Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheism in Hinduism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn ~ct.e 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism in Hinduism

Nomination withdrawn I'll work on this article myself and try to improve it. No basis in history. Seems like a vanity page and It does not satisfy WP:OR or WP:RS. Specifically, even the Samkhyas and Mimamsakas believed in gods (although they may not have believed in a creator god). They accepted the Vedas which speak of gods. The gods were worshipped during Samkhya and Mimamsa times too. The first "Hindu" who might be called a proper athiest who did not worship any god may be Savarkar, but even that is not absolutely conclusive. Look at this and the reply. Looks like some nationalists are out to distort Hinduism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for such views. But still, I would have no problems with Atheist Hindus if the present article is moved there. ^Babub→Talk 19:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Atheist hindus is completely a misleading heading, Just emphasising atheists as infidels. We are talking about philosophies here, not personal views. You may say samkhya to be a non-hindu philosophy, but all scholars define it as a Hindu philosophy (with no exception). And even if you read a three line text about Samkhya anywhere(reliable), you will come to a statement that Samkhya was a atheistic philosophy.nids(♂) 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Who said Samkhya is non-Hindu? Do not put words in others mouths. Uou seem to have a habit of doing so often. ^Babub→Talk 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the above reply. So now, atleast i will not have to fight to define it as an hindu philosophy. You can check hinduism archives, there were a few users who contested this claim by saying that this is an extinct philosophy and does not have any contemporary followers. Now, the only thing required is to prove that they were atheistic. I guess it wont be hard.nids(♂) 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable, well-referenced. How is it a vanity page? That's when a person writes about himself/herself. Are you saying the gods are writing about themselves? Akradecki 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply No, the author of the article seems to be doing so. ^Babub→Talk 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

thats an intersting observation. how have you come to that conclusion.nids(♂) 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI I stuck that out above. ^Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the reply part is still unstruck.nids(♂) 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Most of the sources are non-authoritive essays by non-notable people as far as I can tell. With all the gods which I am sure are mentioned in Hinduism saying that since it is atheistic because it has no propounder as one of the sources did is tenuous at best. Sources are not reliable as WP:RS requires them to be.- Mgm|^(talk) 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For those suggesting WP:NOR guidelines here are a few references [1] and if you're so inclined a length interview with the Indian Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen who talks about atheist Hindus here,[2]

The article does not imply that Hinduism is atheistic religion. It only implies that Hinduism has athiestic schools of thought.nids(♂) 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If anybody is thinking about delete vote, than Please refer to Atheist Jew and here too. How is it a vanity article?? Is samkhya not a hindu philosophy. Just because it doesnt fit a particular POV, it becomes a vanity article. I accept that it is not properly written, but an afd is too much.nids(♂) 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way how do you define hinduism babub????.--nids(♂) 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply I agree that the definition of Hinduism is quite impossible and I am not disputing that Samkhya is atheistic, but saying "atheism has always been a part of Hinduism" is not true. ^Babub→Talk 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply If you have a problem with a part of the article edit it or talk about it. If you think it's controversial write to add your thoughts but the article satisfies WP:V. We are not discussing what a single line of text refers to, you've put the article up for deletion.--Antorjal 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Have you noted that in the whole article, that is the only sentence that falls under "Atheism in Hinduism", the topic that I've put up for deletion? The rest of the article is just about Atheist Hindus. ^Babub→Talk 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply How did you come to this conclusion that there is only one line in the article which elaborates Hindu philosophies. Only one section of the article talks about the hindu atheists, rest is about philosophies.nids(♂) 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Apart from the hardly authoritative sources, the notion of "atheism in <a religion>" seems to be a contradiction in and of itself, and the article does nothing to resolve this, apart from possibly misunderstanding atheism to mean the disbelief in a creator deity, specifically. There may be a real religious encyclopedia topic around here, but this particular article is mislabeled at best and probably just rather confused original research. The notion of Hinduism as a not (principally) religious, but political movement is already covered at Hindutva, if that's what at issue here. (Incidentally, an atheist Jew is just an atheist member of a cultural/ethnic group, no contradiction there.) Sandstein 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) [Vote changed, see below. Sandstein 07:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)]

