Talk:Diet in Sikhism/Archive 1

Possible edit draft
The first part of the article is incredibly biased and sees only one interpretation of that shabad, for the purpose of giving information to readers, it should be made clear that the interpretation of that shabad is a matter of debate within the Sikh community, and it is only right both interpretations of that shabad, both for and against meat eating be given. I can do this in a matter of minutes if you agree and say you will not revert it as soon as I click save page. thanks I have a number of other problems with this page which I will address later, one being the pathetic use of Bhai Gurdas Vars. Onetwothreeabc (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please Assume Good Faith. This is not a forum for interpreting Shabads, Gurbani or a discussion forum. This is an encylclopedia. There are several refernces by prominemt authors. If you feel you have articles with ISBN numbers that add to the article, please test them here. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? Yeah right.
The claim there is a concensus just because the unrepresentative, unnaccountable SGPC says something is not a real concensus. The fact of the matter is representatives of HUGE sections of the Sikh Panth walked out of signing the final draft of the SGPC rehat maryada. That is NOT a consensus. This is an extremely biased, pro-meat article. Like I said just because the so called SRM says so, does not make it mainstream. Thats like saying its mainstream sikh belief to read three nitnem banis, which we all know is rubbish.Onetwothreeabc (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

POV Will Be Deleted

 * Please do not add POV. It will be deleted. Please assume good faith. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me how use of the term orthodox sikh for all meat eating Sikhs is correct? To be honest as a vegetarian Sikh I find that comment quite insulting, I do beleive myself to be an orthodox Sikh as do all vege sikhs, Thanks ps. atleast counter what i said at 18:53, 22 July 2009 Onetwothreeabc (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a debating forum. Please assume good faith.It has been clearly cited in the article, differences between groups and their interpretation of the SRM, and actual usage of the SRM. If you have cited references with ISBN numbers that present other views, then please test them here. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge?
This is an answer to:


 * Buddhist vegetarianism
 * Christian vegetarianism
 * Hindu vegetarianism
 * Jain vegetarianism

These articles can't all be wrong!

Emotive Topic
Hi, as a Sikh and a vegetarian, I have been involved in this rather emotive debate about vegetarianism in Sikhism. This topic has deliberately been left open by the Sikh Guru's so that individuals can make there own choice. There is not hard and fast rule which states a Sikh should be a vegetarian or a meat eater. It is up to the individual. It is also incorrect to imply that a Baptised Sikh must be vegetarian.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this edit war?
I see an edit war about the choice to be a vegetarian, but I am having trouble understanding what the significant difference is between the two views:


 * Satanoid: "The general consensus is that Sikhs are free to choose whether to adopt the vegetarian diet"
 * Sikh-history's: "The general consensus is that Sikhs are free to choose whether to adopt the vegetarian or meat diet" [emphasis mine].

What exactly is the difference? You either choose to be a vegetarian, or you stay with a diet that involves meat. It probably is not necessary to add "or meat" (since that is obviously the alternative to a vegetarian diet), but I still cannot discern any significant difference in meaning between the two versions. Please, explain. Why are you fighting about this?

Just as a note, the source for this sentence, p. 51 of Sikh Identity: An Exploration of Groups Among Sikhs, states "With regard to the individual's personal choice, although vegetarianism is not a requirement of Sikhism, many Sikhs in actual fact retain Hindu notions of meat-eating as polluting." 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: I have not checked the exact text of the claims and conflicts of edits between both (Satanoid and Sikh-history), however, based on what 67.194.202.113 states above, the following are my 2 cents. Reading "Satanoid's" comment/text above, the information on Sikhism's view on diet is not clear to any first time reader seeking information from wikipedia. For instance, Satanoid's words reflect as if Sikhs are generally bound to some other diet but they are "free to choose whether to adopt the vegetarian diet". This offcourse is not the case and I can go on and on giving direct references from the Sikh scripture on this. On other hand, editor Sikh-history's words make it pretty clear to the uninformed first time reader of the encyclopedia that the Sikhs are neither recommended vegetarian nor recommended non-veg diet by their scripture (AGGS). Cheers --Road Ahead  =Discuss= 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Do you suppose that this imaginary problem could be solved by saying "a vegetarian diet" instead of "the vegetarian diet?" 67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear 67.194.202.113, I thought what you are now calling "imaginary problem" was real when you started this section expressing "trouble understanding". Not sure what part in my comments above is still not clear about the difference in 2 statements from Satanoid and Sikh-history that you had "trouble understanding". Allow me to help develop understanding by mentioning a general wikipedia philosophy on fixing confusing text, and that is - Ask yourself a question "what will an uninformed reader get by reading this text". Hopefully it helps to understand the difference in 2 statements that you mentioned above. Cheers! --Road Ahead  =Discuss= 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was your response that led to my conclusion that the problem is "imaginary." You somehow read into Satanoid's statement to conclude that "reflect as if Sikhs are generally bound to some other diet," but somehow Sikh-history's addition amends this. How does noting that the "general consensus" is that Sikh's can "choose" whether or not to be vegetarian suggest that they are "generally bound?" You reach a conclusion opposite of the text. Worse, you think adding the obvious "or meat" alternative somehow turns this around. None of your conclusions follow from the text, so I conclude that the problem exists only in the imagination of you and perhaps the imaginations of the edit warriors. As for the uninformed readers, I am confident that most of them will not reach conclusions that are the explicit opposite of the text.


