Talk:Kabir panth

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism: Philosophy Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Low-importance).

कबीर पंथ वास्तविक रूप में यह एक धार्मिक संपरदाय है जो केवल सतगुरु कबीर साहिब (बंदीछोड़) के बताए गए मार्ग पर चलने वाले लोगो

का समूह है जो पाखंडवाद जातिवाद का आज भी सतगुरू कबीर साहिब की तरह ही खंडन करता आ रहा है एवम संसार को मानवता और सही भक्ति साधना बताता है इसकी एक प्रमुख ब्रांच chandighar में है जिस नाम अखिल भारतीय कबीर पंथ महासभा है जिसकी स्थापना धनी दस जी के विचारो पर चलकर रामनाथ द्रोणाचार्य जी के मार्गदर्शन में की गई

Untitled[edit]

A lot of this article is written from a Kabirist (Don't know the proper term.) POV. ALso, according to this article he lived to be 120 years old?! Zazaban 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kabir panth" or "Kabir Panth"?[edit]

Which capitalization is correct? If "Kabir Panth" is correct, we'll have to get an admin to move the page. Kabir Panth is a redirect to Kabir panth.—C45207 | Talk 08:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the redirection was not necessary. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 07:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added An Image[edit]

I have added an image in the article. I was more interested in [[wp:infobox|infobox}]. Someone please go for it. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 07:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Section Should Be Revised[edit]

The external inks section should be revised. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 07:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major deletions September 2011[edit]

First off, agree with Titodutta that there are too many ELs; which are the most authoritative?

Further, today I removed large chunks of the article as failing WP:N and WP:V. If you have objections, it would be best to bring them up here before restoring. Note that blogspots, sectarian or fan-sites, etc. are generally not WP:Reliable sources and are not admissible as footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]