Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Kabir: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GurDass (talk | contribs)
699 edits
Titodutta (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
156,709 edits
Archive code added! Page is getting very long!
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(80d)
|archive = Talk:Kabir/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|auto=long|bot=MiszaBot I|age=80|search=yes}}


== Death Year ==
== Death Year ==

Revision as of 20:18, 15 July 2012

Death Year

It is agreed that Kabir died in 1448, according to the lengthy introduction given in the Penguin classic edition of the Weaver's Tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeztur (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions

  • Amarkantak
  • The followers of Kabir are called Kabir panthi.
  • Kabir panthi and organisations across the world. See religions among Fiji population.

Npindia 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir is claimed to be Sufi and Hindu. He can't be both. Let's take his word on the issue: He's Neither. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:31, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I added a few hopefully useful facts about Kabir, with a comment on his current popularity (M.K.)

Please stop implying that Kabir borrowed ideas from Sufi Muslims. Hinduism and raja yoga pre-date Islam by many, many years. Its far more likely that Kabir's ideas arose from Hindu ideals. --Palwan 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's "more likely" isn't always true. The fact that "Hinduism and raja yoga pre-date Islam by many, many years" does not mean that Islam could not have influenced Kabir. Although the dates for his life are uncertain, he did live during a period that came several hundred years after Islam came to South Asia. Kabir himself would probably scoff that his ideals arose from Hindu ideals, just as he is likely to scoff at the suggestion that his ideals are Islamic! Sarayuparin 21:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death years

The article currently says Kabir was born in 1398 and died in 1518, which means that he lived to be 120 years old. Only two other people in recorded history have been shown to have lived that long, so if this is true, then it needs to be sourced (by a RELIABLE source, not just any old source). --Hnsampat 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Kabri words: Its useless to ask the cast(relegion) of the saint. If want to ask, ask the knowledge. 

               If one want to buy a sword then he should not think about cost of cover of the sword.


other Kabir saying: When i am there, till then God is not there. 

                   Now God is there, Kabir don't exist.

So friends there is no relegion and the cast of the saint. He is always above from this things.

They have only one desire, desire of ultimate knowledge. They will never fall pray of the worldy things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj.poddar (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Image

Does anyone else find the image on this page to be utterly ridiculous? Why in the world is that included? Algabal 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either. Ironically, too reverential for Kabir. There is an image at [1] that might be public domain. It might be worthwhile to contact the professor who manages that site to check on permissions and copyright data for the image. Sarayuparin 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with it, Jesus has some pretty reverent images as well. Zazaban 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just really bizarre looking. It's from a magazine cover. Just totally inappropriate. Algabal 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just uploaded a picture with more than 100 years old and full referenced.... should be enough. --GurDass (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what you mean by "full referenced". --Sarabseth (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
with other photos there was a problem for sources and references... now this should be ok because in the description I added all possible information to proof that the image is ok for wikimedia common --GurDass (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"in the description I added all possible information to proof that the image is ok for wikimedia common"
I don't see anything there. --Sarabseth (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just look all the page, the image is a drawing with more than 100 years old from a museum. There is the link for the digital source and address for the drawing. The "licensing" part of the image is well done, it seems. Do you think that the image is not ok for wikimedia common rules? --GurDass (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't museums have copyright over art that they own and exhibit? --Sarabseth (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) no, if the art have more than 100 years. read wikipedia rules about this --GurDass (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible problem

Regarding the Robert Bly "versions," and "fabulous" comment, I came across a claim that Bly plagiarizes the R. Tagore translation of 1915: www.suite101.com/reference/underhill

Robert Bly's Folly- The Ward Churchill of poetry: Robert Bly's so-called translations amount to little more than plagiarism of the authentic translators' works. This article focuses on Bly's misrepresentation of Kabir through Bly's revisions of the far superior translations of Rabindranath Tagore and Evelyn Underhill.

I edited out the "fabulous" comment as inappropriate, but I'll try to look into this before any further editing. N.B. Miller 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

How is "most interesting personalities" NPOV?

