Talk:Kabir/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

Not clear what you mean by "full referenced". --Sarabseth (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Contentious Kabir Panth external link

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)

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)

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)

that website seems good too! GurDass (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

done. --GurDass (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vandalism

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)

Restoring scholarship about dates of birth

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)

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)

Kabir Autobiography in his own hymns - was Born Muslim and became Gurmukh

Instead of writing him a Brahmin Birth (Fabricated story made by these pundits) we should follow Kabir own version of his birth and family background is present in Bijak and Guru Granth Sahib written by Kabir Himself or his contemporary.

1. In his hymns, Kabir refers to himself as born a Julaha many times in his hymns.
   ਓਛੀ ਮਤਿ ਮੇਰੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਜੁਲਾਹਾ ॥ ओछी मति मेरी जाति जुलाहा ॥
   Ocẖẖī maṯ merī jāṯ julāhā. My intellect is lowly - I am a weaver by birth (Page 328 Adi Granth. Page 524, Line 16)
2. Bhagat Ravidas, a contemporary of Kabir, mentioned that Kabir was born to a family of Muslims.
   ਜਾ ਕੈ ਈਦਿ ਬਕਰੀਦਿ ਕੁਲ ਗਊ ਰੇ ਬਧੁ ਕਰਹਿ ਮਾਨੀਅਹਿ ਸੇਖ ਸਹੀਦ ਪੀਰਾ ॥
   जा कै ईदि बकरीदि कुल गऊ रे बधु करहि मानीअहि सेख सहीद पीरा ॥
   Jā kai īḏ bakrīḏ kul ga▫ū re baḏẖ karahi mānī▫ah sekẖ sahīḏ pīrā.
   And he whose family used to kill cows at the festivals of Eid and Bakareed, who worshipped Shayks, martyrs and spiritual teachers,
   ਜਾ ਕੈ ਬਾਪ ਵੈਸੀ ਕਰੀ ਪੂਤ ਐਸੀ ਸਰੀ ਤਿਹੂ ਰੇ ਲੋਕ ਪਰਸਿਧ ਕਬੀਰਾ ॥੨॥
   जा कै बाप वैसी करी पूत ऐसी सरी तिहू रे लोक परसिध कबीरा ॥२॥
   Jā kai bāp vaisī karī pūṯ aisī sarī ṯihū re lok parsiḏẖ kabīrā. ||2||
   whose father used to do such things - his son Kabeer became so successful that he is now famous throughout the three worlds. ||2|| Adi Granth, Bhagat Ravidas, Page 1293, Line 11,

There are multiple versions of Kabir's teachings and multiple legends regarding his birth. The problem with your edit is not the content per se, but the fact that you are using primary sources such as the Guru Granth Sahib to do original research. Please read both of the policies linked. I emphasise on the following part "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". For instance, the line just after the content you've written, "According to American Indologist Wendy Doniger, Kabir was born into a Muslim family and "all these stories attempt to drag Kabir back over the line from Muslim to Hindu".", is quite alright. And don't forget to sign your comments with "~~~~". Regards. Amitrochates (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Amitrochates , this fails WP:Verifiable. Thanks DeludedFan (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with what? If a person in his autobiography, and even his contemporary, writes that Kabir Was Born Muslim and grown up in Muslim family, then how can you support other legends? For an instance: I am saying that i born in India. Suddenly, an American of today age started saying that I born in America, but was thrown into Pacific ocean and with Tsunami tide, i reached India. Then whose legend will you believe? Should wiki highlight fact or should wiki highlight self made story? Now if you put Original Research philosophy then i must say: Hymns of Ravidas in Adi Granth are contemporary and is secondary source for same information. Primary source is Kabir bani. Ravidas Bani is also incorporated in new Granth called Amritbani which is used by Ravidasi in daily liturgy. So which is original? Or do you want some third party scholar who dis research on Kabir as well as on Ravidas should write some line and put source to that? Please make me understand situatuon, What actually you want like a link to Magazine or Newspaper or book for what am i saying?(Karantsingh (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC))