What do you think about Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa philosophies.nids(♂) 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand: what do I think of them? I have no opinion on them as a philosophical matter. Do you think they constitute atheism? There's no indication for this, as they seem to include supernatural concepts, but at any rate, because of WP:NOR, we'd need pretty reliable sources for this. Sandstein 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The basic philosophy of these schools of thought is atheism. So i dont understand how people argue about atheism in hinduism, when they dont have any qualms about accepting these philosophies.nids(♂) 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I havent requoted the sources for samkhya and mimamsa philosophies in the atheism in Hinduism article because the latter is just meant to be a summary of them. If it is required than those sources can be again quoted. this is a quote from Samkhya article There is no philosophical place for a creator God in the Sankhya philosophy.nids(♂) 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, atheism in religion may be a contradiction in Abrahamic religions which are bound to what their books say. Hinduism is like science. Views are not put forth or discarded summarily. If science puts forth the idea of multi-verse or strings, it is considered without bias by other scientists. Scientists who cannot keep their biases separate from research are no scientists. The same thing happens in Hinduism. The guiding factor is the search for truth. If this search leads someone to discard the theory of a creator God, that is perfectly alright. Hinduism is more than just God. Family, society, and traditions also are important. There is nothing political about the search for truth. Yes, Samkhya, Vaisesika, and Purva Mimamsa are atheistic, there is nothing supernatural about them, this was the belief of those people, just as much valid as anybody else's. Aupmanyav 05:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Let me further elaborate why I think a Hindu atheist is possible. I believe a Hindu can be described as a member of a cultural group. Growing up in a Hindu family, I identify with many aspects of the culture and philosphy. I even participate in communal religious rituals such as Durga Puja which I identify with wholly on a cultural level. I do not believe in the deities themselves. Further, if Jews can claim a term "atheist Jew" on the grounds of lineage and culture, how is it that I cannot when I belong within the purvey of the caste system which is also hereditary and part of practical Hindu culture?--Antorjal 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add that in that sense, it is hard to be an "atheist" without the tag "Hindu atheist" if one is from a Hindu family and one resides in India. Such a person is constantly evaluated on the basis of their caste, their food habits, and their place in the social and cultural hierarchy, which for such a person is predominantly Hindu. Even by my not being a believer, had to perform certain rituals at my grandmother's cremation because it was expected of me at a cultural level. No one cared what I believed or if I believed in the deites themselves. I am not taking a POV on this, only a dispassionate view of a fact.--Antorjal 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Hinduism or Hindutva is always misunderstood as a religion. But according to the Vedas, it is a way of life. Hence, the concept of Atheism is correct.--Ageo020 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This statement makes no sense. Atheism means disbelief in supernatural entities. It does not mean "is not a religion". Sandstein 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That was the exact view of many of the Hindu philosophies. Some of them explicitly defined themselves as non-beleiver in creationist god.nids(♂) 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply But they believed in a multiplicity of gods. ^Babub→Talk 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that all the hindu philosophies were atheistic. Many were monotheistic and many were POLYTHEISTIC too. The current article on Hinduism doesnt even accept the polytheistic veiw.nids(♂) 18:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the rant about Hinduism article for? ^Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Religion=Way of life (!) ^Babub→Talk 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think it is beyond dispute that there are people who regard themselves as Hindu, and who are regarded by other Hindus as Hindu, yet who have no belief in things supernatural. --BostonMA 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I guess Atheist Hindus might be a better title if that is the case. ^Babub→Talk 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. That is an excellent idea that would clear up the religious connotations of Hinduism and merge it with the more social/cultural/hereditary notion of Hindus.