshipping Ramachandra as God! Instead of understanding this simple fact a lot of meaningless argument has poured in this page from uninformed people who do not even care to research on the works written by the founder of the Sikh faith. This is the state of their awareness of their Guru who had departed the world in 1708! Only 3 centuries have passed and they don't bother to read his autobiography! I wonder what shall be the state of these people's awareness of their Guru three centuries from now !Lutfullah (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutfullah (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I want to make it clear that word Ram in Guru Granth Sahib refers to Almighty God not to Rama the Hindu god.

However there are some references about Hindu god Rama but these are to clear the confusion between the Almighty God and Hindu Rama. Sikh Gurus always worshiped the Almighty God and not any Hindu God (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv, Rama, Krishan etc.). If some people are spreading such rumours then they are wrong and trying to misinterpret the Sikh Gurus And Guru Granth Sahib.

RSS is misinterpreting sikh history.Following are few examples i want to mention:

1) Every sikh knows that it was Gangu Brahmin who cheated Mata Gujri ji and Chhote Sahibzade and informed the Subedaare Sirhind causing their arrest and hence the executions.

RSS is spreading that Gangu was not a brahmin but a muslim Gangu-ul-Haq who did all this.

2) A common misinterpretion that is being spread by RSS and hindu extremist groups is that sikhs don't have any independent existance but they were created as an army to serve hindus.

However hindus themselves don't know who was the founder of "hinduism" and why they are called hindus.

"Jagey dharm Hindu ! Sakal bhand bhaajey ! - Vichitra Natak by Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib.Lutfullah (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

Guys i don't know who has written on such a communal page ......... people respected by deeds ... and there are various examples in every religion caste of good and bad people and people using the bad people example as bench mark as mention above the case of Gangu to make others mockery .... love all and use the below lines for referring bench mark :)

Baba Banda Singh Bahadur (Original name Laxman Das Bhardwaj, A Marathi Bhardwaj Brahman, later became a great yogi as Sant Madho Das Bairagi

TheSingh 10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC) TheSingh

What with all this anti-hindu stuff? Ram should be respected, and within the Guru Granth Sahib ji it is possible that their name is mentioned. Just like Shiva ji. But the whole point is, is that there is one God and these are just forms off God. Even Guru Gobind Singh ji said that if they were his Sikhs then they should also respect Mata ji (one of the 'hindu Gods'). What is anti-hindu stuff here? Also i did not disrespect Rama.

Now i want to make this clear that any reference to hindu gods in Guru Granth Sahib does not mean that Sikh Gurus worshiped hindu gods. Sikh Gurus wordhiped only Almighty God and none else.In Guru Granth Sahib there are also some references about Allah, Rahim, Holy Kuraan. But that does not mean that Gurus workshipped Mohammad Sahib or any muslim Paigumber.

Guru Gobind Singh never told sikhs to worship any hindu goddess 'Mata Ji'. Please provide the source of information for your comment.

---

"Sikh naahi piyaara mohey! Pahiley rahat piyaari!" - Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib!

Alas that this lot of uninformed people, uneducated of Sikh tenets, keep entering their ignorance here with great conviction, without bothering to do their basic homework! Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib commences his Jaapji with the lines "Shri Bhagwati Ji Sada Sahai! and also Pratham Bhagwati!. This Bhagwati Ji is Hindu deity Mata Durga. Also in his famous composition which even an unlettered Sikh in Punjab may have heard umpteenth times, Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib writes " Deh Shiva! Var mohey ih shubh karman te kabahoon na taraun!" Who is this Shiva from whom Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib is seeking blessings? It is Shiva Shankara the spouse of Bhagwati referred to earlier here and the most revered and worshiped deity of Hindus also known as Mahadeva. It is indeed ridiculous of Sikhs contributing here to show off themselves as non Hindus and also to distance themselves from the very teachings of the greatest reformer and epic Guru of the Hindus perhaps without whose efforts the Hindu faith may have been wiped off the face of the Indian subcontinent, Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib! He had commented to his wife Mata Sundari Ji on his last meeting her at Delhi after his being invited there by Aurangzeb's successor Muazzam Shah Alam Bahadur Shah, on the loss of his four sons in his strife against the Mughal tyranny on Hindus "In putran key kaarney waari diyo sut chaar! Muey chaar to kya hua? Jeewit kayi hazaar!" For these thousands of sons of mine (these Hindus) I have sacrificed my own begotten four sons! It is the greatest tragedy in India and Pakistan that this monumental and tall beyond perception humanist figure to whom my Muslim head bows in salute and reverence, has been totally forgotten by both Hindus and Sikhs today. The Hindus are little aware of the protector of their faith. The Sikhs who have descended from the Hindu contributors to the Grand Khaalisa Panth of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib, today in India alienate themselves from Hindus declaring themselves as a minority community in India separate from the majority of Hindus. They keep the facade of the Guru's tenets in their appearance, attire and religious practice but possess nothing of the divine and all encompassing spirit of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib who had the mercy and magnanimity in raising the orphan child of a Muslim assassin that had come all the way from Sirhind to Nanded in the garb of a horse seller with orders to kill the Guru while he slept in his chamber! When the assassin's plans were revealed and he with his accomplice was killed by the Guru Ji's bodyguards, his minor son was put forward to his court next morning for further action. The benevolent and merciful Guru Ji took the child in his lap and asked his following to adopt him. Seeing their silent refusal he him selves adopted the killer's son and raised him like a Muslim by hiring a Maulavi for that child's education! We have read thousands of books in human history on heroes but are yet to come across such grand examples of humanity which make lives like Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib immortal and to be respected and revered by the entire human race.Lutfullah (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

