1556:: 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. Also, to the above commentor: You seem to have a very flawed perception of what Knowledge is. "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??" Perhaps that is "obvious" to followers of mainstream Sikhism, but obviously not to the followers of those scholars. The question of "who who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism" is
1836:(to become Khalsa) so they could take a more of a pick and choose approach. Its only when you take Amrit to become Khalsa, you formally accept (in the Amrit Ceremony) all the laws in the Guru Granth Sahib. It's a good article 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--
622:
you get to a situation when wrong messages of what is in the holy text can be conveyed as is happening with some aspects of Islam. So it is very important that we are allowed to quote these text verbatim so that the message is not tampered with - Discussion can be NPOV or POV, etc and these can be added to these articles if required. The quotations in themselves do not have a POV or NPOV – They are of a factual nature. The quote from the holy Bible is a FACT which has existed for 2000 years. Whether you believe it or not is another matter – Many billions believe in these facts. The writings of the Bible, Koran, SGGS, etc are all FACTS – They are NOT NPOV or POV. If I write that the
1807:. What is referred to in "our" and "we" - which Sikh clerics said this? Which Sikh organisations said this? If there is are differing views among different schools of Sikh thought, then we need to put the different ideologies there with links to speeches from clerics who interpret the text differently. Put some info on what how different verses from the text are interpreted to mean different things. At the moment I feel that there are too many quotes- we need an explanation of what the quotes mean or what clerics think they imply for correct moral dietary lifestyle.
2034:– The article is primarily a number of quotations from the Sikh Holy Book – When using quotations in an article, you are not allowed to mis-quote and you are not allowed to change these verbatim quotations – So whenever you quote a person or a text in an article, it’s a mandatory practise not to change or interfere with the way the quote was originally stated – whether poorly or otherwise. So, under the circumstances, your statement appears ill-considered and without merit.
208:'s but did not remove the prod tag. Following discussion on the article's talk page author proceeded to accuse Anthony.bradbury of bias against Sikhism, and continued by refactoring discussions on both my and AB's talk pages. Author has now removed prrod tag, so I am taking this article to AfD to give the opportunity for wider debate, and am nominating it for deletion on the grounds that as it stands it is a POV article, probably OR, and
447:(semi-protected), etc for various reasons. The fact that the statement "Please only add text from SGGS or Varan Bhai Gurdas on this page" does not mean that a user cannot add other important text to the page – The statement is there to focus the attention of the Users to the preferred segmentation of the subject matter – It is not a complete block – Is it? It would be preferred if all the holy text was to appears on the page:
367:- HariSingh, I have to say that I do agree with *some* of the concerns raised by Anthony.bradbury and Tonywalton. However, I do not agree that the use of quotations is inappropriate. Although this might border on original research, I'm of the opinion that extracting quotes from the Sikh holy book showing differing points of view is akin to referring to other third-party sources. In this sense, it's not original research.
258:"Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready."
1195:
believe/should understant them'. Our articles on
Christian topics must not be written from a Christain POV, nor are they excluisively for Christians. I'm not going to vote on this one, as I don't know enough about the subject - but it isn't an article on one passage, but a pastiche of passages that (in the author's opinion) relate to a topic of teaching. This clearly raises different issues for consideration. --
76:
630:– That is a factual statement. If you go and look in the SGGS, then you will find that statement there. Whether you want to believe the statement or not – is another matter. Verbatim quotations are facts not subject to the POV or NPOV criterion. When we start making our own comments and have discussions on these texts, it becomes POV or NPOV. I urge all participants here to vote and argue to keep the
1937:
The article consists of important quotations on the subject of meat from the Sikh Holy Book - What is "Unencyclopaedic" about these quotations? Quotations are very frequently used in encyclopaedias and articles– so why are these particular quotations "Unencyclopaedic" while the other ones that appear
1194:
The relationship between the AfDs is spurious. The New
Testament one relates to individual parables and whether they merit thier own article. If the parables survive would would want NPOV verifiable factual, academically referenced, articles to be written on them - not 'here's what Christians should
869:
An encyclopedia should contain information of all different religions and the different aspects of the religions. Why should the teachings of the Sikh holy book not be contained, an encyclopedia should not be biased or false. All quotations from different holy texts should be regarded as divine, and
488:
Knowledge is *not* a site to give advice to Sikhs on how to live their life based on their religious teachings. It's designed to *document* Sikh religious teachings, alternative interpretations and critiscm of the religion. Either way, I feel that this should be merged with Sikh Diet, where a full
2103:
Please, how is this not notable? It discusses meat eating issues for the fifth largest religion based on the primary scripture. Why is it not verifiable? Why is it a copyvio? The Guru Granth Sahib is several hundred years old and is in the public domain so you could quote the entire book and it
1835:
I've had a think about it. It's a good article because it conforms to orthodox Sikh teaching (over 400 years). If you are a Khalsa Sikh, meat is
Strictly forbidden you have to live by the laws in the Guru Granth Sahib but a non Khalsa Sikh does have more flexibilty because they have not taken Amrit