 * Anyway, what is your opinion on "the" versus "a?" I've proposed the change so as to avoid the possible reading that there is a specific vegetarian diet (special to Sikhism) that would be "the vegetarian diet," instead of "a vegetarian diet," which leaves open all sorts of diets so long as they are, well, vegetarian. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly the two sects of Sikhism that push for a pure vegtarian diet (Dam Dami Takhsal and Akhand Kirtani Jatha) also push for Khalistan.--Sikh-history (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear 67.194.202.113, please don't call other editors as "edit warriors" when you yourself can be seen reverting information almost the same number of times. No the problem is not imaginary, striving for clarity is one of the policies of editing wikipedia. I feel that you are assuming knowledge on part of the reader of the lines above. While the lines may feel fine to you, that simply does not make them perfect for encyclopedias which are written assuming very little knowledge on part of the reader. I still feel the line that you produced from Satanoid is not as clear as Sikh-history's, if you disagree feel free to seek another outside opinion. --Road Ahead  =Discuss= 07:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would I pretend others are not edit warring simply because I am also arguably engaged in edit wars (as are you)? I've pointed out that you happen to magically take the opposite meaning of the actual wording. I'm not assuming "general knowledge" from the reader, I'm assuming that they are smart enough not to derive "generally bound" from a sentence equivalent to "[generally] free to choose." You still haven't explained how adding something as obvious as "or meat" resolves this alleged confusion, but I don't imagine this explanation is possible, considering that the confusion you allege cannot follow in any reasonable way from the text. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.226.164.35 (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Free will vs Rehit
I added citations after free will, because 'free will' by definition negates any religious discipline or code of conduct as is apparent in Sikhism.

The Nihangs follow a different Maryada and incidentally they do serve vegetarian langar more often than not in the Punjab. Even according to their website. It states vegetarian

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:WLL0YjD1ubwJ:www.unitedsikhs.org/hollamohalla.pdf+%22Nihang%22%2B%22vegetarian%22%2B%22langar%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalsaburg (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually free will is a cetral tenate of Sikhism. We can use our freee will to be a Gurmukh, or use that free will to be a Manmukh. The choice is ours. In anycase what does our Rehit Maryada say on this issue. From http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html:

The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided


 * 1. Dishonouring the hair;
 * 2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;
 * 3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse;
 * 4. Using tobacco

Unless our own Sikh Rehit Maryada is at fault?


 * As for Nihangs, they may serve vegetarian, but their is an exception. That has been posted as such. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Question
Does freedom of choice include all meat ? How does one know the difference ?

The idea that personal freedom later superceded any set down rule(s) that was later corrupted (for want of a better word) to conform to those not wanting to stop meat, alcohol, sex etc should be the real debate.

Gurbani.org is given in both Punjabi/Gurmukhi script with translations, it covers all areas of Gurmat, not just diet and spirituality.

It was even provided on the langar article before it got deleted. The main point is that most if not all Langar is vegetarian, and there's not much you can do to alter that ! Khalsaburg (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No offence but the essays posted at gurbani.org are posted by anonymous individuals. They amount ineffect to a blog. Blog refrences are not allowed on wikipedia. As you can see we have been leniant and still left it in. What you are stating is a POV. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vaaran Bhai Gurdas and Selective Use
I have always found it amusing how people who do not understand the "cryptic" and metaphorical language of Vaaran Bhai Gurdas use it to justify the non consumption of meat:

Maybe this verse should be used from Vaaran Bhai Gurdas to justify eating meat as stated here?

