Talk:Vegetarianism Other Views

This Page need cleaning up. I may be able to assist.

Cleaning up

This page needs to be properly presented otherwise it will be deleted.

• You start with a wrong translation and then argue the matter. The translation for the Shabad on page 1377 does include "fish" – see here. So this is not the correct starting point for the argument. Please make sure you start with the correct translation. --Hari Singh 09:31, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

* Nobody is saying it does not include fish, but the point being argued is that machalee = fish and NOT flesh. A subtle but very important point.--Incredible 16:18, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Also can we keep the rebuttle's to the vegetarian page. This is an alternative or other view. Rebuttles are not appropriate here. --Incredible 16:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Vegetarianism Other Views NOT Vegetarianism and Rebuttles

Yhis not the page for giving rebuttles on vegetarianism and Sikhism. There is a whole page dedicated to vegetarianism and Sikhsm....is that not rebuttle enough? Or are not other views allowed here? --Incredible 01:30, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Initiating & Sustaining A CNTRVRSY(sic! can't spell)is the very ROOT of FALSEHOOD

"..The topic of meat eating is a controversial one...???" --Sayth HANAK NOOOOOOOO! IT IS NOT A TOPIC to BEGIN WITH...Mass Mass Kar...

User:Mutia 27 Sep 06

RECOMMENDED that ...

• TRUE IDEA(satgur) of handling rebuttals be the Talk/Discussion page of any Article.

User:Mutia 27 Sep 06

Finding a better system

I understand your concerns and I am asking a few of the other interested and wise people connected with Sikhiwiki about how we can best resolve this matter – It is possible that we will have a joint, strict discussion page; or may be changes via the discussion page need to be implemented? We could ask for views on the discussion page and then at the end of the discussion make the amendments - I will come back to you on this one.

I hope you will agree that it is not correct to have un-supported "facts" being highlighted on any article. And having read a few of the entries here on this article, it is clear that a NPOV (neutral point of view) is not been taken. Wrong translations was used as a starting point for the first Shabads; a very narrow interpretation of the meaning of words; wrong translations of words; and no explanation why such narrow approach was used are just a few points I have noticed – So there is concern about this approach and one must mention both POV in all articles and stick to the facts. We will have to decide the best way to get there.

This article as it stands is not acceptable as it is a dump from other sites without adjusting it for its place here as a Sikh resource. This is not acceptable. And I suggest that you look at this very carefully and I suggest that each section has references added otherwise the unsupported text will need to be deleted. All basic concepts must be supported by approved Bani or recorded historical records otherwise it will not be entertained. Views of the Gurus need to be dealt with respect and reverence. On other authority for a Sikh can have the same relevance. No quotes for "undisclosed sources" which are not available can be entertained. Copies of hukamnama must be supplied where they are used. --Hari Singh 13:33, 27 September 2006 (CDT)