Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Saints This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sikhism This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 80 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

How is "most interesting personalities" NPOV?

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]

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]

i found and linked another book, it's not religious, it is itself full of many references, stories, theories, and tells (also) this story. I really think that Sarabseth has some personal problem and wants to shape the page in the way he LIKES, removing things he just does NOT LIKE. Let's see what kind of problem he will find with this new book. --GurDass (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir's association with Ramananda is a common view of many in India who are acquainted with the Kabir tradition. It is an error to proclaim that this understanding only comes from one narrow "religious association that venerates Kabir." For example, on the Wikipedia page on Ramananda, Kabir's name appears 9 times along with the story that most Hindus are familiar with about Kabir tricking Ramananda into initiating him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramananda

Supporting reference from a scholarly source discussing Kabir and Ramananda: "What's the main evidence that supports the existence of this guru-disciple relation? Quite simply, it is the unanimous claim of tradition that Kabir was a disciple of Ramananda. The exact correspondence of the names in the genealogies of Ramananda's pupils found independently in the works of Ananta-das and Nabha-das is one strong argument in favor of the historicity of the Ramananda-Kabir connection." (Professor David Lorenzen, "Kabir Legends and Ananta-Das's Kabir Parachai", SUNY Press, NY, 1991, page 11, ISBN 0-7914-0462-5) --SantMat (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioning something as routine as the Kabir-Ramananda connection would be a real scandal. Being overly draconian, hard line and exclusiveist with this page, attempting to decide whether this or that part of the Kabir story is worth mentioning (solely based on one's own personal bias?), etc... is fairly disturbing -- is straying away from the Wikipedia tradition and getting into dangerous territory in my view. No need for "truth-deciding" for the reader. The integral information should be presented, even reporting about the differing views scholars have about Ramananda, of birth and death dates for Kabir, or other debated points of history. Such is the complexity of Indian history that even something as routine as birth and death dates of famous people who lived only a few centuries ago are debated, with various schools of thought weighing in. No one at Wikipedia is in a position to resolve questions like that or decide for the reader what the ultimate reality is, so best to not be so draconian and willing to exclude information (missing information, no citation needed). Instead, let the basic information be presented, and presented well, with as many citations as possible.

There are some serious Kabir scholars out there. I highly recommend David Lorenzen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lorenzen

My list also includes:

Nirmall Dass; Charlotte Vaudeville; Daniel Gold; Karine Schomer; Linda Hess; Winand M. Callewaert; John Stratton Hawley; and Mark Juergensmeyer.

--SantMat (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC) --SantMat (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i know very well a bhajan by Kabir with a reference to Ramananda: "Guru Ramananda bonded Kabir to devotion and love. In that way he fulfilled him". Title of bhajan: Mana Re Teri --GurDass (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it turns up in hymns, primary Kabir literature like the Bijak volumes, and Tagore mentions it in, Songs of Kabir. The Anurag Sagar reference was, and remains, a perfectly reasonable source to cite. One can find mention of a Kabir-Ramananda/Guru-disciple relationship in countless books and traditions, both religious and academic. Thus, it can not be written off so easily as an isolated tale in a nefarious apocryphal religious book not worth mentioning, as it was characterized.

To add another reference: "Tradition claims that Kabir was the disciple of of the Vaishnava reformer, Ramananda (ca. fourteenth century), whose thought affected mystical concepts in northern India." (Nirmal Das, page 15, Songs of Kabir in the Adi Granth, State University of New York Press, 1991 edition, ISBN 0-7914-0561-3)

Note: I just added the ISBN to my earlier reference above on Kabir and Ramananda. See above: David Lorenzen's book, one of several he's authored on Kabir). --SantMat (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzen is an excellent source. However, the paragraph in the text will need to be totally rewritten. One, the present version is plagiarized from http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/K/Kabir/, which violates one of the most basic Wikipedia policies. Two, it does not conform to the version that Lorenzen ascribes to Ananta-Das, which seems to be the authoritative version. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The long diatribe starting "Not mentioning something as routine as the Kabir-Ramananda connection..." is totally unnecessary and quite misconceived. I had already explained, very clearly and simply, that "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."

Also, ridiculous emotional attacks such as "I really think that Sarabseth has some personal problem and wants to shape the page in the way he LIKES, removing things he just does NOT LIKE" serve no useful purpose. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarabseth: You're conflating comments by two different individuals here. Please don't. And I haven't commented about the poetry-chaikhana site.

The atmosphere here has too much tension at the moment, and there's heavy reliance on deleting. Very disruptive. Working together to build a better Kabir page would be so much nicer. Perhaps eventually. --SantMat (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's just a consideration. This is a talk page, it was just to talk. I still believe this. --GurDass (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how responding to comments by two different individuals in one comment is conflation. If it helps, I'll separate them into different paragraphs.