Acccording to Sikh philosophy God is formless(Ajuni) God never comes in forms. If other religions believe that God comes in forms as is done in Hinduism then this is their own belief.

Also dear friend please leave your name with your comment. TheSingh 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the only thing is that the sikhs today are following the same way as the muslims been from ages......they just want to live isolated from hindus because they do not want their relation with hindus gods and godesses....i am a hindu by religion but i always go to sikh temple because i do not find any difference among two places.....all the persons posting comments here just tell me one thing honestly ....have you ever seen a sikh visiting a hindu temple...they never go there because they do not want to agree that sikhism is the same to all other religiongs......plz ma friends sikhism have got a lot of respect in the whole world just because sikh gurus fought for the people of other religion ...thats the thing which shows how great they are.......so stop claiming all these and lets live together happily so that when ever our guruji looks at us he feel proud of his children

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.187.169 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to rename this article Gobind Singh (currently a redirect) as using the honorific title "Guru" in the article title is poor practice for names of people. --Fæ (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As it has been two weeks with no comment, I'll move in line with policy. --Fæ (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Guru Gobind Singh 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Guru gobind singh ji khalsa akili nihang.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 28 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Guru gobind singh at home.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 28 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Akali nihang guru gobind singh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:The 10 guru.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(VPS 07:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.. You will need to provide a valid reason for protecting this article as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have seen in the history someone change the Name of this page from the image, Please see the Article History, that's why I request to Protect this page and Guru Gobind Singh is also the 10th Guru of Sikh's.(VPS 16:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggersingh (talk • contribs)

You have clearly read the second sentence of my response above; please read the first. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Guys there is a mistake ,the guru was only married once,more research needs to be done here as i have read this is a common mistake which is said about the guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.160.139 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Blaaaa blaa sed guru the teacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.118.210 (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this> When you study history e.g. East India company history and other history of first Indian migrant to Russian or Europe etc. When you study English law. you want me to believe in 1700 century a person disappear with his horse. If you research (not on internet). Go to university in Portugal, France and other dutch university. READ east Indian companies history. So called Sikh history is even shorter than east India Company.

Why Khalasa Diwan and Singh Sabaha came into existence? Who funded it? Why funded it? When i read their version. I get confused? Thanks to a Sikh who discover that guru Nanak visited Vatican and Alaska. Why we never came to know Guru Gobind Singh may be encounter with British. We are too narrow minded in studying beyond what these so called sikh religious institute teach us.

Their is story that "A British showed Guru gobind Singh gun and asked to test and his follower came forward to allow Guru to shoot on them to test if it real kills. But Sikh education says there were no British at that time in India.

Guru disappear with his horse ? If i tell somebody this "my guru disappear with horse" they think i am foolish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.219.2.36 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The references contradict the teachings of the SGGS, the Sikh holy book and are from sites which are not supported by any official Sikh organisation.