--Antorjal 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the web and a couple of references. The article is fine as it is. Atheism can and does exist within Hinduism per scholars such as Amartya Sen. See [3] --Antorjal 05:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Hinduism has always had interesting atheistic properties that sets it apart from the dogma present in the other major family of world religion. Vastu 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply It doesn't have "atheistic properties". Historically, Samkhya and Mimamsa philosophies did not believe in a creator god, much like the Buddhists. But they believed in gods. Specifically, Mimamsa is a philosophy built on sacrifices for the gods. Later schools of Mimamsa did accept a creator god. ^Babub→Talk 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats interesting Babub. And perhaps an OR on your part. I would like to see a respectable source claiming that Samkhya and purva Mimamsa initially believed in Gods. Remember that Uttar Mimamsa was a different school which was later named Vedanta.nids(♂) 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Ha! You wrote this article. Its up to you to provide references from reliable sources. ^Babub→Talk 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i have provided reliable references, which claim that samkhya were atheistic. It was you who suggested that they beleived in gods. So its upto you to verify your statement.nids(♂) 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not reliable. The idea of Atheism in Hinduism has not been put up in any reputable book by a reputable author. ^Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the first chapter of Madhava Acharya's 13th century treatise, "Sarvadarsanasangraha", with 26,500 hits on Google and a major text on HIndu philosophy in Indology programs at major schools across the world.--Antorjal 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As far as I am aware, there are very few points that many Hindus agree to, notably reincarnation and karma. A concept of belief in a deity or deities is not a requirement as far as I am aware. In that sense I consider myself a Hindu atheist and apparently I am not alone on wikipedia. Some Hindus describe themselves as atheists here too[ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedians_by_religion#Hinduism] --Antorjal 04:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am adding a section of text I added to the article from Amartya Sen's interview: the Indian Nobel Prize-winner Amartya Sen in an interview with Pranab Bardhan for the California Magazine published in the July-August 2006 edition by the University of California at Berkeley states:

"In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact that Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than exists in any other classical language. Even within the Hindu tradition, there are many people who were atheist. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" - a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism."[4]

Please peruse at your leisure. Thanks.--Antorjal 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Sen talks about "Indian culture" having athiestic elements and he is not known for his freindliness towards Hinduism. Moreover, he is an economist and no religious theologian! ^Babub→Talk 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he is not friendly to the brand of Hinduism you are familiar with but even that requires verifiable sources. And I can argue that atheistic Hindu culture is very much a part of what you consider Indian culture. Next time please cite references when you say something about an academic (whose opinion) you may not agree with per WP:RS. He is primarily an economist but how does that detract from his reference to a religious text? Please do not refer to only part of the article and discard the part you feel you do not agree with Thanks.--Antorjal 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply The article you quoted is of five pages. Have you gone through the entire thing? Where in the article does he say Atheism has been always a part of Hinduism? I once again went through it. He talks about "Indian culture" throughout. His observations may or may not be in line with the beliefs of present-day Hindus, that is a different issue. "Sen believes Hindu nationalists (and American "clash of civilizations" theorists) distort India's history with their singular focus on the Hindu tradition, a theme he again takes up in Identity and Violence" Therefore he is in favour of removing the "singular focus" on "Hindu tradition" and favours atheist/ other views too. But how is this a source for Atheism in Hinduism, as this needs to be in Atheism in India? ^Babub→Talk 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Hinduism is not simply a religion in the conventional sense of the word. There is scope for agnostism and athism while being a Hindu. In the Wonder that was India, Prof Basham details a Hindu sect that practiced athism. - Parthi 04:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - There are two aspects of question. (1) Whether there was any atheism in Hinduism in history. This question may be debated. The Atheist Hindus will clearly find it in the Darshanas. The Theist Hindus will fail to see any evidence. But there is a second angle also. (2) Hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion which is limited by what is written in a book or has been declared as truth by a representative of God. It is an evolving religion. At one time we were worshipping local Bhairavas and Kshetrapalas, then we were worshipping Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti, we were joined by people who were worshipping Indra, Varun, Surya, and Agni. Sri Adi Sankaracharya believed all-inclusive Brahman, Sri Madhvacharya informed us that God and jiva are essentially different, Sri Ramanujacharya said that in special conditions