Origins

Why is Kabir's origins not in the articles. from what I know, he was born or placed in a river or a pond. No details are there regarding his life, parents.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not check some reputable sources and put some in? Rumiton 11:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir was probably born out of Muslim parents. The repeated attempted of Hinduisation of different sects and religions by Brahmins in India might have been reason behind claiming Kabir's hindu origins.- Joe

"was probably" is not factual, and what is the meaning of "repeated attempts of Hinduism"? Forfathers living where Kabir was born say he was born to a Brahmin lady and was adopted by a muslim potter's family. If using such religious references is disputable, it is better to not mention it all and just state that he was adopted by a potter's family, till it is factually established. His guardian parents were not weavers but makers of pottery. He was found on the banks of Ganga in Varanasi, was illiterate and grew to be revered as a saint. This is similar to Sai Baba of Shirdi whose birth and parental origins are unclear, but their reverence and works are. I hope these corrections are accepted.--Girish.shukla (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir and Nanak - not neutral

The reason that Bhagat Kabirs bani was included in Guru Granth Sahib, does not mean he was a major inspiration behind Sikhism. His verses were included by the fifth Guru, some 100 years after kabir or Nanak. The fifth guru also included the verses of another fourteen saints.He included Only one verse of a Saint.While doing so he rejected verses of many saints such as Mira Bai.

Does that mean that all of fifteen saints were a major inspiration behind sikhism? NO. The reason their verses were included because they were similar to the philosophy of the Gurus of Sikhs.

About Kabir , only those verses of Kabir were included, which taught the similar message being taught by the Sikh Gurus, and many of his verses were rejected.

Kabir was a great Saint and is reverred by Sikhs, but only because his verses are in Guru Granth Sahib.If he would have been a major inspiration , than Sikhs would have been known as Kabirpanthis or something similar to that.Ajjay (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting point, but the claim that Kabir was an inspiration for Sikhism is backed up by a reference. If you have a reference for your counter-claim that Kabir was not an inspiration for Sikhism, please mention it. Otherwise, it unfortunately can't be included, because it would be considered original research. -kotra (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DOB entirely wrong

The date of birth of Saint Kabir is 1398 and not 1440.The reference in this article for 1440 as dob is encyclopedia britannica, i don't know the source of that encyclopedia, but it is certain that they have gotten their facts entirely wrong.It would be interesting to know their source of this wrong information.

It is certain that the dob of Kabir is not known with certainity , as is his early life history.It is however certain that he flourished during the fifteenth century.Therefore assumptions have been drawn to his exact date of birth.

Kabirpanthis hold that he lived for 120 years and was born close to the end of fourteenth century or the beggining of fifteenth century.Historicaly , in India, the country he was born in and lived in, he is held to be born in 1398.This date is accepted by majority or almost all of Indian historians.Ajjay (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, but WP's policy is verifiability, not truth. On the other hand, this means that if you have a reliable source that puts his DoB as 1398, then you're perfectly welcome to change it. -kotra (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sant Bani Ashram edition of Kabir's Anurag Sagar, the introdution on pages xvii and xviii discusses this problem of Kabir's unusually long life from 1398 to 1518: "since tradition has fixed upon those dates from early times and nothing else about Kabir's life is any less unusual, it seems reasonable to accept them."LFlagg (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly very compelling, and does not pass the verifiability test. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no verification. I would only point to the Sant Bani edition of the Anurag Sagar as a potentially reliable source. Kabir's year of birth can stand at 1440. The year 1398 can be considered as a less likely possibility. Wikipedia does an excellent job of bringing to light basic information on Great Souls. It's a long process.LFlagg (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording changes

I made some changes to the wording here because the previous version had incorrect spelling and grammar, and to avoid plagiarism of the source. I tried to keep the meaning of the sentences the same. These edits were reverted, so I thought I should explain my edits further. The meaning is still the same, I merely corrected the spelling and grammar, and switched out some words (that had the same meaning), to avoid any question of plagiarism. If there are any specific problems with my changes, please describe them here so they can be addressed. Until then, I'm reinstating my version (but keeping "mistakingly" which was added later). -kotra (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name