621:
article - The point of all these quotations is to inform the reader of what the Holy texts have to say – that I hope you will agree is an important point; an important issue and a mechanism that needs to be preserved. The job of
Encyclopaedias is to correctly inform its readers!! Without quotations
370:
However, the article in its current form has serious neutrality issues. It starts by saying what can and cannot appear on the page (which is not appropriate on
Knowledge). Statements like "here is no reason to rely on advice by any other third party." are not appropriate. The tone of the article
1045:
This is not similar to the parable pages at all. Read my longer comment down below, I addressed that. It was the intro that I felt was POV, not the quotes. It pretty much says "Sikhs are to base their decisions on diet on these quotes." I'm sure not all Sikhs agree, just as not every Jew stays
1860:
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
1246:
that some of the parables are found in more than one gospel - and parralels can be found in simmilar passages elsewhere (but 'm not defending the content - it needs cleaned up). That's clearly different to arranging a number of passages round a topic as religious instruction. (But again, I'm not
478:
Sorry about the late reply. I'm not active on
Knowledge at the moment. Yes, as a Sikh, I'm saying the SGGS in not neutral (it teaches against many things and advocates other things, hence it's not neutral). But that was not what I was referring to. I was talking about the way the article was
521:
I do not agree that the use of quotations is inappropriate. Although this might border on original research, I'm of the opinion that extracting quotes from the Sikh holy book showing differing points of view is akin to referring to other third-party sources. In this sense, it's not original
1280:
1.) The article is about what the Sikh Holy Book says about Meat. The article only contains quotations from the holy text. How does this affect the NPOV? No point of view has been expressed by the writer. The article does not say "eat meat" or "don't eat" – This is discussed on the page at
1466:
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.
762:
using the
Quotation template – All these articles use quotations and are referring to some POV. So do all these articles need to be deleted? WP:OR – These quotes have existed for 2000 years in the holy Bible – It no original research. My Friend, What are you trying to say?
1129:, as noted above. My greatest concern about the article is that it is constructed to only advocate certain positions. Quoting the article: "This page is strictly for the purposes of recording the message of the Sikh holy scripture." I think an appropriate solution is to
1470:
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.
2092:
requirements. Many parts of the page appear to be copyright violations - if the decision is to keep or merge this article that will have to be fixed either by deleting that text or getting evidence that is has been released under a license compatible with GFDL.
1746:
It was the case at the time. I did not say to ignore their input, I just thought that knowing that might have some input on their perception of whether keeping this is really the concensus of the community in general. But, like I said, it's a moot point now.
526:
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.
782:
I justed entered into discussion on one of those parables up for its own AfD. I suggested deletion on the grounds that there is nothing in the article other than quotes from a holy text. In the name of consistency, I'm making the same suggestion here.
1579:
who has voted to keep this has been either a single-purpose account or someone whose contributions are almost all on the subject of
Sikhism. Among members without obvious connections to Sikhism, there has been unanimous agreement on "Delete."
870:
should be handled with complete respect. A man can not be called peaceful, if he disregards other religions. Where is the justice of deleting an article which contains holy text? There is no text which offends anyone. It is true and only true.
2043:
What is "not encyclopaedic" about these quotations? Quotations are very frequently used in encyclopaedias and articles– so why are these particular quotations "not encyclopaedic" while the other ones that appear elsewhere in
Knowledge are OK?
1133:
the salient points of these quotes at the Sikh diet page and to present them there within the context of an encyclopedic article discussing all verifiable aspects of the issue. If the quotes are necessary verbatim, Wikiquote can handle that.
2003:
in some circumstances….." This original SGGS text forms part of the Public Domain encyclopedias of the Sikhs as it was written in 1708. So, I can see that the above would apply and article based on this text are fine as per the above edict.
1090:
So this brings me to the other reason why I have kept these quotes separate from the discussion page. It highlights the importance given to the issue under discussion (ie: eating meat) and the sacred text, which for a Sikh is like a living
323:
There are 5 rules governing article that have to be deleted: Not encyclopedic quality, not verifiable, original research, not NPOV and copyright material. This article avoid all five of these factors and hence should be allowed to be kept.
371:
seems more akin to a "guideline for Sikhs" as opposed to presenting the differing views on meat eating present amongst Sikhs. The views of scriptural sources are the most important for Sikhs, but they are not the only views or opinions.
1450:
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.
1314:
By summarising, you will be accused of bias and this page will be subject to constant change one way or the other depending on what suits the particular user! – Who will patrol these changes and decide where to draw the line?
265:
Both these users have failed to directly address this matter when raised on their Talk pages. Why? No reply has been given to the key question – If quotes from the holy Bible can be allowed, then why can't one quote from the
1523:, 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
1396:- In this state I can't see this surviving. Is it an excerpt from Sikh scriptures? Is it a speech by a Sikh cleric? There is useful stuff that can be moulded for good use here I think. Need more time to look at it.