Guru disappear with his horse ? If i tell somebody this "my guru disappear with horse" they think i am foolish. how it is possible in 1700. when you read east India company history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.219.2.36 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The section Early life currently (5 Sept 2015) contains
"Historians have differing views regarding his wives. Some believe that Gobind Singh had one wife, Mata Jito, who changed her name to Mata Sundari.[9][10][11] Others believe he had two wives Mata Jito and Mata Sundari.[12][13] Gobind Singh and Mata Sundari had four children, Ajit Singh, Jujhar Singh, Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh.[14]"
The reference [9] leads to a dead link, but repairing it: sikh-heritage.co uk→‎ enter→‎ Gurus→‎ Guru Gobind Singh→ ‎a page containing
"In 1677 AD at the age of eleven, Guru Gobind Singh was married to Mata Jito from whom he had three sons : Jujhar Singh, Zorawar Singh, and Fateh Singh. The Guru had two other consorts: Mata Sundri who joined in matrimony in 1684 AD and Mata Sahib Devan who was married in 1700 AD. The former was the mother of Sahibzada Ajit Singh."
The second reference [10] shows "Jito. The first of Guru Gobind Singh's three wives". The third [[11] does not mention the Guru's wives in the area available for on line viewing.

I propose to rewrite the paragraph. Any comments? Apuldram (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I've added the NPOV tag to this article, in a dispute of its neutrally. In my opinion, this page reads much, much more like religious anecdote than actual, factual article. In particular, the article references many 'faith' events in Sikh cannon whilst citing "in character" recitals of religious materials embedded within other texts. The article needs to be rewritten in a neutral and, most importantly, impartial point of view. Citations should preferably be drawn from critical analysis, rather than quotations-of-quotations-of religious canon. Sparky222b (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

good idea. I suggest you make a start with that. Apuldram (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been there for some time now. I am not certain which aspects of the text the user is alluding to. The article has also been significantly modified by other editors since. I propose to remove the NPOV tag. If there are concerns, we can discuss. Js82 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Starting this section to address anyone who has any issues with the usage of the word prophet. To start off, Mr. user: Human3015 makes the completely astounding claim that "He was not Prophet, he was human being". I do not even know how to address this childish and immature remark, apart from simply asking him to go and read the meanings of the word "Prophet" "a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God." And I can give you uncountable number of references, spoken by the Gurus themselves asserting that whatever they profess is directly coming from the creator. So please please stay out if you do not know anything at all about the Sikh faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js82 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: GGS never claimed that he was prophet, neither Guro Grantha Sahib mentions that these Gurus were 'Prophets'. Unless there is self-claim or claim in Holy book, we can't write that in article. Moreover, Guru Grantha Sahib itself is written by various Human scholars, that book is not sent by God. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  04:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I find your claims ridiculous and hilarious. Are you a scholar on Guru Granth Sahib and the Sikh Gurus ? You are so immature and childish, I even feel sympathy for your many times. Please go and read the Guru Granth Sahib first, and then come back and discuss with me. Given the sensitivity of these issues, and given what I know of you, I would humbly request you to please stay away, unless you are willing to devote time and effort to do research a priori.

And for the record of others who might be thinking of jumping in, the official biographies of the Gurus from the webpage of SGPC (= Sikh version of Vatican) (that has been referenced in the article) mentions the Prophet word. So this should satisfy you. However, with the purpose of providing those who have genuine further interests in understanding Sikh faith and Sikh Gurus !, I can also give you numerous references from the Guru Granth Sahib itself, proclaiming that the Gurbani (the Guru Granth Sahib) is "God's word".

Here are some:

"Jaisi mai āvai kẖasam kī baṇī ṯaisṛā karī giān ve lālo." "As the Word of the Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo." (Guru Nanak on page 722 of Guru Granth Sahib).

"Dhur Ki Baani Aayi, Tin Sagli Chint Mitaayi" "From the primal One, has emanated the Gurbani; and it has effaced all the anxiety." (Guru Nanak on page 628 of Guru Granth Sahib).

"Sach Poore Gur Updesya, Nanak Sunave". "The complete Lord has delivered the truth, and Nanak is speaking it"

Numerous more ... Hence, since all of these words (God's words) have been delivered through the Gurus, there should be no doubt at all on Prophecy.

Thank you. Please no edit warring.

Js82 (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: There are some sources written by Sikh people [9], [10] who claim that GGS was prophet, but they are calling him by such name only to praise him. Ok, After GGS, now current Guru of Sikhs is Guru Granth Sahib which is a book, so does this book is also "Prophet". There is no concept like "Prophet" in Sikhism, there is only concept of "Guru". We should write only official position they held according to their religion and his official position was "Guru", followers of religion can claim anything but neither GGS claimed that he was prophet not Grantha Sahib claims it. Even this article on SikhWiki calls him 'prophet' (to praise him) but also mentions that "he himself never claimed any divinity". So don't indulge in edit war. This is not "Sikh Wikipedia", this is a general Wikipedia. Be co-operative. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  06:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Human, you are letting your own perceived understanding of Sikhism come in the way of accepting and acknowledging the truth. You are no scholar on Sikh issues, so have an open mind (if you want to learn more), rather than a mind set in stone. Despite me giving you ample indisputable proof above, (and despite you yourself showing scholarly publications), you fail to agree with the Prophet aspect ?? I don't know why ? Who told you there is no concept of Prophet in Sikhism ?