Plagiarized content cannot be retained under any circumstances. Calling the proposed deletion of plagiarized content disruptive is ridiculous. If you don't have time to rewrite the paragraph now, it should be deleted till such time as it can be rewritten.

It may have escaped your attention, but once the Ramananda paragraph is rewritten, I will indeed have helped to build a better page. That's assuming you're willing to agree that a properly sourced non-plagiarized version of the story is an improvement over an unsourced, plagiarized version.

I'm not sure why you're directing your comments toward me about any alleged usage of material from the poetry-chaikhana site. What I HAVE added to the page are a couple of external links to Kabir books, and that's all.

Your somewhat Richard Dawkins-like reference the other day to the Anurag Sagar reading "like an apocryphal fable" was rather disturbing and dispiriting. For the record, in the context of a page about Kabir, that statement is certainly worth protesting, is indeed disruptive and does not exactly promote consensus building. Rather, it lead to yet more tension here.

Any serious article on Kabir would have to include discussion of the literature and Kabir panth. As I illustrated the other day, GurDass's citation about Ramanand and Kabir was perfectly fine and reasonable. You seem far too dismissive of so much of the source material and those who have valued it, to the degree that I've lost interest in participating here. Have a nice day. --SantMat (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be rather easily disturbed and dispirited. And to describe an innocuous Talk page comment as "indeed disruptive" is pretty unfathomable. --Sarabseth (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also my comments on you are innocuous to me! :-P --GurDass (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to specialize in not being able to see obvious differences, I apparently need to point out that my comment wasn't a personal comment aimed at anyone. It was an observation on the material contained in the article. --Sarabseth (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is with reference to the edit made by GurDass at 05:35 on 20 July 2012, with the edit summary: "please sarabseth rewrite the paragraph in a better way. Until that day, do not remove anything so important."

Please understand that, under Wikipedia policies, plagiarized content cannot be allowed to stand, even temporarily.

The story may be important, but it's not the end of the world if it's temporarily absent from the article. I don't have the time to rewrite it, but someone else surely will do so soon enough.

If you add it back, I'll have to refer the matter to an administrator for appropriate action. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i rewritten the section trying to put only informations accepted by all the different versions about this relationship with Ramananda. Now it refers only to Kabir Legends and Ananta-Das's Kabir Parachai, which fulfills wikipedia's requirements as good source. You can of course improve. You cannot of course just remove it, or as you point out, we need an administraror. --GurDass (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to get that chip off your shoulder. I have never said this material should not be in the article. I have only said it should be properly sourced and not plagiarized. So your "You cannot of course just remove it" is totally out of line. --Sarabseth (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 ✉

please look on the vandalism that this user does...

more in general, this page is continuously violated by many people... We are talking about the founder (or co-founder) of various religious and spiritual movements, is there some way to protect it a bit more? Many thanks... If you look on the history of the page, you can see that very often me or somebody else should look more than one time per day at this page to clean it up of the mess they do... --GurDass (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Created an entry at the relevant page for user's vandalism Hybirdd (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was vandalized on 5 March 2014 by THIS EDIT (DIFF). Unfortunately, no-one restored the deleted material, which included many scholarly references (e.g., to studies published by Oxford University Press). As the above-linked DIFF shows, the deletion appears to have been ideologically motivated (the vandalizing editor called Kabir a "liar" because he allegedly holds a mistaken view of God). We should be vigilant that such deletions of sourced material do not occur again, since deleting relevant and sourced scholarship is contrary to the core purpose of Wikipedia. -- Presearch (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the four paragraphs of the now restored material (diff) was not well sourced. It stated: "It is not known in detail what sort of spiritual training Kabir may have received. He did not become a sadhu, nor did he ever abandon worldly life. Kabir chose instead to live the balanced life of a householder and mystic, a tradesman and contemplative." My impression is that this material is in accordance with standard Kabir scholarship, and it should not be hard to find citations, if desired. However, I do not have time to do that at present, so I hope someone else will, if the need is felt for sourcing. --Presearch (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone sure if these quotes actually refer to women in general or just to Maya (illusion), who Kabir sometime personified as "the woman"? The citations doesn't mention where Kabir said these things, so I can't tell if they are part of one of his Maya narratives or not. I recognize at least some of the quoted phrases as being used in those and the source is dealing with Sikhism and as such it's author may not be that familiar with Kabir himself, and his usage of metaphoric imagery, beyond his inclusion in the Guru Granth Sahib. --Painocus (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]