1103:. I appreciate your time and effort in making your stand. This conveys to me your objectivity and at least a commitment to impartiality – which is refreshing and a scarce commodity these days. Many thanks again, --
1922:
an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject, but I've always thought the correct solution to that is to delete now, reconsider later, in the event such an article is written. --04:15, 23 August 2006
663:
article has merit and as a Khalsa Sikh agree with most of the points (conforms to orthodox teaching not sect based) but needs clean-up and more depth, more quotes (maybe 2 to 3 fold increase) from Guru Granth
806:
I don't think the situations are analogous. The Bible articles deal with specific passages, this, as far as I can tell, is just all the passages relating to a central theme that the author was able to find.
872:
When one's religion is questioned, it is their duty to defend it, therefore it was necessary for me to make an account in Knowledge, although I have browsed through it many times before, for a long period.--
1420:
1302:
1153:
1002:
948:
755:
336:
1952:, these quotations have a deeper and precious meaning and are easily understood. It is for this reason that most Sikhs users have supported the article while non-Sikh generally appear to not support it. --
1947:
As I have already said, these are quotations from the Holy Text of the Sikh – Clearly, you have no concept of this religion. To you it may appear like a thesis on "Quantum Mechanic" but to a student of
1539:
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
1527:. 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
1460:
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.
461:
Surely that's no reason to delete an article which is what we are deciding here! – That sentence can be changed if you feel that other people can give better advice to a Sikh than their Guru!! --
1463:
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.
1212:
That characterisation is not accurate. If you look at the parables articles closely, you'll find that they, too, often draw material from several of the gospels, including non-canonical ones. -
1016:– The page consists of quotation from the Sikh holy book – How does is differ from the quotations from the holy Bible? If this is " Ridiculously POV" than isn't the parables also the same?
291:
and reading this article. As the fifth largest organised religion, the text in this article is notable and important to the 23million Sikhs in the world. Further, the article clearly say:
1695:
As far as I can work out, both these articles list several verbatim quotes from their respective holy texts! I see more similarity than difference in their basic conceptual design. --
418:
is not neutral? The quotes are verbatim text from the holy scripture just like make hundreds of quotes in any encyclopaedia. I fail to see how this poses an issue with neutrality??
287:
for short on this subject. These quotation are not POVs – They are facts on which a Sikh has to base his or her life! They are matters of serious importance to anyone interested in
1356:
I can't see what criterion tells me that personal interpretations lead to Speedy deletion. If it is pure personal opinion or original research then it would be deleted normally.
441:) to the world in connection with meat. This title in itself restricts what can be put in this article – I believe that this means that only text from the SGGS can be put here.
83:
1519:. 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
1026:
article does it narrate the sayings of the Guru which form the basis of the Sikh Diet article? Where in the Sikh Diet page do find what the Guru has said about eating meat?
1996:
1973:
1474:
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.
1046:
kosher. And if the Sikh diet article doesn't have a section on what the SGGS says about diet, add it! It belongs there, not in its own article, and not in this form. -
1716:
for anything related to their religion, while non-religionists will not, but I don't recall any of those being ignored - I can think of many partisan "voting" on AfDs.
886:
this article should not be deleted as it is important to sikhs to learn about what their holy text tells them. It is important to convey this message to sikhs.--
318:
This statement is not banning anyone but issuing guidance so that the Holy Quotes and the Interpretations can be maintained in an orderly and organised fashion.
1999:
says: "Copying public domain encyclopedias (such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) and using those articles as a basis for a Knowledge article on the subject
1247:
arguing for the deletion of this, I'm just saying it is different). But if this were an NPOV article on a passage of Sikh scripture, I'd vote Strong Keep. --
1443:
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.
489:
look at the issues with meat eating are discussed. Thoughts by prominent scholars on SIkhism must be looked at just as you look at quotes from the SGGS.
482:
1.That's fair enough. But you shouldn't put that in the article. An article should not contain disclaimers of what should or should not be on a page.
198:
Additionally 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
1340:
the text, then do so, but extensive quotes from the text are not encyclopedic. Neither are your interpretations. That would be Original Research.
1295:
does not have all the relevant quotes to allow the user to make up their mind one way or the other. Please show me where the two articles overlap?
600:
So, if you think quoting from holy text is wrong then all the above articles are also wrong and should be deleted as well! I suggest you read the
443:
2). Many articles on Knowledge are restricted in various ways– The main page is restricted (full protected), various articles are restricted eg
969:
as far as I can tell (the page is pretty difficult to understand), it's essentially a sermon with quotations tacked on - quotations can go to
1552:, which explain (more esoterically) a Christian (not exclusively in this case, but you see my point) belief. This is analogous to the page
1544:- 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
1074:
Many thanks for your latest comments on the SGGS deletion page. I am beginning to see why you have made some of the comments that you did.
920:
649:
I will make no further comment except to say that I would like to see views of contributors other than the author, Tony Walton or myself.--
551:
This article is like many other such articles on religion which use quotations from their holy texts: Just a few examples of article on
92:
1535:, which you've claimed are more or less Christian equivalents of this article, are much different articles. Each article is about
1548:
that just explains the Bible's position on the Afterlife and provides a bunch of quotes supporting it. You do see articles like
896:
833:
122:
2061:
1896:
to be peer reviewed. The article has a lot of merit but leaves door open to other bad articles if this allowed. A merge is the
1454:
Obviously there are some scholars who have misinterpreted the SGGS and to their own conviction have hijacked the True Meaning.