Before even harping any more, who do you even call a Prophet? I already quoted the definition above ("a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.") By this definition, the Sikh Gurus are Prophets. Guru Nanak is himself alluding to this in the quotes I have given you above from the Guru Granth Sahib. (Again, "As the Word of the Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo.") So Guru Nanak is himself claiming that I am revealing God's word ---> He is a Prophet. It cannot be made any simpler. And as I said, and as you also refer to using the "official" position: On this count as well, your arguments fail completely. SGPC is the de-facto official position of Sikhs (The entity that manages the holy Sikh Shrines, i.e., the Vatican for Sikhs), and it clearly calls the Gurus as Prophets.

And to close it off, although unrelated to this topic, but to make you more aware of the Sikh theology: Yes, for Sikhs, The Guru Granth Sahib is not just a book, rather it is God's words (so it is indeed equivalent to a Prophet now). For Sikhs, Guru Granth Sahib does not tell the way to God, it IS THE WAY TO GOD. And finally, Guru Gobind Singh only asked people not to consider him to be GOD (which is what a Prophet (=God's messenger) would say). Many of his own writings attest that he is here to carry out God's will (He says: "Khalsa Akal Purakh Ki Fauj, Pragatyo Khalsa Parmatam Ki Mauj" = "Khalsa is God's own Army. It's sustained by the Will of the Almighty". And Guru Gobind Singh revealed the Khalsa, so he carried out the God's will --> Prophet.)

You are the one who needs to learn and co-operate. Please read more on Sikhism and the Sikh Gurus, and you will find it amazing.

Js82 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, I just re-read your first post above: " neither Guro Grantha Sahib mentions that these Gurus were 'Prophets'. Unless there is self-claim or claim in Holy book, we can't write that in article". In my reply, I gave you references from the Holy book itself, where the Gurus are claiming to profess God's word. You ignored all this in your response, and went on to your mumbo-jumbo about "Sikhs have no Prophets". Please learn to debate properly if you want to be taken seriously. I will not respond to any of your unreasonable posts now, that are not based on any scientific evidence, but only try to push your own POV.

Js82 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: Please read WP:RS and WP:BRD. You need to get consensus on this "prophet" thing, not based on insulting other editors or WP:FORUM like discussion, but by presenting reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Apuldram: Are the names and works in the collapsed list of this article's infobox accurate and reliably sourced? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: My contribution of 13 January was just to collapse two over-long pre-existing lists. The items on those lists were contributed by others, so I do not know their sources. However, in response to your request, I have checked in The Sikhs of the Punjab (J S Grewal) and can confirm, in the "Known for" list, Founding the Khalsa, Founding Sikh military power, Creating military brotherhood and Writing Bachittar Nadak. The other writings in the list look plausible and (except for Zafarnama) are sourced in the linked Wikipedia articles.
I haven't found mention of the items in the "Other names" list. That doesn't mean that sources don't exist, only that I haven't seen them. Grewal mentions the name "Tenth master". Apuldram (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Apuldram: Thanks. I have removed this because the IP-user who added it in January 2016 matches the IP used by @Js82, after @Js82 had been repeatedly blocked for WP:SPI violations, incivility and for adding unsourced content. The user @Js82 has been persistent with attempts to portray this article and other Sikhism articles in Islam's shadow/terminology and related WP:TE. Let us keep what looks okay to you and is verifiable, but if you are unable to find sources for anything that is unsourced looks odd to you, I suggest we remove it. We need to get this and other key Sikhism articles to be based on reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Apuldram: what is the copyright status of EOS? is it or Guru Gobind Singh article therein in public domain, as this article refers to it in several places? Your input and guidance, as always, is most appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Ms Sarah Welch:, I have stopped editing for a few days because of an injury, but your question is straightforward and I'll do my best.
I see the EoS as a reputable tertiary source compiled by scholars who declare their sources, although not in the detail that we try to achieve in Wikipedia. Its articles are copyright, so any direct quotations must be short and faithfully reproduced and must be attributed. The EoS articles are usually cited to support a statement in the Wikipedia article text, and the usual restrictions apply - the statement must be phrased in the editor's own words - not a direct quotation - supported by an inline citation.