Does Kabir mean 'great'? From what I've read on the web, it means 'aware' perhaps similar to 'satori'. Is it common to say 'satguru' as an honorific for him? I've never heard this used for him before. Perhaps it should be explained on the page too, as far as I understand, something like 'truth teacher'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.10.133 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that the word 'kabir' is Arabic. Lots of Arabic words came into Hindi with the Muslim invaders. I have also gathered that the basic word 'root' in Arabic is KBR, a noun. I think that root means 'great.' From the same three-consonant root come the words 'akbar' which means greater, and 'kabir' which means, if I am remembering correctly, 'the greatest.' So the name Kabir is, originally, a superlative as grammarians say, signifying the highest among comparitive 'goods'. Kabir is one of the 99 names (i.e., attributes) of God in the Qur'an.Savitr108 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Savitr108 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the word 'sadguru,' this is simply an honorific title, in Sanskrit as well as Hindi, that one can apply to any spiritual teacher. The word is very common in Sikh writings, and in particular in the poems included in the Adi Granth. You will find Sikh sources referring to Kabir as Sadguru, as for instance here: http://family.webshots.com/photo/2431239210103447126YYluNT ; and if you Google 'Sadguru Kabir' you will find many more. As I remember, Kabir himself uses that word in some of his poems, although it is not entirely clear who his own teacher was. As you surely know, there is historically a major focus in India on the guru-disciple relationship, as key to spiritual growth. Again, Kabir's poems mention that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitr108 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strange bot

{{help me}} User:AnomieBOT modify my link: check revision 430472522 and 430407940. Is this normal? --GurDass (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bots do routine work on a number of areas of the site. It's quite normal yes. I'll look at those two edits to see if anything out of the ordinary happened, but chances are very likely they were proper. You can read about bots at WP:BOT. If you have more questions, place the help me template back. Cheers, Ocaasi c 15:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i still can't understand why this bot transforms this link in this way. Can you explain me what's wrong with the original one? --GurDass (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geocities has shut down. AnomieBOT is replacing it with an archived version of that page, so that the link will continue to point to what it means to point to. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting" citation" added by user GurDass

The sentence in the text read: "Kabir has enjoyed a revival of popularity over the past half century as arguably the most accessible and understandable of the Indian saints, with a special influence over spiritual traditions such as those of Sant Mat, Garib Das and Radha Soami.[citation needed]"

The citation is required to support this specific statement (that he enjoyed a revival of popularity and that he has a special influence over these spiritual traditions).

GurDass added a link to a website that offers, in his own words, a "collection of bhajans by various Sant Mat Masters and Kabir, printed by Ajaib Singh's sangat", and removed the CN tag. Clearly, the linked website and/or the allegedly printed version of this material, does not support the statement in the text in any way, shape or form. It appears that the citation was forced into the text, in a place where it does not belong, solely to plug this collection of bhajans, because the editor in question venerates the Sant Mat masters. This is thoroughly inappropriate editorial behavior.

The same link was earlier added in another equally inappropriate place where it did not support the statement it was appended to, and removed by me.

It should also be noted that this is just a website citation. It's not really a work published in any meaningful way, by an arm's-length publisher. It's just self-published. For citation purposes it cannot be regarded as a publication, just a web site. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Your opinion on me it's personal and just your own. It has no value here, and no place. I can fulfill the "citation needed" about Kabir's influence in Sant Mat today, as the text say. So please, tell me how to do in the correct way. Or i will just revert your vandalism, because just removing proved information and reverting a citation needed, it's vandalism. I wait for your help to put this useful information in the way you think is right. But the information is relevant, so it will return in the text, in a way or another. --GurDass (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My vandalism? Do you have any idea what that word means in the context of Wikipedia editing?
Citations have to be relevant to the material they are appended to. You seem to think that any Sant Mat citation can be appended to any sentence which includes the words Sant Mat. That shows very poor editorial judgement, to say the least.
I have explained in detail why your citations were inappropriate. Under the circumstances, it's pretty bizarre to say "Or i will just revert your vandalism, because just removing proved information and reverting a citation needed, it's vandalism." The only thing that "information" has been proved to be is irrelevant to the text it was appended to.
It sounds very much like you are saying that you are the only editor who is allowed to determine whether something is relevant to the article. It doesn't sound like you understand the Wikipedia ethos at all.
Throwing hissy fits isn't going to win any arguments. If you can't discuss disagreements in any kind of reasonable way, it's really not possible for other editors to work with you constructively.--Sarabseth (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Entry Feb 24, 2012

Since it seems to be a sensitive article to edit, I thought of this talk page entry. I have done this edit recently. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kabiray

Lohar hai tann, Jhuke na sar, Tutte jab gagan, Banu main kahar, Mitha katha kar bol, Na dekh sake hai kal, Bin barkha sirf dhool, Kabiray tujhe hai maange, Zor se bole shor machay, Hai mere kinar, Ya nadi ke par...

go find a coolie, he'll translate it for you, if he gets any of it...lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.52.53 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link was added by user 86.169.144.0 on 29 May. I reverted it, and it has now been restored twice by user GurDass. His latest edit summary reads: "what you mean by aggressive? if kabir is (also) the starter of a religion, let's put a link to the better website about this. in vatican's page there is a link to vatican website".