924:
592:
17:
1301:
Then I ask that all other quotes on Knowledge are also removed so that no bias is evident in this policy. Check these sites:
576:
1660:"I admit I am not familiar with the Sikh Shabads, but as far I know they aren't considered particularly famous parts of the
853:
That argument has no relevance to the discussion at hand. We're discussing the existence of an encyclopaedia article here.
1221:
1181:
581:
973:; sermons are best left out of the project altogether. Ridiculously POV page whose subject matter is already covered at
723:- someone wrote their personal interpretation of Sikh teachings with quotes that support it. It of course also violates
909:
846:
253:
2012:
1969:
1619:
listed in this article are also very famous quotes from the Sikh Holy Book which are recited frequently by preachers.
1511:) First of all I wanna address the claims you're making that there is bias against this article because it deals with
108:
2019:"Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates"
524:
and I quite agree. I would point out that I made the author aware of this on the article's talk page where I said :
205:
1767:
The page is definetly unacademic and the "we" and "our" stuff needs to go, but subject is valid for wiki article.
823:
Disencouraging Sikhs from reading their holy text would be the same as deterring Christians from the Holy Bible.--
81:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
2133:
1812:
1804:
36:
673:
Moreover, it needs peer review and other Sikh editors' quotes from Guru Granth Sahib to make it more scholarly--
2132:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2069:
382:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1712:
That's not the case. Why would it matter anyway? If you look at a lot of religious articles, people recommend
1446:
As for the editor--For Gods sake have some sense of fair play.YOU CANT DELETE THE ARTICLE ONLY IMPROVE IT: -->
1545:
283:
does not contain any POV by the author but lists various quotes from the Holy Book of the Sikhs called the
1612:
1312:"I think an appropriate solution is to summarize the salient points of these quotes at the Sikh diet page"
154:
260:
If this text can be allowed with many 1000's of other quotes, then why ban text from the Sikh Holy Book?
2116:
2097:
2076:
2048:
1980:
1956:
1904:
1877:
1840:
1825:
1822:
1791:
1771:
1751:
1726:
1723:
1699:
1629:
1584:
1484:
1427:
1416:
1406:
1403:
1384:
1366:
1363:
1348:
1251:
1248:
1225:
1199:
1196:
1185:
1145:
1107:
1050:
994:
981:
955:
931:
890:
876:
857:
827:
811:
794:
767:
735:
699:
677:
668:
653:
650:
638:
608:
558:
539:
501:
465:
434:
397:
236:
222:
189:
59:
601:
1693:
So please could someone explain - What really is the difference between the parables and this article?
1664:- and even if they are, they would need their own articles, each of which discusses the Shabad itself"
905:
842:
459:"Statements like 'here is no reason to rely on advice by any other third party.' are not appropriate."
341:
In both these cases we have verbatim quotes from holy text based on a central theme. Why keep one (ie
2085:
1141:
790:
727:
about as much as is possible - it blows my mind that there is even any debate here! People, this an
570:
564:
535:
485:
2.See above. This is not similar to protecting pages. Protecting pages is done to combat vandalism.
422:"It starts by saying what can and cannot appear on the page (which is not appropriate on Knowledge)."
218:
138:
112:
2021:
This article has nothing to do with the author or his associates. So how can you say that this is a
1419:, the Sikh Holy Book. The format of the text cannot be changed for obvious reasons. Compare it with
1380:
I see you have selected this article and chosen to leave out the parables? Why is that, I wonder? --
1817:
1718:
1641:
1633:
1480:
JUST RELATE THE TEXTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND LETS EACH INDIVIDUAL ARRIVE AT HIS OWN CONCLUSION. --
1398:
1358:
97:
1803:- The heading is definitely unenycyclopedic and needs to be brought into line with something like
1679:
631:
618:
448:
426:
280:
65:
1531:. I challenge you to find me one Christianity-related page that is a collection of quotes. The
1285:
which uses these quotations to highlight both POV. Please tell me how this poses a NPOV concern?
947:
If you real mean what you say that "Knowledge is not for proselytizing any religion - then goto
873:
838:
824:
144:
75:
1136:
785:
604:
to see the original reasons given for the deletion of this article. It makes comical reading. --
2065:
1808:
1784:
1687:
1675:
1553:
1292:
1282:
1164:. A quick review of linked pages would suggest that the phrase "SGGS" should be replaced with "
1161:
1126:
1023:
974:
692:
452:
377:
314:
293:
This page is strictly for the purposes of recording the message of the Sikh holy scripture and
1768:
1661:
1541:
1532:
1217:
1177:
1165:
1100:
308:
298:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1788:
1748:
1581:
1500:
1047:
978:
808:
732:
696:
1977:
1626:" I challenge you to find me one Christianity-related page that is a collection of quotes"
1561:
1080:. So if you do not believe in these quotes, then I believe that you cannot be a Sikh. See
923:
for proselytizing any religion, or any one person's interpretation of that religion. Our
586:
530:
429:
which means that the article is informing the readers about the exact message of the holy
240:
213:
455:. This is just a logical arrangement which makes the patrolling of the articles easier.