Does this answer your question? Please ask again if I have missed the point? Apuldram (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Apuldram: Indeed and thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in section Founding the Khalsa that indicates Mata Sahib Kaur was baptised by Guru Gobind Singh at the Vaisakhi festival in 1699. A reliable source shows that the Guru first met Sahib Devan in 1700,^[1] so could not have baptised her in 1699. Apuldram (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Using of Ji is a necessity and not our choice which can be avoided. Please use Ji strictly everywhere. Paramdeeptung (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• If "Ji" is meant to be a religious honorific, then it is the policy of Wikipedia not to use such phrases (except in direct quotes), just like Wikipedia does not use "PBUH" or the like in articles about Muhammad or other important figures of Islam. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• The relevant guide is here, and it states quite clearly that "Ji" should not be used unless "absolutely necessary". Clearly, previous editors of this article have not considered it to be a necessity so changing it without a broad consensus seems uncalled for; editors from Project Sikhism would be the people to judge what is "necessary" here. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead quotes his date of death as 7 October 1708, confirmed by ref 2, but the Final days section says 18 October 1708, confirmed by ref 79. Is this 11 day difference a question of Old Style and New Style dates? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism (ref 4) gives the date of death as "Kattak sudī 5, 1765 Bk/7 October 1708". The ‘’Encyclopaedia Britannica’’ also gives October 7, so I think that is the date we should use in Wikipedia. I have amended the Final days section, but added a note giving the alternative date. Apuldram (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@RahulRamchandani: Welcome to wikipedia. Per BRD, let us discuss this. Why is the "According to Sikh tradition" clause needed? It is mainstream scholarship per the sources, and fringe to allege Tegh Bahadur was not beheaded etc. Please see NPOV guidelines, and explain your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It's according to Sikh tradition because, no contemporary sources from the period exist regarding his execution. All accounts come from sources a hundred years later, or even more. Also, the Mughal-Sikh confict rarely had any religious tones, rather political. You can read the article that I had sourced. RahulRamchandani (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@RahulRamchandani: Please do not edit war. One newspaper article and similar source does not determine what the summary should be. Per WP:NPOV guidelines, we must consider what the multiple sources are stating, and summarize the majority/mainstream view. You are free to hold whatever opinions / prejudices / wisdoms you wish, but we must summarize what the published reliable sources are stating. The Guru Tegh Bahadur article and sources therein do summarize the various views on his execution and disputes therein. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The cited article in The Hindu by Satish Chandra is directed at showing that there is no justification for implying that the NCERT textbook Medieval India cast aspersions on the patriotism of Tegh Bahadur. The article does not suggest that the reports of his execution may be incorrect, as implied by the clause "According to Sikh tradition". The clause is POV, and should be removed. Apuldram (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It isn't in regards to the beheading. If you read on in this article, you'll see that the Sikh claims are disputed by historians. You can't make the statement a fact, as it gives a wrong impression of Mughal kings as well. Most historians are in agreement that such conflicts were politically motivated, rather than religiously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulRamchandani (talk • contribs)

Acknowledging the version(s) by some Muslims is not same as "disputed by historians". Quit these lectures of yours, "Most historians are in agreement that such conflicts were politically motivated, rather than religiously", because they are WP:FORUM-y and based on your personal opinions / prejudices / wisdoms. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Guru Gobind did not have three wives. He only had one wife. This article is factually incorrect when stating that the Guru had three wives. Mata Jito and Sundari are the same person. The Guru was not married to Mata Sahib. Books and online sources state this clearly. These sources include as http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Guru_Gobind_Singh%27s_wife_or_wives_-_The_encyclopedia_of_Sikhism; and http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/youth.nsf/by+Date/5ff5b3970ea7802287256c7500017ec4!Open

Please rectify this error ASAP. 124.148.75.97 (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources you presented may not be reliable and there are many other sources to confirm that the subject had three wives.[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] -- Flooded with them hundreds 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"change Bicitra Natak to Bachhitar Natak (Battle of Bhangani)" 65.95.109.52 (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MrClog (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The marriage details are not correct here. Ajit Singh was the eldest son of Girusahib. So how can hebe born after rest three children. In fact mata Sundari is the only women Guru Sahib married and took lava fere( official sikh marriage). Please verify from other resources and make corrections, as is not just a matter of mistake but is giving a wrong message to readers about Guru Sahib’s life.

