User talk:Harisingh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Previous Content Archived at:
Archive1 on 19 August 2006 (for entries from 6 Sept 2004 to 17 July 2006)

Contents 1 Dear Hari Singh 2 Sikhism 3 Other peoples' talk pages 4 A suggestion 5 Wikisource 6 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertrand Russell 7 SGGS on Meat 8 Hi, who is this Zoe? 9 Hi, no problem 10 No, I did not mean MEAT 11 Thanks 12 Female mathematicians 13 SGGS on Meat 14 Baha'i and Abrahmic 15 List of religions 16 Only Path to God 17 link to Persian 18 Animal rights 19 Concerning your e-mail about a blocking message 20 Animal rights help 21 Email 22 Nanavati commission 23 Women in India 24 Hi

[edit] Dear Hari Singh

I have seen you have contributed and prevented vandalism of the Manmohan Singh article. There has been some strong vandalism going on the article - please can you keep an eye on it to prevent vandalism of this important article by vandals. You should point out to them of wikipedia's consensus code of conduct - any changes must be made after long debate and consensus on the talk page. It would be a good idea to get other wikipedian you trust to help you to prevent vandalism of the article. Thank you.--Cathyh 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhism

This Discussion is about SGGS on Meat and appears in FULL at talk:SGGS on Meat

I am afraid that I do not agree with you. Any article promoting any specific religious faith or doctrine must, by definition, be POV and hence non-encyclopedic. I would take the same line with a tract putting forward the tenets of any other faith, including my own. But I am not an admin, and I will abide by the decision ultimately arrived at by the powers that be. Pleasae note that I did not mark it with a speedy tag, although as a POV article it would have qualified for one, to allow time and space for debate.--Anthony.bradbury 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that the article "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)

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)

[edit] Other peoples' talk pages

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)

I should be obliged if you would continue the discussion regarding your article SGGS on Meat in the appropriate place, and not try to spread it onto various talk pages. Let's keep this centralised where possible, or nobody will get anywhere. Thank you. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Hi, Hari. I just noticed your disagreement on SGGS on Meat, and I'd like to, if possible, help you out and keep you from getting too upset.

This is a very quick note; I haven't read the whole issue yet, but this is to let you know that an administrator noticed, and wants to help. DS 20:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• You do have a point, in fact - some of those articles on parables are too reliant on quotations from the source material. An article should explain the source material, not be the source material. Many of those parables are going up for deletion debates quite soon, in fact. We could, of course, have an article about what the SGGS said, with a reference to Wikisource (if in fact the Sikh scriptures are on Wikisource).

"In fact, in fact, in fact" - I certainly am in a lot of facts. DS 21:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

You may wish to read Wikisource, or to go to the main page for the entire project. I'm sure that the Sikh texts would be welcome there. DS 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertrand Russell

Your tagging of Bertrand Russell for AfD was clearly improper. I suggest you not try something like that again. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly inappropriate and retaliatory. Try it again and I'll block you. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hari. Please take it easy...and keep in mind WP:POINT - you didn't think that Bertrand Russell would ever get close to being deleted did you. If you need help, please message me. I'm an administrator now (since we last spoke) so I hope I can be of assistance. Best regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Be my guest. Take it to WP:ANI. Your actions are totally inappropriate, and they will tell you that there, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't go to ANI Hari. It's a big spotlight there. There's hardly a drama here. Thanks for the message. I'm sure something can be worked out like in March for the Bhai Makhan Shah. I'll look at it soon, I need to go to meeting now. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Hello. I've replied on my user talk and put some thoughts on the deletion discussino page. thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] SGGS on Meat

First of all I wanna address the claims you're making that there is bias against this article because it deals with Sikhism rather than Christianity. I don't believe that to be the case. What this page is, essentially, is a collection of quotes about a central theme - the theme of the eating of meat in Sikhism. Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, one of the items on the list is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Other than the relatively brief introduction (which I also have issues with), that describes this article - a list of loosely associated quotations. They should be moved to Wikiquote. There is no Christianity-related article like this. I challenge you to find me one Christianity-related page that is a collection of quotes. The Parables of Jesus, which you've claimed are more or less Christian equivalents of this article, are much different articles. Each article is about one specific quotation from the Bible - and all of those quotations are famous in and of themselves. I admit I am not familiar with the Sikh Shabads, but as far I know they aren't considered particularly famous parts of the Guru Granth Sahib - and even if they are, they would need their own articles, each of which discusses the Shabad itself. You will not see an article such as Bible on the Afterlife that just explains the Bible's position on the Afterlife and provides a bunch of quotes supporting it. You do see articles like Heaven, which explain (more esoterically) a Christian (not exclusively in this case, but you see my point) belief. This is analogous to the page Sikh diet: no one has a problem with that, because instead of being more or less a collection of quotes, it's a general treatment of the subject. It's fine to quote a holy book a few times in context about a subject like that, of course, but when the article is pretty much just a collection of quotes, it belongs at Wikiquote. -Elmer Clark 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to put this on the AfD page, and if you have a response or any more comments about this I'd advise you to place them there as well. -Elmer Clark 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, who is this Zoe?