2113:
2045:
1953:
1696:
1565:
1506:
1424:
1381:
1316:
1104:
1027:
952:
764:
724:
635:
605:
498:
462:
430:
414:
The article is primarily quotations from the SGGS – As a Sikh, are you saying that the
394:
354:
232:
201:
2089:
1637:
1569:
1520:
1481:
1345:
209:
1334:, not an encyclopedia article in the current form. If you want to write an article
2073:
1516:
1213:
1173:
928:
854:
720:
552:
342:
330:
172:
160:
128:
1524:
1457:
The next logical question is who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism??
719:
sermon-type material such as this is allowed here. This is a blatant example of
107:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
2094:
1901:
1874:
1837:
1651:"… a list of loosely associated quotations. They should be moved to Wikiquote."
1081:
951:
and make the same comment and ask for the thousands of articles to be deleted!!
901:
887:
674:
665:
1678:
article the relevance or not of these Shabads (hymns) can be discussed. So the
634:
and all Parables article as well as they convey important historic messages. --
731:
not a forum for the dissemination of religious interpretations. Good grief. -
1609:
from the Bible - and all of those quotations are famous in and of themselves"
1495:: (This is clearly incorrect - The user had also posted this message to the
2105:
970:
490:
444:
386:
294:
2104:
wouldn't be a copy vio. (btw, I voted to merge with Sikh diet, not keep).
1783:
We already have an academic (well, getting there) page on the subject; see
1125:
per nom, specifically the NPOV concerns. We have an article already on the
243:
highlighting other articles where quotations from their holy text appear.
204:
then attempted to dispute the prod both on the article's talk page and on
1572:
for more information about what should and shouldn't be put here. Also,
1477:
So all is in Harmony--dont worry yourselves foolishly--God is in charge.
1341:
1615:
we have listed 5 different quotes NOT one as you say. Further, all the
1949:
1512:
346:
288:
1856:
to live by every law in the Guru Granth Sahib. A Khalsa Sikh is under
2001:
is perfectly OK. Copying specialised encyclopedias may be appropriate
1667:
1616:
1549:
1156:
to avoid Christian bias. If I'm to express a preference, it would be
1496:
411:"…. the article in its current form has serious neutrality issues."
1918:
Unencyclopedic and so poorly written as to be almost unreadable.
1653:
These are all list of quotes so shouldn't they be moved as well?
1299:"If the quotes are necessary verbatim, Wikiquote can handle that"
1154:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Wise and the Foolish Builders
1005:
pages which are also being discussed as candidates for deletion.
277:"...this in itself is an attempt to maintain the POV of the page"
2126:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1801:
Content is useful and needs to be improved and kept in some form
1683:
1671:
1169:
1096:
1092:
1085:
1077:
998:
912:) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
849:) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
623:
438:
415:
304:
284:
267:
1976:), it is written poorly, and it is not encyclopedic in nature.
715:
It doesn't matter if it "corresponds with orthodox teachings,"
353:
and is against Knowledge policy and the law of the land (UK) --
329:
Some users have shown a clear bias towards similar articles on
70:
1076:
The main definition of a Sikh is someone who believes in the
1010:
but here you have voted to delete? I would love to know why?
993:
The page lists quotations from the Sikh Holy Book called the
313:- All personal and other views should be stated on the page:
248:
Anthony.bradbury marked the article for deletion because of:
101:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1815:
seem to leave a lot to be desired at this stage as well.
1007:
1). It surprises me that at the parables site you voted:
1306:
759:
1690:
discuss the consequences and meaning of these hymns.
2017:. Looking at these guidelines, I note that it says:
1152:
Care should be taken to close this AfD similarly to
1084:(please note I have links with this site) also see
374:The topic discussed is important, so my opinion is
235:posted a message on both the talk pages of Users -
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1674:and this article lists a few of them. Then on the
301:regarding the matter of Meat and its consumption.
1997:Knowledge:Don't include copies of primary sources
1974:Knowledge:Don't include copies of primary sources
231:Following the posting of the 2 tags, the author,
2136:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1861:breaking their oath and Amrit because they have
1020:"subject matter is already covered at Sikh Diet"
1968:because it is a violation of Knowledge policy (
1945:" so poorly written as to be almost unreadable"
555:that use quotations from their holy texts are:
1852:The main point is, a non Khalsa Sikh is under
1289:"We have an article already on the Sikh Diet"
121:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
91:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
1001:for short. This page is very similar to the
479:worded, not the quotes. Your other points:
1558:not something that should be answered here.
1666:They are part of the SGGS! The term "Sikh
256:it contains various holy quotes and says:
95:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1529:no Christianity-related article like this
1900:way forward and input into wiki quote.--
1291:- As I have said before, the article at
529:with no attempt by the author to do so.
115:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1644:has 4; etc – Have I won the challenge?