SinghPuri (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The marriage information is not correct and need to be corrected immediately. Mata Jito Ji and mata sundra are same person. Guru Gobind Singh married only once. Gurinderjeetwiki (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Guru gobind singh ji only had one wife that was mata jeeto ji , She was renamed mata sundri for her beauty . Mata sahib kaur was a spiritual mother of khalsa (not wife of guru sahib) Vansh khanuja (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove "(a Hindu at that time)" from line stating "When his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, (a Hindu at that time) was beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam". It is widely accepted agreement that Guru Tegh Bahaddur was the 9th Sikh Guru and practicing the Sikh faith, to say he was a Hindu at that time is implying he was practicing the Hindu faith, which is completely false, misleading, and undermining Sikh history.

Please remove "he belonged to Hindu religion" from line stating "His birth name was Gobind Rai and he belonged to Hindu religion (he would found the Sikh religion later in 1699)"

It is widely accepted agreement that Guru Gobind Singh was the 10th(and final) Sikh Guru and born into the Sikh faith since his father was the 9th Sikh Guru to say he "belonged to Hindu Religion" is implying he was practicing the Hindu faith, which is completely false, misleading, and undermining Sikh history. Sikhofkhalsa (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done A few weeks ago, a number of changes were made, based on the unsourced assertion that "the Sikh religion didn't exist before Guru Gobind Singh founded it in the year 1699". That does not seem to agree with what existing sources say. I have reverted those changes (also because they were poorly written), including the things you mention above; anybody who wishes to add such a claim would need to source it, and probably discuss it first as well. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Want to change the title from Death of Family Members to Sacrifice of the Family Members. Also want to add the name of Sahibzaade's. 103.241.225.204 (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Sacrifice" does not seem to fit very well. Add "Sahibzaade" where? – Thjarkur (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{change Death of Family Members to Sacrifice of Family Members} Also add the names of Sahibzaada's invidually under this heading. Amandeepkaur Sudan (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead of this article states Tegh Bahadur was beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam.

The sources presented do support this, but this source;

• Aurangzeb, The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King, Audrey Truschke, page 54-55, states that Tegh Bahadur was executed for causing unrest in the Punjab.

I did find two more sources stating Tegh Bahadur was executed for refusing to convert.

• J. S. Grewal, The Sikhs of the Punjab - Volumes 2-3, page 72, " Guru Tegh Bahadur refused to accept Islam , and he was beheaded in Chandni Chauk , the main market..."
• Carl Olson, The Many Colors of Hinduism: A Thematic-historical Introduction, page 23, "Aurangzeb helped to unite the Sikhs when he beheaded the ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1675 for refusing to convert to Islam."

To indicate the difference in what sources are saying, I propose this sentence;

• "When his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, was executed by Aurangzeb,^[a][b] Guru Gobind Singh was formally installed as the leader of the Sikhs at the age of nine, becoming the tenth and final human Sikh Guru."
  

Also, I am not sure the BBC source is reliable so I intend to leave it out. Thoughts regarding this sentence and the notes? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you could combine it into one note. Make sure to cite sources in the note, also. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

After 7 days and with no objections, I have changed the lead what was proposed and added a note. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Please change it. Kamaljisinghal (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

109.236.19.99 (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Guru Gobind Singh had only one Wife wich was Mata Jito, in 1677 they had an engagement, and in 1684 they got married, after the wedding Guruji called her wife Mata Sundari. Mata Shaib Kaur is the spiritual mother of the khalsa(sikh religion), and Guru Gobind Singh is the spiritual father of the Khalsa, but Mata Sahib Kaur isn't the wife of Guru Gobind Singh. Please correct this error.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes they are totally correct.guru Gobind Singh ji only have one wife.mata jito ji. Pushpinder Singh11 (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pushpinder Singh11: According to what published reliable sources? —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Guru Gobind Singh ji only married to Mata Sundri ji ,her childhood name is Ajit kour (Mata jitta) Mata Sahib Kour Is Mother of Khalsa Panth. 2402:8100:21D7:734C:0:0:750:F78F (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Guru Gobind Singh had married only once. At the age of 8 he married Mata Jito. As per Indian custom the actual physical transfer of wife took place when children grew up. Therefore at age of 18 years, Guru Gobind Singh completed the rituals with Mata Jito and she was renamed Mata Sundari. At the age of 38 years, he made Mata Sahib Kaur, the religious mother of Sikh Khalsa Community, but, never married her. This way, Guru Gobind Singh married once and only one wiife. Davinderpalsingh500 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davinderpalsingh500: do you have a source for that? The Sikh Encyclopedia identifies these three names as different women (Mata Jitoji, Mata Sundari, Mata Sahib Devan). --bonadea contributions talk 14:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

yes u are right Guru Sahib Only Married to Mata Sundri jI (Ajit kour) Mata Sahib Kour ji is spiritual Mother of Khalsa Panth. She don't have Any Relation with Guru Gobind Singh ji Sukhjeet Pannu (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He never had adopted sons, or two wives and was never assassinated.