Who is this Zoe and why is he/she deleting perfectly good articles? ( Message left by 71.242.164.228 at 16:13, 22 August 2006 )

Hi Anonymous, Zoe is an administrator and one of thousand of users of this site. I assume that you are talking about the SGGS on Meat article. It is not just Zoe, but several users who have spoken against this article and want it deleted – Please read what various users have said about this article and what they feel about deleting it and add your own views at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGGS on Meat. I hope this answers your question – If not please post here again. Many thanks, --Hari Singh 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, no problem

Hi Hari Singh, I've had a think about it's a good article because it conforms to orthodox Sikh teaching (over 400 years) so it good but.... If we allow this article then will have to allow a lot of other bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Therefore the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Therefore, I think part of it should be merged with the other article already mentioned. This article is good but if we keep it the price might be we have to let another 100 bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Be brave Hari Singh and say "lets part merge it with the other article" for the greater good and put it in wiki quote.--Sikh 1 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your philosophy is 100% correct giving access to translated English version of the Guru Granth Sahib online is excellent, because Guru Gobind Singh said your Guru now is the Guru Granth Sahib YOU MUST DO WHAT IS SAYS but there are some quotes that can be twisted against the teaching of the Gurus- which is dangerous--Sikh 1 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia is Not the place to add anslated English version of the Guru Granth Sahib online. If you want to must make your own website for it--Sikh 1 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The main point is, a non Khalsa Sikh is under moral obligation to live by every law in the Guru Granth Sahib. A Khalsa Sikh is under Legal obligation to live by every law in the Guru Granth Sahib because they have taken the oath and Amrit (in the Amrit ceremony). Therefore, there is a distinction between a Khalsa Sikh and non Khalsa Sikh. Now if a non Khalsa Sikh eats meat Sikhism does not condone it (morally wrong and a sin) but they are NOT breaking their oath and Amrit because they have not taken Amrit and the oath- there is no legal obligation on them but there is a moral obligation.----Sikh 1 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No, I did not mean MEAT

No, I meant wiping out bio of female mathematicians and statisticians, e.g. Elaine Zanutto (already deleted) Roberta Wenocur (threatened for deletion) and just about anything regarding women in math & science. MathStatWoman 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

They deleted Elaine Zanutto's bio. Sigh...

thanks. tired now. goodnight. MathStatWoman 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female mathematicians

Wikipedia is not fun, but contentious. See the latest stuff to delete bio of Roberta Wenocur. They wiped out bio on Elaine Zanutto. Maybe I will stop contributing. Is this a power trip for some people? I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia as a "good deed", but it seems to be "Truthiness" -- Truth by Democracy, with an in-crowd of power-hungry people with a lot of time on their hands. You were fair, but many are not. I suspect gender bias, also, among many. MathStatWoman 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SGGS on Meat

Discuss what the passages say, don't just include gigantic quotes. Don't reproduce the entire holy book here, link to a page on the net which includes it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very much what I'm talking about, although passages such as "The Almighty Lord by his power created the world, universe, sky, earth, trees and water" might be considered POV. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend something like, "according to the text, The Almighty Lord ...", or "according to the Guru, The Almighty Lord ...". If you are quoting the text. If you aren't quoting the text, then reword it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. Thanks for hashing this out together. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i and Abrahmic

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was in error and I must appologise. I think the Abrahamic religions article is accurate in stating that this term is controversial amoungst adherents of the faiths involved and it is a technical term used in comparitive relegion. --Mig77^(t) 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of religions

Hi, sorry for the confusion. Having looked more closely at the diffs, you didn't remove Jainism. However, could you explain the logic of arranging the Abrahamic religions alphabetically, while arranging the Dharmic faiths by size? Thanks, Addhoc 13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Addhoc Sorry we seem to working on the same article at the same time! What the chance of that - probably 1 in a few million. Anyway, all I was trying to do was highlight the main religions within the Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions and not in any order at this stage although it makes sense to keep them alphabetic. I also noticed that the categories started with three equal signs so I was reducing this by one on all the sections. I am sorry if this has caused any problems. I have finished for now. Please carry-on if you wish. I hope this help. Thanks for the message. --Hari Singh 13:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only Path to God