333:. Look at these similar articles here:
279:He has failed to see that this article
754:I hope you have looked at the various
250:" Evangelical text; not encyclopaedic"
1686:, the Sikh holy book and the article
7:
451:and subjective matter to appears at
381:. Sikh Diet might be best moved to
2041:" it is not encyclopedic in nature"
1865:taken Amrit and the oath- there is
1277:"….specifically the NPOV concerns"
1099:to see the reverence given to the
194:Evangelical text; not encyclopedic
24:
561:four quotation from the holy text
1505:message in brackets posted by --
1242:Yes, they draw attention to the
74:
1938:elsewhere in Knowledge are OK?
1521:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
925:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
593:Parable of the Faithful Servant
589:one long quote plus small ones?
425:1). This article is entitled –
270:, which is the Sikh Holy Book?
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1873:there is a moral obligation.--
1447:by shedding more light on it.
1415:These are quotations from the
691:User changed vote to merge to
577:Parable of the Hidden Treasure
1:
1933:You say that the article is:
1628:The one above has 5 quotes,
1499:and not as suggested here by
582:Parable of Drawing in the Net
111:on the part of others and to
1574:a note to the closing admin:
345:) and delete the other (ie:
254:Parable of the Wedding Feast
2117:23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2098:16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2077:14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
2049:18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
2013:Knowledge:Vanity guidelines
1981:13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1970:Knowledge:Vanity guidelines
1957:19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1905:14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1878:19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1841:01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1826:08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1792:07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1772:07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1752:08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1727:08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1700:04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1670:" refers to hymns from the
1585:06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1509:14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1485:05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1439:THE ARTICLE--MY REASONS ARE
1428:04:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1407:04:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1385:04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1367:08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1349:04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1252:09:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
1226:09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
1200:09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
1186:09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
1146:02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
1108:00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1051:20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
982:00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
956:21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
932:14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
891:22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
877:16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
858:14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
828:22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
812:03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
795:03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
768:00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
736:05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
700:20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
678:05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
669:04:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
654:21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
639:23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
609:20:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
540:20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
502:11:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
466:01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
398:19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
223:18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
60:02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2153:
927:policy is non-negotiable.
921:Knowledge is not a soapbox
303:Please only add text from
206:User_talk:Anthony.bradbury
188:Originally prod tagged by
2109:
2070:Sikh dietary restrictions
1813:Vegetarianism in Buddhism
1805:Vegetarianism in Buddhism
1682:has a list of hymns from
617:For all the Parables and
494:
390:
383:Sikh dietary restrictions
2129:Please do not modify it.
2084:Doesn't meet notability
1605:"Each article is about
602:Talk page on the Article
32:Please do not modify it.
2011:"…it is a violation of
153:; accounts blocked for
123:single-purpose accounts
93:policies and guidelines
2032:"it is written poorly"
1607:one specific quotation
1546:Bible on the Afterlife
1537:one specific quotation
1497:SGGS on Meat Talk page
897:single purpose account
834:single purpose account
196:. Prod2a added by me:
1630:Parable of the Leaven
1603:there is no bias as:
1417:Sri Guru Granth Sahib
995:Sri Guru Granth Sahib
559:Parable of the Leaven
435:Sri Guru Granth Sahib
351:This shows clear bias
1613:The Strong Man Bound
1012:2). You say this is
571:Parable of the Pearl
565:Parable of the Weeds
376:NPOV and merge with
48:, defaults to keep.
1867:no legal obligation
1642:The Little Children
1634:The Birds of Heaven
1577:every single person
1014:" Ridiculously POV"
105:by counting votes.
84:not a majority vote
1636:has 4 some long;
628:"There is one God"
192:with the concern:
2088:or verifiability
2068:and move that to
1891:Conditional merge
1662:Guru Granth Sahib
1542:Guru Granth Sahib
1533:Parables of Jesus
1510:
1166:Guru Granth Sahib
1101:Guru Granth Sahib
1095:- see article on
913:
850:
538:
457:Finally, you say
309:Varan Bhai Gurdas
299:Guru Granth Sahib
275:Tonywalton said:
221:
186:
185:
182:
109:assume good faith
2144:
2131:
2111:
1935:"Unencyclopedic"
1858:Legal obligation
1854:moral obligation
1765:Conditional Keep
1504:
893:
830:
651:Anthony.bradbury
534:
496:
392:
237:Anthony.bradbury
217:
190:Anthony.bradbury
180:
168:
152:
136:
117:
87:, but instead a
78:
71:
57:
52:
34:
2152:
2151:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2134:deletion review
2127:
1307:1000's of pages
1022:– where in the
884:Strongly Oppose
760:1000's of pages
587:The Fall of Man
431:Sikh Scriptures
340:
170:
158:
142:
126:
113:sign your posts
69:
53:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2150:
2148:
2139:
2138:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2079:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2039:You also say:
2035:
2030:You say that:
2026:
2009:You say that:
2005:
1984:
1983:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1943:You say that:
1939:
1925:
1924:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1844:
1843:
1829:
1828:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1775:
1774:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1691:
1654:
1645:
1620:
1599:
1598:you say that:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1441:
1440:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1410:
1409:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1309:
1296:
1286:
1279:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1189:
1188:
1149:
1148:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1089:
1075:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1017:
1011:
1006:
985:
984:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
937:
936:
935:
934:
915:
914:
880:
879:
871:
863:
862:
861:
860:
817:
816:
815:
814:
798:
797:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
705:
704:
703:
702:
683:
682:
681:
680:
658:
657:
656:
644:
643:
642:
641:
612:
611:
598:
597:
596:
590:
584:
579:
574:
568:
562:
545:
544:
543:
542:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
486:
483:
471:
470:
469:
468:
456:
442:
424:
420:You also said
419:
413:
401:
400:
372:
368:
360:
358:
357:
334:
325:
319:
271:
261:
252:If we look at
244:
184:
183:
79:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2149:
2137:
2135:
2130:
2124:
2123:
2118:
2115:
2107:
2102:
2101:
2099:
2096:
2091:
2087:
2086:WP:Importance
2083:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2056:
2055:
2050:
2047:
2042:
2038:
2033:
2029:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2014:
2008:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1991:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1964:
1963:
1958:
1955:
1951:
1946:
1942:
1936:
1932:
1931:Comment: 1).