Get the facts right 2A02:C7F:92EE:9E00:9C9E:E6FA:8451:2358 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources cited in the article support the wives and children. You have not provided any sources to back your assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Guru ji had only one marriage and only one wife 2401:4900:420F:E295:EAE6:927B:5B7:F111 (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Zorawar Singh (Sikhism) should be merged with the page since it does not have enough sourced content. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that there do seem be sufficient references to support independent notability. I wonder, though, whether merging the pages for the two brothers might work; that is, merging with Fateh Singh (Sikhism). Klbrain (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support (for the initial or alternative proposal). Klbrain (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any source for it? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The birth date of Guru Gobind Singh according to Lunar Vikram Samvat is Poh Sudi 7 which is arrived to Gregorian Calendar by Pal Singh Purewal as 5 January. Similarly death of Guru Govind Singh according to Gregorian Calendar by Pal Singh Purewal is 21 October Singhforsingh (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Its True that first marriage was with Mata Jito Ji but children born from them were BABA AJIT SINGH JI (ELDER OF ALL 4 Sons)and BABA JHUJHAR SINGH JI and From Mata Sundari ji were BABA JORAWAR SINGH and BABA FATEH SINGH JI . Above information we have been taught in schools and Gurudwaras Pls consult with SGPC AMRITSAR 106.211.73.196 (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:^[1]trim|1=

                                                                  Change''

"Guru Gobind Singh had three wives:[3][28]at age 10, he married Mata Jito on 21 June 1677 at Basantgaṛh, 10 km north of Anandpur. The couple had three sons: Jujhar Singh (b. 1691), Zorawar Singh (b. 1696) and Fateh Singh (b. 1699).[29]at age 17, he married Mata Sundari on 4 April 1684 at Anandpur. The couple had one son, Ajit Singh (b. 1687).[30] at age 33, he married Mata Sahib Devan on 15 April 1700 at Anandpur. They had no children, but she had an influential role in Sikhism. Guru Gobind Singh proclaimed her as the Mother of the Khalsa.[31]"

                                                            'TO'

Guru Gobind Singh had only one wife, but the impression that the Guru had more than one wife was created by those writers who were ignorant of Punjabi culture. The two elaborate functions, one at the time of engagement and the other at the time of the marriage of the Guru, gave the outside observers the impression of two marriages. They had reason to assume this because a second name was also there, i.e., Mata Sundari Ji. After the marriage, there is a custom in the Panjab of giving a new affectionate name to the bride by her inlaws. Mata Jeeto Ji, because of her fine features and good looks, was named Sundari (beautiful) by the Guru's mother. The two names and two functions gave a basis for outsiders to believe that the Guru had two wives. In fact, the Guru had only one wife with two names as explained above.

Another misunderstanding is that the parents of Mata Sahib Devan, as some Sikh chronicles have mentioned, had decided to marry her to Guru Gobind Singh. When the proposal was brought for discussion to Anandpur, the Guru had already been married. Therefore, the Guru said that he could not have another wife since he was already married. The dilemma before the parents of the girl was that, the proposal having become public, no Sikh would be willing to marry a woman who had been betroved to the Guru. The Guru agreed for her to stay at Anandpur but without accepting her as his wife. As Guru Gobind Singh ji is the spiritual but not the biological father of the Khalsa, Mata Sahib Devan ji is the spiritual mother of the Khalsa, Mata Sahib Devan is the spiritual mother of the Khalsa but not the wife of Guru Gobind Singh

}} Sikhism7 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That's a whole lot of text with no sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

82.7.111.39 (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Guru Gobind Singh only had one wife

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Change birthday of Guru Gobind Singh 117.228.189.114 (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Gobind Rai Sodhi 2600:1010:B101:52F3:11CF:6577:8310:52C2 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to read the first sentence of the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hona De Char Putra san Na Ke 5 2409:4055:4E12:8223:9AA:A5FD:EA24:A5B1 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is wazir khan not kahn BlackLeech (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read this link https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/biographies/great-sikh-women/mata-jito-ji/ Daredevils56 (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an effort to corrupt the Sikh history using digital means. Anyone creates a self proclaimed theory and starts stating it as truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.243.202.194 (talk) 12:29, 3 Jun 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to add Guru Gobind Singh's name transcribed in Gurmukhi as ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ to the intro section and side infobox. A citation supporting the spelling of his name in Gurmukhi can be referenced here at an online Punjabi encyclopedia that draws from a variety of academic sources: https://punjabipedia.org/topic.aspx?txt=%E0%A8%97%E0%A9%81%E0%A8%B0%E0%A9%82+%E0%A8%97%E0%A9%8B%E0%A8%AC%E0%A8%BF%E0%A9%B0%E0%A8%A6+%E0%A8%B8%E0%A8%BF%E0%A9%B0%E0%A8%98