No doubt some excuse will be made.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I started tor try to work on this...
But I fear I don't see this as an encyclopedia article, at the moment. It seems really to be a forum for an ongoing argument. I reverted my changes, and wish everyone well with this contentious article.sinneed (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To User Sikh-History
There are far too many quotes in this article. The sources are legitimate, but they must be added in the form of a summary in order to make the article more encyclopedic. If you need help I will create an account to help to edit this. Thanks --82.34.123.135 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good editors are always welcome. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave Out All Religious Texts
I would leave out citations of all religious texts and focus on citation from Authors. --TerrorNetwork (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Sikhism → Diet in Sikhism — One small portion of this article touches on Vegetarianism in Sikhism. The rest talks about Diet in Sikhism, so should it not be renamed and all other links to Vegetarianism etc be directed here?--Sikh- History 14:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. However, is there hole diet based Vegetarianism..any was your right ...only mentions it!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disruptive Edits - University of Kentucky and University of Washington
The two main sources of disruptive edits seem to be coming from American Universities, University of Kentucky and University of Washington. If this persists, maybe we could contact the University authorities? Thanks--Sikh- History 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased, Pro-Meat Page with Selective Use of Gurbani.
This is a disgustingly biased page and only provides the perspective of those who eat meat, without giving the perspective of those who don't. There are passages in SGGS that can be used to prove the other point. I hope someone with the time will edit this page to include the other perspective.

24.21.22.8 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree. Probably one of the most balance articles on the net and properly referenced at that. Thanks
 * Also assume good faith. Thanks--Sikh- History 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits by IP 81.14.2.106
Edits by the Ip above have been reverted for two reasons:
 * 1) WP:NOTRELIABLE - sources do not have ISBN numbers and also the websites contradict what most Sikh websites state.
 * 2) WP:SYNTHESIS - there appears to be an attempt to blur Sikhism with Kabir Panthi.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H  18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article is not neutral ; points of view, condemning the meat and the murder of animals in the sikhism, and the referenced quotations, are aggressively eliminated :. Only the points of view of SH are tolerated in this article which is locked. If Kabir and Guru Nanak would be reincarnated in India today, they would denounce the murder of animals (and the consumption of meat) by "Sikh", not in the same way (there were only Hindu and Moslem methods of murders in the time!), but according to the same source: the condolence, the minimum of respect.--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And sikhism (almost "like" Bishnoi), are not only for respect of animals : but also for tree : "Look at the smith with his axe thrown on the shoulder, a jar of water on the head. He is in search of a tree to be brought/shot down. Farid says to you: friend smith, saves the tree that here is. It is under this tree that I am in search of the beloved Lord. For you, this tree can supply nothing more that some charcoal. " (Shalok Farid 43, Âdi Granth, on 1380).--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Err no. Sikhs are not Kabir Panthi's so do not confuse the two. Do not attempt to add panthkhalsa again as refernce as that is an AKJ fringe extremist website. The quotes are irrelevant to diet. Sikhs are nothing like Bishnoi. Nanak Clearly says Fools Wrangle over Flesh. Nanak himself ate meat according to some accounts. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H  14:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That : Fools Wrangle over Flesh... What is this ? It is just a blog from your "fringe" with their interpretation ! And I don't read nowhere than Guru Nanak ate meat (interpretations always... and Sant Kabir ate meat also in this article : respect for nothing (and not for history or philosophy)... !)
 * The History ? Without Sant Kabir, no Guru Nanak, and without Guru Nanak : no sikhism ; it is the history, an encyclopedial point of view and not your "only" point of view ! And it is your point of view who is EXTREMIST, because : what do you say in fact ? That Sikhism has not influenced (sikhism is especially not islam or Hinduism for you ! What sin for you to say : without islam, without hinduism, no sikhism : but for history, it is the reality)... but you forget my dear that Guru Nanak was born vaishnav, and that any vaishnav is vegetarian. Guru Nanak critical vegetarianism as an end in itself, but certainly not as a way! It is working with the British colonialists that Sikhs began to betray Nanak and the spirit of India.
 * Only the sikhs who protect violence for animals (killing is violence, the first) and meat are allowed by you in this article : your "fringe" are interpretations who are far-fetched : but why not ? We keep cool. But why another sikh "fringe" who says simply "vegetarianim is a duty with our interpretations on Adi-Granth and history" are in the error that should not tolerate, nor even their criticism on the sikhs who believe that vegetarianism is not a duty ? It is neutrality, really ?
 * I see than I am not the first to critisize you, for that : you are not the king, there is no king in wikipedia ! but I am vegetarian and I don't think like you than homophobia, fanatical violence is "like" vegetarianism (vegetarians who tolerate meat are not vegetarians, like tolerance for violence is violence) : for me it is to kill an animal who is like homophobia, terrorism (and Indira Gandhi was a new Moghol, a new terrorist killing civils for her personnal glory) : there is no "official" sikhism, no one church in sikhism, it is the reality : all "fringe" of sikhism said : "we are the real sikhism" ; but for an encyclopedy, it is important to known all point of view, not only one : not only yours ! the encyclopedia should be equidistant between all these views opposing. Please, understand that : wikipedia is not only for your point of view... do you claim have the truth ? Only you ??? and Sikhs who claim that vegetarianism is a need and duty for sikhism therefore do not have a say !!!... Only you so ?! And wikipedian neutrality ?... You respect the letter perhaps when you "says" : "vegetarianism is not enough to be good", but you don't respect the spirit of Adi Granth (killing not for defense is a sin)... and some Sikhs think (not you : I know) that the spirit is more important than the letter : it is a point of view, but it is not more bad or good than yours. How to claim this article who is "yours" is encyclopedic ? My references are not more bad than yours (about Guru Nanak ! and Nanak is far from our time)... POV for this article. Abdel Sin'Otouc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.14.1.102 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Err No Guru Nanak was not born a Vaishnav, quite frankly your comment "The History ? Without Sant Kabir, no Guru Nanak, and without Guru Nanak no sikhism" is insulting to the Sikh people. When Kabir says a woman is a "a black cobra", how does that square with Nanakian philosophy on woman, when Nanak says "why call her bad?". Why did they disagree, if Nanak was his follower? Why does Nanak say Over eating meat dispute blind fools, Of enlightenment and contemplation ignorant. Which is flesh, which vegetation?. The above amount to what is basically WP:Personal Attack. What you are proposing is Sikhs believe in Ahimsa, when clearly they reject it. I'm affraid your sources and additions are poor. Issuing a warning.
 * Some questions for you:

