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)
Please deal this the queries here on the discussion page before you delete any material by others. You are free to improve the article but not to revert or delete other parties work without discussion. See the Guidelines on the help section - verifiability, No original research and NPOV are rules that everyone must comply with. Further the article must conform to normal wiki style. Dump from other sites will not be allowed. If you cannot write articles for this site yourself then you are not really interested in the progress to this site. This articles need major improvements and need to follow guidelines. --Hari Singh 13:46, 27 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)
Section 3
In this section,
"First point to note is that halaal and bismil, does not mean kill but refers to a specific form of ritual slaughter [citation needed]. Put into context this is a comment on the Muslim sacrifice ritual where either a goat or a chicken is kept in the confines of the home and then ritually slaughtered as obeisance to Abraham. Kabeer is mocking the futility of this ritual and saying, that why are you doing this sacrifice just to emulate God’s asking of Abraham to kill his only son? It is a futile gesture that will not sway God. Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, however all the sacrifice in this instance has achieved is destruction of the outer shell of the chicken. The soul won’t travel to God, but merely to another form. One can only understand this if one has a basic grasp of history. In this instance the person who tried to use this tukh as an anti-meat quotation was unaware of the Koranic context and had an extremely poor knowledge of Semitic history."
We need references to where these words do not refer to "kill". Where in the Shabad does Abraham get mentioned or his son? If it is not in the Shabad, it cannot be in this explanation – Please quote Bani to help with explanation not your own research. This narration will be removed without proper external support. Where does Maharaj say you need history to understand Bani? Is this more OR? --Hari Singh 14:14, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