Please also view this discussion regarding adding Gurmukhi transcriptions on Guru Nanak's page for past precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guru_Nanak#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_16_August_2022 ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any objection to adding the transcription of his name to the introductory paragraph of the article? How about to the infobox? —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Support as it will be informative info to include in the article and I do not see any reason for it to not be omitted, seeing as it is included in the biographical articles covering the other nine human Gurus of Sikhism. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor (Hjjajh) keeps adding a modern image (Guru Gobind Singh portrait.jpg) of the Guru to the side infobox just after I originally added a contemporary depiction of the Guru (Guru Gobind Singh contemporary painting.jpg). The image he is using is most likely still under copyright (a reverse image search of the image brings up many identical results), no detail of the work is present on its Wikimedia Commons page. It should not even be uploaded on Wikipedia under false copyright tags as per Wikipedia copyright policy. We can discuss which image is best to use here. I feel that a historic, contemporary depiction of the Guru is preferred over these idealized, modernist depictions biased by artist interpretation and inclinations, especially in a objective-setting like an encyclopedia entry. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wrong cause of death.He was not assassinated. 110.224.65.142 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The word must not be used. The composition is not for pleasure or something but to show Sikhs about characters of the people when lust takes over. Those are not fables. Gurmehak Kaur (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It has to be changed. Gurmehak Kaur (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gurmehak Kaur: Quoting the cited source: "It is a compilation of hymns, philosophical writing, Hindu mythological tales, autobiography, and erotic fables."[17] There is no reason to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Instead of 'Erotic fables' those are more of 'Character stories' as the compilation states in its heading being "Charitro Pakhyan" i.e. Character Stories. 117.243.202.194 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Guru Gobind Singh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

((At age 10, he married Mata Jito on 21 June 1677 at Basantgaṛh, 10 km north of Anandpur. The couple had three sons: Jujhar Singh (b. 1691), Zorawar Singh (b. 1696) and Fateh Singh (b. 1699).[37] at age 17, he married Mata Sundari on 4 April 1684 at Anandpur. The couple had one son, Ajit Singh (b. 1687).[38]))

There is an incorrect information about Sahibzada Baba Ajit Singh ji. Because Sahibzada Baba Ajit Singh ji is elder brother as compare to Sahibzada Baba Jujhar Singh ji Sahibzada Baba Zorawar Singh ji Sahibzada Baba Fateh Singh Ji Sndhu0001 (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Sndhu0001: What source says they had four children and not one (if I follow your text correctly)? —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred If you are handling articles about a religion, first read its offline historical documents. Not everything is available online. And without knowing about a religion's history and asking known persons to cite sources isn't a good way to work. It seems just an effort to alter the history. For reference you may watch movie 'Chaar Sahibzaade', you will understand the relation and age difference of the four sons. 117.243.202.194 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the movie is 100% historically accurate? And the burden on sourcing falls on those wanting to make the changes. If Sndhu0001 wants to change the order of the children, they need to provide a source supporting that order. —C.Fred (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Guru Gobind Singh Ji was born as Gobind Rai and not Gobind Das (as mentioned in the article).

SOURCE: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Guru-Gobind-Singh

https://www.vedantu.com/biography/guru-gobind-singh-biography

https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Guru_Gobind_Singh 223.178.210.179 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

While your last two sources are considered unreliable for our purposes, it is true that most sources state that his birth name was Gobind Rai as opposed to Das. However other sources indicate that Rai, a generic decorative name denoting nobility and sovereignty, and frequently appended to the names of rulers, was a popular exonym as opposed to his actual birth name. Reliable sources from experts Jagtar Singh Grewal and William Hewat McLeod say that his father named him as Gobind Das, Gobind Rai may have been a later development. Please see the citations (number boxes) near the name “Gobind Das” in the lede. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Change guru sahib's depiction because in this guru sahib is shown with earrings 180.94.34.132 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The image depicts the subject through an artist's eyes, and since the image was painted during the subject's lifetime, there's hardly any other image that would match it in value. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)