<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 21:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the Sikh Code of Conduct?
 * 2) What is the pupose of the Akal Takht?
 * 3) Who are the AKJ, and DDT?
 * Yes ; Guru Nanak is already "sikh" when is born... born Hindu at least ? Yes, of course. Why the first name of God is Hari for him if he is not born in a Vaishnav family (and you can be Kshatriya and Shakta : varna is not sampradaya...). I'am affraid your interpretation are just the only good point of view (vaishnav don't eat meat, even kshatriya : read Bhāgavata Purāṇa 7.15.7). But let's back to the subject at hand : neutrality. the encyclopedia should be equidistant between all these views opposing and this article doesn't respect that.--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I suspected you are confusing Sikhism with Vaishnavism, Hiduism and Kabir Panthi. If you carry on with this you'll end up blocked. Thanks<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ???? Let's back to the subject at hand : neutrality. The encyclopedia (wikipedia) should be equidistant between all these views opposing and this article doesn't respect that... referenced quotations, are aggressively eliminated : (and Nanak is already sikh child for "your" sikhism, but not for the history : why Hari is a name of God in sikhism : Hari is a name of Vishnu... It is not an offense I think...)--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Allah is the name for God in Sikhism, Onkar is the name of God in Sikhism. Countless names, but not one can describe it fully. The article is well sourced from ISBN sources.This source is WP:NOTRELIABLE. The final ruling for Sikhs comes from the Akal Takht. This ruling was done Akal Takht Jathedar Sandhu Singh Bhaura dated February          15th 1980 that Amritdhari Sikhs can eat meat as long as it is jhatka           meat and that eating meat does not go against the code of conduct, Kurehit,           of the Sikhs.. That is the end of the matter. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H  22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How it is possible to add the references If you delete its immediately... it is you the vandal, and neutrality is nothing in this article... point of view : just yours ! you want to see all my references, here : (from publisher [[gallimard], Unesco... you know) ; and it is not the end of matter because Akal Takht Jathedar Sandhu Singh Baura is the final authority for sikhs who recognized it : not all sikhs (there are "less" Sikhs for you ?), because you are Sikh not because you think that Akal etc. is the final autority... and why Sikhs Amrit says also that it is against tha Khalsa to eat meat ? http://sikhs.nl/Main_french/DefinitionDunSikh_Amrit.htm . Sikhism is not catholicism, with a Christian Church for all, but differents ways of sikhism exist, it is necessary to respect than the encyclopedia (wikipedia) should be equidistant between all these views opposing about vegetarianism.--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From http://sikhs.nl/Main_french/DefinitionDunSikh_Amrit.htm : “REHAT: code de conduite (code of behavior) d’un Sikh Amritdhari : Quatre (4) fautes graves excluent un Sikh du Khalsa et doit alors être rebaptisé (exclude four serious errors and should be renamed): 1. Couper ses cheveux (cut hairs), barbe ou poils, | 2. Manger de la viande d’animaux (to eat meat)| Adultère, viol (rape)| Usage du Tabac (Sous n’importe quelle forme) et de fumer (smoking)|” It is a point of view of sikh also...--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easy to see why Guru Nanak is against Kutha, when we read his first master (why Sant Kabir is also in Adi Granth, the holy book of sikhism ?....)
 * Kabir said : “Superior most food is khichri (dish made from rice and lentils with salt), eat that. One who cuts someone else's neck has to pay back. On knowing this a learned person doesn't cut his own neck. The flag bearers of both the religions have become uncompassionate. Hindu's Gurus say that we kill an animal in an instant which doesn't cause any suffering to an animal that is why we are not incurring sin. The leaders of Muslim religion say that we kill an animal slowly by halal as a result of which we don't incur sin. God Kabir Sahib questioned, how would you feel if your neck of neck or one of your relatives is cut by any means? (37-40)” I am sad to see how SH want kill all the points of view from sikhs, Kabir, just for meat. Why you don't tear off pages where Kabir is expressed in your holy book ?--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No offence but you have the basics even wrong. Sikhs are not Hindu's and you have trouble even understanding basic translations of the Guru Granth Sahib. Here is the link to the official Rehat Maryda site to the SGPC and it states,  The undermentioned four  transgressions                   (tabooed practices) must be avoided