God and Jiva are same, Sri Nimbarkacharya said God and Jiva are separate as well as different. We revere all these Acharyas and also the writers of verses in the Vedas and the Darshanas. Hindu Atheists of today may or may not believe in the existence of a Brahman, may or may not believe in a God creator. The controversy is as old as the Nasadeeya Sukta. Please explain, how any one can fetter our Hinduism into believing this or that. That is our birth-right. We go by what Valmiki made Rama say in his Ramayana: 'Satyam eva eeshvaro loke, satyam padmaa samaashritaa; satyamoolaani sarvaani, satyaan naasti param padam.' (Truth alone is god in this world, all virtues are established in truth; all are rooted in truth, there is nothing higher than truth.) Aupmanyav 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Aup, don't get emotional on this. I'm wiling to withdraw this nomination if the article is moved to Atheist Hindus which describes people like you more properly. ^Babub→Talk 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend Babub, I am not being emotional. I am explaining a basic principle of Hinduism so that it does not become an Abrahamic religion. Hinduism is a multicolored tapestry and at least, I am proud of it. It is the only religion (even Buddhism has its own prejudices) in the world which is that brave. Had it fettered my search for truth in anyway, I would perhaps not have been a hindu. It is possible that in the days to come there would be more people like me. Keep the article wherever you want, but asking for its deletion would not be fair to Hinduism. Regards. Aupmanyav 14:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. ^Babub→Talk 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well i would like to know that from where did you get an idea that Samkhyas and Mimamsaks originally believed in God. And what about Caravak philosophy. If the article is about atheist hindus, it will only define the current or past hindus who were atheists. Not the philosophy part, which is currently discussed.nids(♂) 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Where I got the idea? This smells more and more like a soapbox to me. ^Babub→Talk 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What smells like a soapbox to you. samkhyas and Mimamsaks were atheistic is a fact. no matter how much you say. And just an advice, go through WP:Civil.nids(♂) 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Samkhyas and Mimamsakas believed in gods. The burden of proof is upon those who want to keep the content, not upon those who want to delete it. Do you have any poof that they did not belive in polytheistic gods? ^Babub→Talk 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is enough proof that they did not beleived in any gods, either monotheistic or polytheistic. Yes the article needs more references, and a lot of expansion. But there were no gods in Samkhyas, Mimamsaks, Carvaka, Jainism and Buddhism is beyond doubt.nids(♂) 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. See http://www.mimamsa.org. All Hindu philosophy books say Mimamsa is a philosophy of sacrifices to the gods. Do not group Charvaka, Buddhism and Jainism here, since they don't accept the Vedas unlike Samkhya and Mimamsa. I can provide you links to online editions of translations of the Vedas. You read that and tell me how Samkhya or Mimamsa who accpet the Vedas are atheistic? ^Babub→Talk 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things here. First, are you defining Hinduism on the basis of belief or non-belief in Vedas. Second, check out Historical vedic religion and find out for yourself, similarity between hinduism and vedic religion. Vedas did not have any reference to worship of Shiva, a now common hindu god. And remember they translated vedas according to their beliefs, none of them is perfect. Check out Ashwamedha and tell me how many hindu philosophies advocated the ritual as described exactly in the vedas, including the necrophilia and bestiality part.nids(♂) 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you might have to wait for sometime, so that experienced editors can elaborate the difference between the vedic religion and hinduism. Also remember that vedas condemned the idol worship (as revealed by swami dayananda), but Hindu do worship idols.nids(♂) 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough propaganda, please. ^Babub→Talk 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, you would like to explain how is it a propaganda.nids(♂) 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this AfD is adventurous deletionism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Changing vote to Keep. The above statements have convinced me that I know too little to engage in this discussion; thanks for all the info. I'd like to ask the knowledgeable people in this AfD to add an explanation on exactly how the concept of atheism in what we Westerners think of a world religion works. It's really quite counterintuitive, I think, and the article does not address it well - it seems to presume a certain knowledge about Hinduism that most non-Hindus wouldn't have. Sandstein 07:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would request you to come to talk page of this article and present your views for the improvement of the article. Your comments will really help as we will know where to elaborate the points so that someone without any knowledge about hinduism can understand it. You can also present the western outlook. Thanks.nids(♂) 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And why, dear friend Sandstein, should we discuss the western concept of atheism in an article on the hindu concept of atheism? Explaining our view-point clearly would do the job just as well. Aupmanyav 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep. (ᛎ) qɐp 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment. Babub, you know that There is no other person who wants to move it to your atheist hindu page. Discuss here if you want to move it. Many have already expressed disscontent with your move view. Thanks.nids(♂) 13:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but I would prefer moving this page to Atheism in Hindu philosophy because it is less misleading. None of the modern cultural side of Hinduism has any traces of atheism. On the philosophical level however, some schools of thought appear atheist. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