Here's my response:

1) The web site in question does not shed any light on Kabir, per se. It is dedicated only to the Kabir Panth religion, and to its propagation. As per your Vatican analogy, the Kabir Panth may be a relevant external link for the Kabir Panth article. But it's hard to see why it is relevant to the Kabir article. Especially since the Kabir Panth religion is already discussed in the Kabir article. Adding this link to the Kabir article would appear to be motivated by a desire to promote the Kabir Panth religion, and it would therefore constitute linkspam.

2) "if kabir is (also) the starter of a religion" seems to be factually incorrect. There is no suggestion whatsoever (in either article) that Kabir started this religion. It was started by others around his beliefs, which is not the same thing at all. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding the Kabir Panth religion started well after Kabir's death. Both articles are silent on this point.

I would request that this external link not be added back to the article. If you do not agree, I'll be happy to refer the disagreement for a Third opinion. --Sarabseth (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't follow this religion, and I did not put the link the first time, but it seems reasonable to me that a link to the religion who claims to have Kabir as his starter whould exist. If this link is not right, what kind of link is allowed? What you say about Kabir (he did not found a religion) is right also for Jesus, Christian religion was created after his death by his followers... so what?
GurDass (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second here– unnecessary/irrelevant link–this article is neither only on Kabir panth nor that website! There are many more sites on Kabir (eg. http://www.kabir.ca/ etc), so why adding that particular site's link? --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that website seems good too! GurDass (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kabir.ca website contains excerpts from the Bijak of Kabir. Anurag Sagar is another major text attributed to Kabir. By the way, Anurag Sagar is not copyrighted. Another major work of Kabir is found in the Adi Granth. If that were available online I would gladly have provided a link to that one also. There is nothing odd about including external links to the works of Kabir on this page about Kabir. For example, see the Wikipedia entry for the Upanishads, and you'll find links to all 108 Upanishads online. SantMat 06:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC) SantMat 05:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC) SantMat 05:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SantMat (talk • contribs)

what i still don't understand is what kind of website should be linked if EVERY website about Kabir is of course meant to spread one of the spiritual path founded by him... in one revision it is written this ".com" site is dedicated to the propagation of Santmat; wikipedia should not be used to promote it or Santmat . Of course i say, we do not want to promote, but if you want some source where you go? Also in the vatican page i see vatican website... --GurDass (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. I just looked at the page here at Wikipedia of another poet-mystic in many ways similar to Kabir -- the page devoted to Rumi. There is a robust collection of external links, including links to the websites of Sufi Orders: "The Threshold Society", "The Mevlevi Order of America". There are also links to many online writings of Rumi from a healthy diversity of sources. An impressive example of what a page can become. SantMat 09:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SantMat (talk • contribs)

I am at a loss to understand why GurDass continues to repeat something that has already been adequately addressed. But I'm perfectly happy to say it again. A link to the Vatican website in the Vatican article is clearly not the same thing at all as a link to a Sant Mat website in the Kabir article. What would be the same thing is a link to the official Sant Mat website (if there is such a site) in the Sant Mat article. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that was a KABIR PANTH website, not a sant mat website... a link about christianity in Jesus's page is wrong? that's the same. And please answer to SantMat too ;-) (ouch let's hope you don't remove links from Rumi too!) --GurDass (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bijak of Kabir and Anurag Sagar are sacred texts of the Kabir Panth and valued by many, be they Kabir Panthi, Sufi, Sant Mat, Sikh, or Hindu. Kabir.ca is a Kabir Panth website run by the Kabir Association of Canada. SantMat 18:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SantMat (talk • contribs)