Karantsingh You need to familiarise yourself with WP:OR. If you can find a reference from a WP:Verifiable source that backs up what you are saying, we can include it. Thanks DeludedFan (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is pretty clear regarding what primary sources are. Please note that, in the policy, examples of Primary sources include "original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings". Basically, other hymns of Adi Granth would be primary sources too. Besides, editors do not get to decide what the truth is. We just faithfully report what secondary sources have to say on the subject and if secondary sources disagree we report their disagreement too. You might find the essay WP:TRUTH helpful in this regard. Amitrochates (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read Verifiability: It says information should be from reliable source. As Guru Granth Sahib is reliable itself, but lets say it is considered as Original Research then If Guru Granth Sahib directly not allowed then can we enter information from Teeka(Exegesis of Guru Granth Sahib) done by various renowed scholars like Professor Sahib Singh, Dharam Singh Nihang Singh, Giani Harbans Singh etc. as reference to the same? As it will be not original research but commentary on original reseaarch by Scholar. You can not say that this commentary is my belief or Experiance but it will be published material. Please guide!!! (Karantsingh (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

You can cite religious texts, but the problem with using them as a reference is that they are open to interpretation. For example you are saying Kabir wrote in the Guru Granth Sahib? The vast majority of intellectuals/historians have confirmed that although some verses of Kabir were included in it, many were not. There is also no evidence he lived during the time period of Nanak, or when the Guru Granth Sahib was put together by Guru Arjan. Also many verses of Kabir diametrically oppose the teachings of Nanak. Nanak states that "from woman kings are born" whereas Kabir describes woman as "decietful" and a "black cobra" (kali nagini). So many scholars argue his teachings are not part of the Sikh path, but only some collerate with Sikh teachings. Therefore in order to confirm such facts , you must use correct studies with ISBN numbers. A good example is this section where refernces are used to back up religious texts by Kabir. Thanks DeludedFan (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Frank Keay

I have analysed this reference (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zo5qt_acfakC&pg=PP2&dq=Kabir+and+his+followers,+University+of+London,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAGoVChMInLvzxa-jxwIVYjnbCh2zsQH0#v=onepage&q=Kabir%20and%20his%20followers%2C%20University%20of%20London%2C&f=false ) ,and it is either WP:OR or fails WP:Reliable. My own feeling is that it is a very old reference and the author is mistake. If their are no objections I will remove it in the next few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeludedFan (talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeludedFan: I will replace it with summary from 1991 RS by Nirmal Dass, which says the same thing. On Kabir vs Nanak, since this article is on Kabir, I do not understand your suggestion of emphasizing Nanak's view. It feels offtopic, but I have no particular preference whether we include it or not. If we want to compare Kabir with Nanak, are you okay if we include the views in reliable sources by scholars who disagree with Nikki? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Ms Sarah Welch] the intro states how much Kabir has influenced Sikhism. All the essays and papers I have read disagree with this . That is why it is important to ensure why we need to differentiate the Kabirpathi world view from the Sikh world view. WP:Balance is important. Yes by all means use scholars but not ones from the 1930's. For example the Adi Granth pages these references are quoting I don't think are attributed to Kabir in any case. So the article maybe flawed. Also when adding the reference try and make them as WP:Verifiable as possible. Fill in all the reference fields. Thanks DeludedFan (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeludedFan: Indeed, we should summarize both the similarities and differences between Kabir and Nanak. We should use sources that are WP:HISTRS. Why is Surjit Singh Gandhi source reliable? Who was he? Is his book SPS, was it reviewed in a journal article somewhere? Why do you think his book meets WP:HISTRS guidelines of wikipedia? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(ps): You lecture, "Also when adding the reference try and make them as WP:Verifiable as possible. Fill in all the reference fields." @DeludedFan: I provide ISBN number, page numbers, and other details enough to verify. If you need help with getting sources, go to wikipedia's teahouse or try WP:RX. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeludedFan: I checked the JS Grewal paper you had added after your claim, "Kabir did not influence Nanak." Which page number do you see that claim? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi fellow editor if you wish to know about acclaimed Sikh Historian Surjit Singh Gandhi follow this link. Also with reagrd to WH Mcleod, note that much of his studies were based on outdated Martial Race theories. Most of is debunked. DeludedFan (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism of Kabir"

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)

You have to put it in context. It's clear Kabir was Misogynistic, as were most of the Udasi type Sants of the Bhakti movement. That doesn't make him a bad person, just a person of his time where such views were the norm. DeludedFan (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced additions by @Armored Blue Beatle

@Armored Blue Beatle: Welcome to wikipedia. Please do not edit war in this article. Do you have sources for the content you are trying to add to this article per WP:V and WP:RS? Why is it WP:Due? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kabir