comment. Well, Babub was so keen to move this page to Hindu atheists to emphacize that nothing in Hindu philosophy is atheistic, while you are suggesting that only the philosophical parts were somewhat atheistic and no atheism exists in hinduism today. I guess the current article with title Atheism in Hinduism is a good middle path. Thanks.nids(♂) 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply How the hell is that implied by what I said? ^Babub→Talk 11:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, see Antarjol's comments on Sandstein's submission. An 'atheist hindu' does not mean a break from the traditions. Just today I have observed the 'shraddha' of my grandmother. My reverence to the usefulness of Rama and Krishna story is just as strong as of any other hindu or perhaps more (now that I do not go by just blind faith). Aupmanyav 10:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Aup, I appreciate, as a Brahmana that you perform the duties required of you. I totally agree that our tradition empahsises solely on karmas, rather than "philosophy" as such. And this means that one can have any philosophy one wants but should do the karmas. This is basically the philosophy of the Gita. ^Babub→Talk 11:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. In reference to DaGizza's comment above, to say that none of the modern cultural side of Hinduism has any traces of atheism is incorrect if one chooses to define Hinduism as some people do, which is a belief in the accuracy of a way of thought or pattern of inquiry, rather than of a single set of beliefs and strictures. I quote the first line of WP's article on religion: Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. . It should be clear that Hinduism, including monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, and even "whatever, dude" agnosticism, can be defined, even today -perhaps especially today - as an (a) socially coherent (b) a common group of beliefs in a system of thought considered to be the highest truth and (c)morality and institutions associated with that system of thought. This is more than abstruse philosophy, it is a central question about self-identification. If I choose to say I am both an atheist and a Hindu, and also have historical precedents for my beliefs going back as far as anything in Hinduism, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes practice. Hornplease 06:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reply Appealing to novelty, eh? ^Babub→Talk 09:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You would like to see Advaita vedanta. Please try and understand that this is just a part of Hinduism. Not complete Hinduism. nids(♂) 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really, why would I, considering that I wrote a large part of the article? ^Babub→Talk 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So i guessed correctly. You must have also wrote the Hinduism article extensively, that is how the brahmana part in the intro came from. A clear POV. I dont know any vaishnavite or shaivite who regards his gods as a Brahmana. Just understand that Advaita Vedanta != Hinduism. Advaita vedanta is just a subset of hinduism. Dont try to impose your faith on others. Take a break for yourself and understand that Hinduism is much more than Advaita Vedanta.nids(♂) 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you must be Sherlock Holmes! ^Babub→Talk 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Atleast i am right. Just like him.nids(♂) 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you continue to hassle me in the future, I'll report you to the authorities. ^Babub→Talk 15:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Be clear. How have i hassled you. You hassled me by filing this AfD. And also check your language in this page. Thanks.nids(♂) 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes. I will have to change your Indian philosophy to Hindu philosophy. If you think thats hassling. Please feel free to report me.nids(♂) 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. utcursch | talk 07:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Well referenced article. Jankit 07:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I apologize if I have offended anyone and I request everyone to be a little less emotional. We are all debating for the greater good and I don't suspect any malicious intent on anyone here. There are various interpretations and I do see how the original article was misleading to many in it's content. I hope this discussion will breed no ill-feeling. I apologize again for any harsh words. Thanks. --Antorjal 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you apologising. you never did something that deserves an apology.nids(♂) 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.