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1921:
1917:
1914:
1913:
1906:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1892:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1879:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1842:
1839:
1834:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1824:
1820:
1819:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1799:
1798:
1793:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1773:
1770:
1766:
1763:
1762:
1753:
1750:
1745:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1728:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1663:
1657:
1652:
1648:
1643:
1639:
1638:The Rich Fool
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1586:
1583:
1578:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1508:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1386:
1383:
1379:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1333:
1332:Speedy delete
1330:
1329:
1318:
1313:
1310:4). You say:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1297:3). You say:
1294:
1290:
1287:2). You say:
1284:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1253:
1250:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1172:redirects. -
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1121:
1120:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1052:
1049:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1015:
1009:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
980:
976:
972:
968:
965:
964:
957:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
933:
930:
926:
922:
919:
918:
917:
916:
911:
907:
903:
899:
898:
892:
889:
885:
882:
881:
878:
875:
868:
865:
864:
859:
856:
852:
851:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
829:
826:
822:
821:Strongly Keep
819:
818:
813:
810:
805:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
787:
781:
780:
769:
766:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
737:
734:
730:
729:encyclopedia,
726:
722:
718:
714:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
701:
698:
694:
690:
687:
686:
685:
684:
679:
676:
672:
671:
670:
667:
662:
659:
655:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
640:
637:
633:
629:
625:
620:
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
607:
603:
599:
594:
591:
588:
585:
583:
580:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
556:
554:
550:
547:
546:
541:
537:
532:
528:
523:
518:
515:
514:
513:
512:
503:
500:
492:
487:
484:
481:
480:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
467:
464:
460:
454:
450:
446:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
417:
412:
408:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
396:
388:
384:
380:
379:
373:
369:
366:
363:
362:
361:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
338:
332:
328:
322:
317:
316:
312:
310:
306:
300:
296:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
264:
259:
255:
251:
247:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
178:
174:
166:
162:
156:
150:
146:
140:
134:
130:
124:
120:
116:
114:
110:
104:
100:
99:
94:
90:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
56:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2128:
2125:
2081:
2057:
2040:
2036:
2031:
2027:
2022:
2018:
2010:
2006:
2000:
1995:The article
1992:
1989:
1965:
1944:
1940:
1934:
1930:
1919:
1915:
1897:
1893:
1890:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1832:
1816:
1800:
1780:
1769:Roy Brumback
1764:
1743:
1717:
1713:
1692:
1680:SGGS on Meat
1659:
1655:
1650:
1646:
1625:
1621:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1576:
1573:
1557:
1536:
1528:
1517:Christianity
1515:rather than
1492:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1436:
1397:
1393:
1377:
1357:
1353:
1336:
1335:
1331:
1311:
1298:
1288:
1276:
1272:
1243:
1168:", to which
1157:
1135:
1130:
1122:
1071:
1042:
1019:
1018:3). You say
1013:
1008:
990:
966:
944:
895:
883:
866:
832:
820:
803:
784:
728:
716:
712:
688:
660:
632:SGGS on Meat
627:
619:SGGS on Meat
553:Christianity
548:
525:
520:
516:
458:
449:SGGS on Meat
427:SGGS on Meat
421:
410:
406:
375:
364:
359:
350:
343:Christianity
335:
331:Christianity
326:
320:
311:on this page
302:
292:
281:SGGS on Meat
276:
272:
262:
257:
249:
245:
228:
197:
193:
187:
176:
164:
155:sockpuppetry
148:
137:; suspected
132:
118:
106:
102:
96:
88:
82:
66:SGGS on Meat
54:
46:No Consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1920:Conceivably
1789:Elmer Clark
1749:Elmer Clark
1582:Elmer Clark
1501:Elmer Clark
1048:Elmer Clark
979:Elmer Clark
894:— Possible
831:— Possible
809:Elmer Clark
733:Elmer Clark
697:Elmer Clark
549:Strong Keep
212:a soapbox.