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kabir's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica":

• From Guru Arjan: "Arjan, Sikh Guru". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 5 May 2015.
• From Islam: "Islām". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
• From Quran: Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2007). "Qurʼān". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2007-11-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Many Temples Built of Kabir

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/77/7f/65/temple-of-saint-kabir.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashikant2000 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Intentional wrong editing...miscreant IP 182.65.89.103

He edited the page and i am reversing it

!. He edited that kabir was from 21st century 2. replaced verses and writing to songs 3. replaced certain words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firehawk2095 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Birth and death

The infobox gives his birth as 1398 and death as 1518. That would mean he lived 120 years, which is a pretty long time! You have to look in the actual article to realize that the infobox is actually conflating two different ranges. Some historians say he lived 1398–1448 and others 1440–1518. The infobox needs to do a better job of more accurately representing this. Ltwin (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ltwin: You are right. I have removed the infobox since every bit of biographical information it contained is disputed. Better to explain the various theories, legends and comlexities in the article text, as is already done. Abecedare (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ltwin and RegentsPark, He did live for 120 years like a common true Saint. His Worldly Gurudev Swami Ramanand also lived for 120 years and he met God Kabir Sahib at the age of 104 years. Almost every Kabirpanthi knows and tells this. Kabirisgod (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Kabir Daas birth

Has any one seen that a hindu women left kabir near a pound ....if yes than why he didn't stopped her by doing this....and if no...how the hell people came to know that a hindu women left kabir near a pound...? Surag dubey (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Major changes required

This article represents Kabir as just a mystic poet. But His poems and major Holy Books prove that He is God. You should check this website: www.jagatgururampalji.org I want to edit this article so that it tell the correct information. Can I? Kabirisgod (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing below the three factual errors: 1) Kabir Ji was not born from anyone, He appeared Himself. 2) Kabir Ji didn't marry. He brought a dead boy and a dead girl back to life and kept them as His children. 3) Kabir Ji was in no way a misogynist. The proof for the first two points is this Bani of Kabir Saheb Ji where He Himself admits that He didn't take birth and had any wife:

"Avadhu avigat se chal aaya, koi mera bhed marm nahin paya| tek||

Na mera janm na garbh basera balak ha dikhlaya|

kashi nagar jal kamal par dera, tahan julaahe ne paya |

Maat pita kachhu nahi mere, Na mere ghar dasi |

Julaha ko sut aan kahaya jagat kare meri hansi ||

Panch Tatv ka Dhadh nahi mera, Janu gyan apaara |

Sat swaroopi naam saheb ka, so hai naam hamara ||

Agardip gagan gufa me tahan nij vastu saara |

Jyoti swaroopi alakh niranjan bhi dharta dhyan hamara ||

Haad chaam lohu nahi more, Jane satnaam upaasi |

Taaran taran abhay pad data, mai hun Kabir avinashi ||"

The meaning of this Bani is written on this Page

For the third point, here are two Banis of Kabir Sahib Ji:

"Kabir, Naam ratat kanya bhali, saakat bhalo na put|

Chheri ke gal galthana, jaame dudh na mut||"

, and,

"Kabir, naari narak na jaaniye, ye sab ratano ki khan|

Naari se hi putr hot hain, Dhruv Prahlaad samaan||"

So, these need to be changed. Kabirisgod (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you can't put any of that in the article. Kabir's own writings are not reliable sources, and your own opinion that he is God (as expressed in your username) has no place in an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 16:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, thanks for your response. Of course, i'm not going to add this all to the Article as such without any Source. I just wanted the consensus reached here on the talk page, and, then edit the Article. What I wrote above is the fact, so I wanted to discuss can I remove that wrong information and replace it with the correct One? Kabirisgod (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you can not add or remove anything whatever based on your personal conviction, or based on https://www.jagatgururampalji.org/. It is many miles from being a reliable source. I'll be very surprised if any experienced editor agrees with your ideas of "facts" suitable for Wikipdia.Bishonen | tålk 18:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC).

Kabir Daas was God..he is 100% right....and you are talking about encyclopedia ..what man...when indian people were leaving a life of king...the rest of world was living as early man...like a animal..how can encyclopedia will have all the records ....where the science ends the spirituality begins. Surag dubey (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

References

References

I've significantly improved and standardized the referencing of the article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Cives

Briefly mention the thoughts of Kabir. 106.212.187.96 (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)