 * 1) Dishonouring the hair;
 * 2) . Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered                  the Muslim way;
 * 3) Cohabiting with a person other than one's                  spouse;
 * 4) Using tobacco.
 * No mention of what you have stated. This source "traduction of G. de Tassy, Allégories, Leroux, 1876, in Trésor de la poésie universelle, Roger Caillois, Jean-Clarence Lambert, Gallimard, Collection Unesco Oeuvres Representatives" is WP:NOTRELIABLE. . Even those shabads are WP:SYNTHESIS which are taken from a Kabir Panthi site. I keep stating again and again. Do not mix Sikhism with Kabir Panthi I suggest you go away, and learn the basics of Sikism and even some basic English and Gurmukhi.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H  06:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is not in the main page : you are not the king on wikipedia, not more than me : my source is reliable (ISBN and all the rest : see). I keep stating again and again too and your threats are the evidence of lack of neutrality and tolerance characterizing you. Please do not touch the main page: other users must participate in this discussion. Sikhism is not Christian Church : all sects of sikhism are "official" : so, why just your sectarian view is tolerated on this article ? Why only your sources are good. Your sources come from blog! And if Kabir is only an imposter for you, why have some of his poems in your holy book ? I don't understand. For you the sikh movement Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha is not sikh ? But all "sikhism" are "official" : no pope in sikhism !--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear you cannot tell the difference between Sikhism, Kabir Panth, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, as well as what the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee is, or what the Akal Takht is. Like I said, you have been reported and your disruptive behaviour will be dealt with. Sri Gur Ravidas Sabha are different from Kabir Panth Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 10:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is blocked by SH, there is nothing to do (and I am not a idiot : I know that Ravivas..etc. is not Kabir panth!) : he rejects all other sources than its own. Not discussion possible (He believes working for an article for some sikhs, not on an encyclopedia which includes and confronts all points of view and for all). --Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr no. I have analysed each one of your sources. They are either WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:POV. Using a translation from 1876 is hardly reliable. Using www.tapoban.org and AKJ website is not reliable. I am a vegetarian too but do not wish to mix that up with Sikhism. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 10:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The truth is that no one can say who is right, and this article claims the opposite. And your own source comes from blog or without link : it is more or less WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:POV than me ?--Abdel Sinoctou (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually No. Here are an example of reliable sources from Sikh Intellectuals:


 * There are 40 WP:VERIFIABLE refernces in this article. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 11:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 40 WP:VERIFIABLE refernces in this article. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 11:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 40 WP:VERIFIABLE refernces in this article. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 11:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 40 WP:VERIFIABLE refernces in this article. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 11:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 40 WP:VERIFIABLE refernces in this article. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 11:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 40 WP:VERIFIABLE refernces in this article. Thanks <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">S <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">H 11:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)