User talk:Harisingh/Pages for AFD

=Should Text from Holy Books be used on Wikipedia= User:Anthony.bradbury put the following on the this article.

=User:Harisingh made this comment at the user talk page =

Dear Anthony.bradbury

I am surprised that you have put the message that this article SGGS on Meat is "Evangelical text; not encyclopedic" Any encyclopaedia is a reference database and the text put on this page is in support of a very important subject for many millions of Sikhs and forms the reference material for the various other pages which are being created to refer to this page. The SGGS is the holy script of the [[Sikh]s and reference to this text from this script is very important. A true copy of the text has to be produced for any meaningful value and reference

This page has been linked to another page where the different points of views (POVs) are stated. So this page forms part of a group of articles which form the material that is important to users and students in this field. I believe that you have only looked at this page in isolation while in reality, this page is going to be a hub for many other articles.

I hope you will agree with me when you look at this page with all the links installed in the next few days, and I hope you will appreciate the importance of this very valuable reference material. --Hari Singh 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Tonywalton endorsed the action by adding the following on the article page
 At least one user other than the nominator has reviewed this article's proposed deletion, endorses the proposal to delete, and adds: Addiionally the author is not in a position to decide what edits may or may not be made; this in itself is an attempt to maintain the POV of the page if you remove the tag above, please also remove this  tag.

Followed by the following comments:


 * Your statement "is in support of" something is in itself a violation of the Wikipedia principle that articles must not espouse a particular point of view. You might also like to visit this page, particularly this section. If you would like to reword the article, removing attempts at advocacy of your point of view and reporting on what the Guru said the article may survive; note that as well as neutrality verifiability is an absolute criterion for an article to be incuded. Note also that the excuse that "although this article esposes a point of view others to which it links do not" is unacceptable; every article on Wikipedia must meet the criteria for inclusion on its own . Apart from anything else there is absolutely no guarantee that a reader of a particular article will visit any of the articles it links to. Finally may I draw your attention to the statement on all edit screens that If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. Your stricture on the article attempting to limit what edits may be made is therefore meaningless. Tonywalton | Talk 12:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply by User:Harisingh
The following was the reply by User:Harisingh and the additions were removed from the article page while awaiting the same treatment to the pages listed below:

Many thanks for your comments on the SGGS on Meat. I would appreciate if we carry on the discussion at your user page as otherwise we will lose track of what is going on and this discussion is instigated by your action. I have marked your talk page "On Watch" so I will know whenever a change takes place here.

Well as suggested by User:Anthony.bradbury, I have listed below articles on Christianity which refer to original text from the holy Bible just as the article my me – I would like you to look at these article and do the same as you did to the article on Sikhism. Please have these texts removed as well as they support a POV and hence are "non-encyclopedic" as he sais and you supported. I would like you to do the same with these articles as they are creating the same violation? Do you agree or not? Or do you have a different excuse here?

List of articles using original text from the Bible:


 * Parable of the Leaven four quotation from the holy text


 * Parable of the Weeds 3 quotes


 * Parable of the Pearl 2 quotes
 * Parable of the Hidden Treasure
 * Parable of Drawing in the Net


 * The Fall of Man one long quote plus small ones?


 * Parable of the Faithful Servant 1 quote

Surely you should now go and put the same or similar message on all these articles. I will be adding to the list above as I feel that you are letting your inherent prejudice drive your actions. Please these article and see what does thro your mind!! --Hari Singh

Reply by User:Anthony.bradbury

 * Your suggestion that i should add links to other articles at your suggestion is just not going to happen. If you wish to add tags to them yourself you are at perfect liberty, under the rules of Wikipedia, to do so.--Anthony.bradbury 17:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply by User:Harisingh
Remember you put up the message on the article – I did not!! – Now when I show you similar "violations" – Why do you behave in a different manner? Is it your inherent prejudices against other peoples and religions? By putting up the message, you made a ruling by that decision - quoting from the holy text should not be allowed – '''Now, Is it one rule for Sikhism and a different rule for Christianity? I am concerned by you exercising double standards''' – Perhaps you do the same in your everyday life? It’s a very poor NHS if you do!! --Hari Singh 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply by User:Tonywalton
User:Tonywalton said: "Please do not refactor discussions on other peoples' talk pages. If you do this again I shall report it as vandalism. Thank you. Tonywalton | Talk 18:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)"

Reply by User:Harisingh

 * SGGS on Meat: Please do, if that's what you think it is - You have collaborated with another user regarding this matter and bringing these matters to your attention is not called vandalism in my book – perhaps it is in your?


 * Did you not take part in and have discussion in connection with this article? Did you not tag this article - SGGS on Meat? Did you not communicate with User:Anthony.bradbury? Then why are you so touchy about being kept informed about the on going material and the progress in this matter? How can you call it vandalism? The meaning of Vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." How does the copy of this message "compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" – Please get serious?? You cannot interfere with articles done by a User  and then shout "Vandalism" when the User responds on your talk page as a direct result of your interference!


 * Perhaps you do not want to be kept informed about the outcome of your actions and the knock on effect that this has on other things? It is strange that you have the time to deal with this trivial matter rather than the reply to my substantial posting from before? Why have you not addressed that matter? A matter that is of substance and is more relevant?


 * Why have you not replied to that posting that has been directed at you? You appear to have the guts to tag this article – what about the hundreds of article on Christianity that quote directly from the holy Bible? Why don't you tag those articles? But only articles on Sikhism? That's the substance in this discussion - not the games that you want to play? Please address the important matters that have substance in this discussion rather than these trivial issues that are of little importance to anyone but you!! (cc to talk:SGGS on Meat) Best regards --Hari Singh 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ksingh20
KEEP THE ARTICLE--MY REASONS ARE

Hari I think you are getting off the mark---its not needed --anger will not convince anyone to follow you only by example are leaders of real repute born.

As for the editor--For Gods sake have some sense of fair play.YOU CANT DELETE THE ARTICLE ONLY IMPROVE IT>by shedding more light on it.

If you treat articles on Christianity different from any another Religion you are breaching a very important Law of this country. Do you really want it printed in the national papers? So take heed and try to understand the situation.

Obviously there are some scholars who have misinterpreted the SGGS and to their own conviction have hijacked the True Meaning.

The next logical question is who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism??

Sikhism is founded on very democratic principles. In that there is no co-ertion to any viewpoint and an individual is allowed to arrive at his or her own conclusion and develope at his own pace.

This is so correct as I often find that as a person progresses spiritually, greater insight is brougt upon the subject matter and therefore the meaning of the texts just gets deeper and deeper.

Therefore it is a folly to argue as to who is right or wrong but the correct thing to do is to experience the the spirituality within the the SGGS and learn therefrom by actually living a righteous life and meditation only such persons acquire the wisdom contained within SGGS.

There have been many Saints of high repute who have arrived at the same conclusion as Hari singh but have not uttered a word as to eat or not to eat meat--by their very presence you know instinctively that it is wrong to kill for meat. And I have met such Saints.

This debate will live on as will the many shades of people ranging from pure spirit to pure matter.That is not a proplem either in Sikhism as we evolve spiritually too.

So all is in Harmony--dont worry yourselves foolishly--God is in charge.

JUST RELATE THE TEXTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND LETS EACH INDIVIDUAL ARRIVE AT HIS OWN CONCLUSION.