2046:Hari Singh
1978:Chris53516
1954:Hari Singh
1697:Hari Singh
1649:You said:
1507:Hari Singh
1425:Hari Singh
1382:Hari Singh
1317:Hari Singh
1105:Hari Singh
1028:Hari Singh
765:Hari Singh
636:Hari Singh
606:Hari Singh
531:Tonywalton
463:Hari Singh
355:Hari Singh
241:Tonywalton
233:Hari Singh
214:Tonywalton
89:discussion
2066:Sikh diet
1823:rant-line
1809:Sikh diet
1785:Sikh diet
1724:rant-line
1688:Sikh Diet
1676:Sikh Diet
1658:You say:
1554:Sikh diet
1525:Wikiquote
1404:rant-line
1364:rant-line
1293:Sikh Diet
1283:Sikh Diet
1275:You say:
1162:Sikh Diet
1131:summarize
1127:Sikh Diet
1082:Sikhiwiki
1024:Sikh Diet
975:Sikh Diet
971:Wikiquote
953:MxM Peace
693:Sikh diet
661:Good Keep
522:research.
519:You say:
453:Sikh Diet
445:Gibraltar
409:You say:
378:Sikh Diet
315:Sikh Diet
295:Sikh Guru
145:canvassed
139:canvassed
98:consensus
2025:issue?
2023:"Vanity"
1869:on them
1818:Blnguyen
1744:Comment:
1719:Blnguyen
1624:You say
1611:Well in
1562:WP:ABOUT
1482:Ksingh20
1421:Parables
1399:Blnguyen
1359:Blnguyen
1342:User:Zoe
1303:Parables
1222:contribs
1182:contribs
1003:Parables
949:Parables
910:contribs
847:contribs
804:Comment:
756:Parables
713:Comment:
695:below. -
573:2 quotes
567:3 quotes
337:Parables
177:username
171:{{subst:
165:username
159:{{subst:
149:username
143:{{subst:
133:username
127:{{subst:
2100:btball
2074:JoshuaZ
2062:NPOVify
1990:Comment
1950:Sikhism
1850:Comment
1833:Comment
1781:Comment
1668:Shabads
1640:has 4;
1632:has 4;
1617:Shabads
1596:Comment
1566:WP:NPOV
1513:Sikhism
1493:Comment
1394:Comment
1378:Comment
1354:Comment
1273:Comment
1214:Samsara
1174:Samsara
1072:Comment
1043:Comment
991:Comment
945:Comment
929:Uncle G
867:Comment
855:Uncle G
725:WP:NPOV
664:Sahib--
595:1 quote
517:Comment
407:Comment
365:Comment
347:Sikhism
289:Sikhism
141:users:
55:kantari
2090:WP:VER
2082:Delete
1966:Delete
1916:Delete
1902:Sikh 1
1875:Sikh 1
1838:Sikh 1
1570:WP:NOT
1568:, and
1550:Heaven
1346:(talk)
1137:C.Fred
1123:Delete
967:Delete
902:Kaur62
888:Kaur62
874:Pssoor
839:Pssoor
825:Pssoor
786:C.Fred
675:Sikh 1
666:Sikh 1
210:WP:NOT
202:Author
2095:Brian
2058:Merge
1923:(UTC)
1337:about
1158:merge
721:WP:OR
689:Note:
626:says
433:(the
229:Reply
119:Note:
51:Nacon
16:<
2114:Talk
2106:Sukh
2060:and
2028:3).
1993:1).
1941:2).
1898:only
1811:and
1714:keep
1684:SGGS
1672:SGGS
1656:4).
1647:3).
1622:2).
1601:1).
1560:See
1437:KEEP
1305:and
1244:fact
1218:talk
1178:talk
1170:SGGS
1142:talk
1097:SGGS
1093:Guru
1086:Sikh
1078:SGGS
999:SGGS
906:talk
843:talk
791:talk
758:and
624:SGGS
536:Talk
499:Talk
491:Sukh
439:SGGS
416:SGGS
395:Talk
387:Sukh
349:) -
305:SGGS
285:SGGS
268:SGGS
239:and
219:Talk
2110:ਸੁਖ
2064:to
2037:4).
2007:2).
1894:Has
1871:but
1863:not
1787:. -
1249:Doc
1197:Doc
1160:to
997:or
977:. -
495:ਸੁਖ
437:or
391:ਸੁਖ
327:5).
321:4).
307:or
273:3).
263:2).
246:1).
173:csp
169:or
161:csm
129:spa
103:not
2112:|
2108:|
2072:.
2044:--
1972:,
1821:|
1722:|
1564:,
1423:--
1402:|
1362:|
1315:--
1224:)
1220:•
1184:)
1180:•
1144:)
1088:.
908:•
900::
845:•
837::
793:)
763:--
717:no
497:|
493:|
393:|
389:|
385:.
297:,
200:.
179:}}
167:}}
157::
151:}}
135:}}
125::
2015:"
1747:-
1580:-
1503:(
1344:|
1216:(
1176:(
1140:(
1134:—
904:(
841:(
807:-
789:(
783:—
533:|
216:|
181:.
175:|
163:|
147:|
131:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