that was a KABIR PANTH website, not a sant mat website
Please don't be obtuse. The principle is exactly the same. If a link to the Vatican website in the Vatican article is clearly not the same thing as a link to a Kabir Panth website in the Kabir article, perhaps it immediately follows that a link to the Vatican website in the Vatican article is clearly not the same thing as a link to a Sant Mat website in the Kabir article?
a link about christianity in Jesus's page is wrong?
As far as I'm aware, there is no official Christianity website. A link to promote a specific Christian set would definitely be objectionable. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#External_links are all good? what should NOT be present in a webpage to be good to contain the texts? if i put Kabir's books on wikiMEDIA common then this can be done? It seems you understand me as someone who wants to fight with you at every cost, or promote kabir panth, or other websites. This is all wrong. --GurDass (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any link which takes you just to the texts, without taking you through a portal propagating something like Kabir Panth or Sant Mat, should be fine. This recently added link is a good example: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96674906/Anurag-Sagar-Ocean-of-Love. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if there is any page on Kabir Open Directory Project, but just want to mention in Bhagavad Gita article one editor has removed all links and added only DMOZ link. I totally agree with this decision.
Currently there are multiple Kabir's poetry sites link, but, if you read the article there is only one/two paragraph(s) on Kabir's poetry in the article with no main template. And Wikisource has original text too which has been linked! So, why so many poetry sites links? If I want to read Kabir's dohas, I'll search in Google, but will not come here to find external links!--Tito Dutta ✉ 12:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sarabseth i LOVE scribd but a scribd link was removed in the past from this or some other page and the one who removed it just explained that scribd is a commercial website and should not be linked... if scribd is good, i am really happy to link that. Also copy-paste a Kabir book to wikimedia books is legal? The author died 500 years ago but maybe the translator claims some rights on his work. --GurDass (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that since scribd is a commercial website, it should be removed. (I'll go ahead and do that.)
Yes, translations are subject to copyright, so one shouldn't post them to wikimedia books.
As Tito Dutta suggests, perhaps the original text on Wikisource is all we should have? --Sarabseth (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the original text is not in english, is in hindi or sanskrit (i don't remember).... so how we do? :-)
Question number 2: why scribd is a commercial website? just because of some banner on it? that excludes 90% of the web --GurDass (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sarabseth: In the page history (External links) you say: "removed link; site doesn't say where translations, meaning and comentary are taken from; possible copy vio." That was in reference to the deletion of yet another link to a book of Kabir at the Kabir Page. :) Possible copyright issue? No, there are no copyright issues there. I wasn't the person who originally added the link here, BUT, just to provide accurate information for the record. The translator, commentator, and publisher of the Bijak series is Dr. Jagessar Das, President of the Kabir Association of Canada. It's his own translation at his own official Kabir Association website. That information is clearly displayed at the bottom of the webpage.

Now I see the Scribd links that were OK yesterday are no longer OK today and removed as well. So, I have added to the external links section two new links 1) The Bijak of Kabir, one of the primary Kabir texts. It's in the public domain an hosted via a nonprofit library website. 2) The same is also true with the other link just added. Anurag Sagar is a primary text of Kabir. The book was never copyrighted, very public domain, and is located at the same nonprofit library familiar to many here at Wikipedia: "Open Library is a project of the non-profit Internet Archive". SantMat 17:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) SantMat 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) SantMat 18:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC) --SantMat 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't foresee how there could be any difficulties with those links to Kabir's Bijak and Anurag Sagar. If there should happen to be, I would suggest a third party, preferably someone acquainted with Kabir, be brought into the discussion. --SantMat (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Question number 2: why scribd is a commercial website? just because of some banner on it? that excludes 90% of the web
This is a Wikipedia policy. Most Wikipedia policies exist for a good reason. If commercial websites were allowed, a lot of people would try to link their sites to Wikipedia pages, to increase their advertising revenue. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


That information is clearly displayed at the bottom of the webpage.
Sorry, I missed that. But the new links seem perfectly impeccable. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Now I see the Scribd links that were OK yesterday are no longer OK today and removed as well.
As I explained yesterday, that was because GurDass pointed out that it's a commercial website, and therefore violates Wikipedia policies. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm really happy that the page is going good and we all finally found an agreement and a way to be all satisfied :-) --GurDass (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in the article!

I have spotted couple of issues in the article

Can not verify sources

I can not see the sources added, so, can not verify those too!