I've deleted this article, because it seems like it only exists to make a point (that Sikhism is superior to other religions because it does not claim to be the only path to God). It therefore violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I think it would be valid to make a reference to this principle of Sikhism in the Sikhism article itself, if it's not there already. Thanks, NawlinWiki 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• The newer version of the article seems to be more balanced. The old one, at the time you posted it, seemed like it had been created specifically to make an argument in favor of Sikhism and against Christianity and Islam. That said, I am still not sure that the article is not a POV fork that should better be addressed in the individual articles on the various religions. I will leave it alone for now, though. NawlinWiki 20:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hari, I responded on the talk page for Only Path to God. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to Persian

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something Persian, please do not link to Persian, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Persian people, Persian language, or Iran, by writing out [[Persian language|Persian]] or [[Iran|Persian]]. Regards, Jeff3000 06:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hari, thanks for being so constructive, and helping Wikipedia. It's great to have you on board. Regards. -- Jeff3000 18:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights

Hi

I have reverted your recent edit to animal rights. It was in violation of several of wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies if you would like to avoid having your contributions removed. Thank you. mgekelly 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning your e-mail about a blocking message

I received an e-mail that you sent concerning a block message you received that was the result of a block on another user: (excerpts)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by ERcheck for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "xxxxxxx".

Your e-mail note was sent today. I see that you have been able to edit.

Did you receive this message when you were trying to edit without logging in? I've reviewed associated autoblocks, which seem to have expired. Please send me a note on my talk page, or e-mail of you prefer (which I check less often) and let me know if you are still having difficulties.

— ERcheck (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I see that Netsnipe handled your auto-block issue. — ERcheck (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights help

Hi there. I can understand your situation (I'm reasonably sure SlimVirgin is male, btw), and I'll try and help. I think you're making perfectly reasonable arguments, from an outsider's point of view, but you don't seem to have a huge amount of evidence. Do you have any published sources on the expert you would like to involve? You could show these to SlimVirgin and discussion could continue. If you would still like to go for full on mediation, we can - but I'd rather go with quieter methods where possible. Thanks. —Xyrael / 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Did you send me an email regarding the AR article? Someone did, but I didn't recognize the username so I didn't reply. Nrets 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanavati commission

Since you are a sikh, I was wondering if you knew a lot about the Nanavati commission (the report that brought cold-blooded killer Jagdish Tytler to justice).Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Congress party people are messing with the article and the biography of G.T. Nanavati.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women in India

Sat sri akal Hari Singh. I may have acted a bit harshly but I think the section was still POV. It gives the impression that from the start of Indian civilisation (maybe from 2000 BCE) to 1500, women have always been treated terribly in India. This is not the case. There have been many people who fought for women's rights in India before (eg. Buddha) and after (eg. Mahatma Gandhi) the Sikh Gurus. Having three big paragraphs on just Guru Nanak in the Reforms and Equal right section is too much in my opnion. The passage also attacks Hinduism and Islam and makes ridiculous claims.

the founder of Sikhism is believed to be the first person in the world to highlight the equality of women and to speak against these evil practises.

Muslims believe that the Purdah on women's faces is needed because men can not see their beautilful faces, hence will stop treating them as sexual objects. You may not agree but that is what Muslims believe. The SGGS itself says that all paths lead to God, so you should start respecting their beliefs.

In addition, Shaktas, a major sect of Hinduism, believe that God herself is female, the divine mother (Mata Devi). The word shakti is feminine and so they believe all energy and power in the universe comes from the Divine Mother. Even the other sects of Hinduism mention the importance of women. When referring to any gods in Hinduism, the female word always comes first. eg. Sita-Rama, Radha-Krishna, Shri Vishnu (Shri is Lakshmi). The Ramayan and Mahabharat talk about how those who abuse women suffer greatly. Sita chose the way she wanted to get married in a svayamvar. She decided that anybody who can lift Shiv's bow will become her husband. Also see Draupadi#Draupadi.27s_Cheer-Haran.

The philosophical books Upanishads say that everything is Brahman and man and woman are ultimately the same thing. They also mention many female rishinis/gurus/swamis such as Gargi, Maitreyi and Savitri. In that way, Hinduism gives more respect to women than Sikhism since all the ten Sikh gurus are male.

Having said that, post-vedic Hinduism and India in the medieval period (partly because of Islam) was slightly anti-women. The Manu Smriti at times is very respectful to women ("let your mother, wife and sisters be god to you") but at other times seems to regard them as inferior. Sati and Dowry occurred but are never mentioned in any text. They even had good origins. Sati started because when the soldiers died in wars, the wives would be brutally raped and abused by the enemy. According to Monier Monier-Williams, they preferred death to this torture. I hope you understand. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Hari Singh. User:Sikh-history, has been pushing POV- this needs to be dealt with and we have all the tools to do that. I have not made my mind up about him, he might be a good person, we need to talk to him.--Sikh 1 22:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)