Talk:Only Path to God

Background[edit]

The following 3 commemts are copied from the users talk pages to explain the background to the history of this article:

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)[reply]

I am still working on this article and it was not yet finished - Could you tell me on which basic you deleted the article? Other religion do have a point to make as well. It would help if you could wait until the article is completed - Why the rush? --Hari Singh 20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is not original research as various references have already been given which mention these two phenomenon. The Wikipedia definition of original research is: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." If you enter:

1. "many paths to God" into Google, it produces 23,000 results check here

2 "Only Path to God" in Google, it produces 986 hits check here

So how can you call this original research if these points already appears in other "publications" (ie. websites) at least 23,900 times and that does not include variations on the wording like "Only path to heaven", "only path to liberation", "multiple paths to God", etc, etc. Further, these two issues are referred to in various religion texts – so how can this be referred to as "original research"? You need to answer this question before the matter can be dealt with sensibly.

This is also Not a POV fork as it potentially discusses the position taken by all world religions on these important points. It's not an attempt to restrict or divert a discussion but to crystallise the discussion of a central issue which, I believe has not been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia but is an issue that the world deals with everyday. Also please note that the Wikipedia rules in this matter regarding POV fork say: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism." I don't think for 1 minute you could refer to this as vandalism. Please discuss.

So please think before you leap!! This is an important topic which requires your input – please help add and improve this article rather than making unnecessary and disturbing remarks. If you have a valid point then please add to the article. Many thanks. ---Hari Singh 00:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current form still reads like an essay, making the content appear unencyclopaedic. Sikhs believe W, Christians believe X, Jews believe Y, Islamics believe Z, Hindu, Bahá'í, Mormons, etc. - why not just place each belief system's specific beliefs on their related page? There doesn't seem to be enough in this article to warrant its own page. We don't have a Beliefs about God article, nor do we have one called Dietary restrictions inspired by religion; instead, we mention those beliefs on the related articles for each specific belief system. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 01:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title and merge[edit]

The title of this article might be appropriate for an essay, but because it mentions "God" it is not inclusive of non-monotheistic religions. I proposed it be merged with Religious pluralism or other appropriate articles with which it is redundant. -- Beland 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely in agreement with this. In fact, in reading through the religious pluralism article, I see that (nearly?) all of the information contained here (in Only Path to God) is already contained there as well, except for the quotations, which I'm not sure would necessarily add much to the pluralism article. So the merging process would really amount to creating a redirect, and leaving it at that. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been ages, so I've just gone ahead and "merged" the pages (i.e., made this one into a redirect). I could find no information in the Only Path to God article that wasn't already in the Religious pluralism article; if I missed anything, please feel free to pull it out of an old version of this page, and insert it wherever it fits best on the Religious pluralism page. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]