Further reading

Last entry in this list– KavitaKosh.org – again a poem collection, we have flooded already in external link, and it should be added it in EL section. Is not it? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarabseth, I have added a couple of citations in support of birth and death year, please see this edit. I can add one two more, do we really need Britannica Encyclopedia article still? What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a Wikipedia policy against using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source, I would prefer to retain it. The reason is the number of people who keep trying to change his birth date to 1398. People tend to accept Encyclopedia Britannica as authoritative, and they may be more inclined to question other sources (and challenge them with alternate sources that are invariably religious websites.) --Sarabseth (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i really don't know the birth date of Kabir,and it does not matter so much to me to prefer one or the other theory, but if there are two main theories about his birth date, it's not possible to put both? "he was born on XXXX, for someone on YYYY" --GurDass (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that there is any reliable sourcing for the 1398 date. I have seen this date only in some religious websites (where there's nothing to back it up) and in pages that are wikipedia mirrors. Unless there are som reliable sources, it cannot be said that there are two theories. --Sarabseth (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir and Ramananda

I think it's really important to point out the relationship between Kabir and Ramananda. That was of course a Guru-disciple relationship and removing from the article the reference about Ramananda it's just absurd. If it's hard to find sources about this, our task is to search it better. It's impossible to study a spiritual Master without referencing on his background and his Master. Just googling a bit i found a source for that story. If it's not considered good, we have to find another. --GurDass (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the story merits inclusion. The issue is only that it cannot be included in the article unless there is a reliable source.
The source that was added is a blog. It is not clear who has written this post. It is not clear what their source is for the story. Basically, there is no primary source. It's just an apocryphal story found on the internet. That is not good enough.
Adding insult to injury, either the paragraph in question has been lifted almost verbatim from this source (constituting plagiarism, which is unacceptable) or the source is just a wikipedia mirror, and what we're seeing was copied from an earlier version of the article (which means it's not really an independent source at all).
If any alternative source is included, it must be a reliable and independent source. And please do not restore the story until agreement can be reached on the Talk page that the proposed source meets this standard.
I will also thank you to refrain from personal attacks such as "removing from the article the reference about Ramananda it's just absurd". What is absurd is to get emotional and offensive about an edit that clearly reflects one of the most basic Wikipedia policies. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think that "absurd" is an offense. However i will find a paper book with full isbn as source, and YOU will not be able to remove that source. --GurDass (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done. --GurDass (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make a personal attack and then dismiss it by saying "I don't think that "absurd" is an offense" is pretty pathetic. Not entirely inconsistent with your editorial history on this page, though. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have added (Anurag Sagar, Sant Bani Ashram, ISBN 0-89142-039-8) cannot be regarded as a reliable, independent source. It's published by a religious institution that venerates Kabir. Please understand that Kabir is one of the major figures in Hindi literature, with scores of authoritative scholarly studies. If there is any truth to this story about Ramananda, it should be possible to find a reliable scholarly reference. If no reliable scholarly reference can be found, it's hard to accept the story as anything but a fable made up by those who came to venerate Kabir.

The trouble with this book published by a non-independent religious institution is that it is not clear from the book that there is actually a reliable source for this story. Just because someone put it in "a paper book with ISBN", does not make it reliably sourced. As it says on page xx of the book, the story seems to have been narrated by "Sant Ajaib Singh Ji". Where he got it from is not clear. Even in the book, it reads like an apocryphal fable. --Sarabseth (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are WRONG, the book is NOT published by a religious association who venerates Kabir. And the same book was already used as reference in many other places here on wikipedia. SO i will revert yor removal. You can start an edit war if you feel. --GurDass (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source– Books– HTH!

I have noticed you (okay, better say, "we") are facing some troubles finding sources in this article, so I though of sharing the way I quickly collect and prepare references!

For Google Books
  • I start searching from this page (preview and full view only, I have this page in bookmark).
  • After getting search results, I try to ignore some publication books like Gyan Publication (mirror of Wikipedia).
  • When I think one one or more citation page is reliable and alright to add as reference, I do not prepare the citation manually. I use this external tool http://reftag.appspot.com/ (this one too added in bookmark) to quickly prepare the citation and then copy paste in article.
Websites
  • I always start by searching Government documents. Hope you know it, still, add inurl:gov in your search query to get Government documents. For example search query "Kabir Guru Nanak inurl:gov" gives these results

Sarabseth,
About your comment that people often change Kabir's birth year to 1398– I can add at least 15 reliable refs there to support 1440 (but I too dislike reference flooding). I added only 1 Government documents actually I noticed there are many more good references to source. Please have a look at all the search results. What do you think– US Government document etc will be more helpful here? (be careful before adding Orissa Government refs, they sometimes copy from Wikipedia) --Tito Dutta ✉

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F502491484