Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kutha meat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:43, 25 November 2010 editSikh-history (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,267 edits changed heading← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:34, 4 June 2024 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors371,769 edits Fix Linter errors. (wikilink inside external link) 
(35 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old merge full
''{{WikiProject Sikhism}}
| otherpage = Jhatka
| date = 31 March 2022
| result = Merge
| talk = Talk:Jhatka#Proposed_merge_of_Kutha_meat_with_Jhatka
| URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jhatka#Proposed_merge_of_Kutha_meat_with_Jhatka}}
==MISC==


Should this article have a "Sikhism sidebar"? ] (]) 00:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
==Baffling Accusations by IntotheFire about reference provided by user named Sikh-history==
::Yes. Thanks] 07:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sikh-history,
*This entire article to date has been contributed by you , considering you are an admin I am truly puzzled by the odd references provided by you . Its another matter that you have also made similarly odd references on other articles .
*Next even the external links on this article have a spin .
*But first would you please care to provide an explanation of the references here .
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Line !! Ref provided by user named sikh-history !! Ref no !! Comment
|-
| '''Kutha (Kuttha) meat''' is defined as "meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by ] law|| Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, ISBN 8173800952; Hardcover; 2002-10-01 || 1 || Ref OK
|-
| It has been more broadly defined as "killing an animal with a prayer"|| ref name="ReferenceA"
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers ISBN 8173040583
|| 2 || Please provide a page no
|-
| or "a sacrifice to God" || ref name="ReferenceA<br>Sikhism, A Complete Introduction, Dr. H.S.Singha & Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press ISBN 8170102456; Paperback; 2009-05-30 ||2 || Why is this marked ReferenceA when the book you mention is different ?
|-
| There are two views on Kutha meat as defined below, the Sikh view, which sees Kutha as that which has been "]", and the ] view which views Kutha as a means of repression and a non-] method of slaughter. || cite reference ?? || || Please Substantiate with a reference
|-
| Eating Kutha Meat for a Baptised Sikh is considered to be one of the 4 Cardinal Sins<BR> These 4 sins are part of the Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehit Maryada). In the Rehit Marayada<ref>ibid</ref>, Section Six, it states: The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided:
# Dishonouring the hair;
# Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Kutha way;
# Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse;
# Using tobacco.
|| ref:http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html Sikh Code of Conduct Web Site</ref> || 3 || You have Deliberately misquoted from the SGPC SITE ,<br> Point no 2 on the referenced SGPC site states "'''Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way'''"<br> But your misquote states "'''Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Kutha way'''"<br> Was the misquote from thE SGPC site a mistake ?
|-
| These 4 sins are part of the Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehit Maryada). In the Rehit Marayada || ref ibid , || 4 || Ibid refers here to which book ??
|-
| The reason for Sikhs avoiding Kutha "does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh || ref name="ReferenceA || 2 || Which book is ReferenceA ??
|-
| There is another view that Guru Gobind Singh (the tenth Sikh Guru), instructed his Sikhs not to eat Kutha meat, in order to boycott the Moghul Empire ||* ref 5 : http://vegetarian-worldwide.com/links/about-vegetarianism.html The tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh, prohibited the Sikhs from the consumption of halal or Kutha meat in order to boycott the Mogul Empire.<br>*ref 6 http://www.sikhtimes.com/books_090803a.html Kala Afghana on Non-Vegetarianism || 5<br>6 || ''Ref 5'' is A dead link to http://www.vegetarian-worldwide.com <br> You provided a "reliable" reference to a link from a food site ???<br> and instead of the name of a book you put this long line , what kind of a reliable reference is this ???<br>
''Ref 6'' is from a website , ...is this a reliable source for wikipedia ?
|-
| During Mughal times Hindus viewed ] as creating "spiritual weakness among Hindus || ref:ibid || 7 || Which book is ibid here ??
|-
| Also according to Mughal Law of the time, "Hindus were neither permitted to keep weapons at home nor allowed to cook and eat any form of meat || ref :ibid ref || 8 || Now which book is this
|-
| As a result of this many Hindus too will not eat "Kutha". In addition to this according "to the ancient Aryan Hindu tradition, only such meat as is obtained from an animal which is killed with one stroke of the weapon causing instantaneous death is fit for human consumption || ref name="ReferenceA || 2 || Which book does ibid refer here to ??
|-
|}


==What was the pressing need to Archive just yet==
*Two books and one reference no ? ...ref to reference no 2
Sikh-history<BR>
*Which are the eight books refered ?? .....I only see 3 books and the SGPC Site ...which also you have misquoted
Please see ] :It States <br>
{{Cquote|The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact}}


Also See ] :It States<br>
] (]) 17:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
'''When to condense pages'''
::I think when this article was first put together it flowed, but subsequent additions have made the references go all over the place. Using ibid was bad practice on my part however. Will look into int when I get time, which I haven't had much of. Thanks--] 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
::A cursory check
on:
# Ok
# Page 75
# No Idea - someone's messed it up.
# it is a summary of the paragraphs below. Please read the rest of the article.
# the Gurumukhi version says "Kutha". Click on the bottom right of the site and the Gurmukhi version comes up. I also don't take kindly to accusations I deliberately misquoted. Please ]. I will ignore it this time.
# ibid refers to the Sikh Code of Conduct web site.
# must be the second reference. Again, someone messed it up, I think I have corrected it.
# Sikh Times is a reliable source. I will kill the vegetarian world link and find a better one.
# Sikh Times
# Sikh Times
# 2nd reference.


{{Cquote|Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.
::Some Notes for you:
Archive—do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it. See Help:Archiving a talk page for details on why and how to.
Summarize ("refactor"): See Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages for details on why and how to refactor talk pages.}}


But there were only 2 Main topics and not 10 when you Archived , and the page smaller than 50KB when you archived<br>
*''This entire article to date has been contributed by you , considering you are an admin I am truly puzzled by the odd references provided by you . Its another matter that you have also made simillarly odd references on other articles .'' - This is not ]. Please reword your questions.
*''Next even the external links on this article have a spin .'' - Spin? in what sense? What are you insinuating?


Lets take a look<br>
Thanks --] 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
* Talk page looked like this .<br>
*
*


*'',<br>Sikh-History's edit summary states : The discussion's are redundant, I'm adding a link to this archive. Please do not undelete archives again.''


'''But the discussions are not redundant , the number of topics are not 10 but 2 and the page is not too large for difficulty in navigation or uploading .'''<br>
'''Response 2 from Intothefire'''
:::::*Every single references provided on this article till the date of my first on (22nd Nov) message, are by User Sikh-history .No one else messed up or added references .<br>
:::::As for the changes you have now effected .
:::::*Page nos still missing on two references which are now ref no 2 and 3<br> - '''Err no. Its 1 book and the page number can be added.'''
:::::*Now: ref no 2 is from a set of books in three volumes ....which volume ??, which page no of that volume ?? - '''Again, it's not 3 volumes, it's 1 book. Try reading the actual link.'''
:::::*Now: Ref no 6 from a website is not a primary , or secondary source fit for wikipedia . - '''The reference is fine.'''
:::::*Now: ref nos 7,8,and 9 are from one single article published on a website , by a gentleman about a book published by a person called Gurbaksh Singh 'Kala Afghana' who was excommunicated from Sikh Panth - Sri Akal Takhat Hukamnama . The book in question has cast doubts on the validity of the sacred Dasam Granth venerated by the Sikhs .<br> - '''So what if he was excommunicated?'''
:::::*'''Now look at my table again'''<BR>
:::::*row 2and 3 ,was the mixing up of the two references of two different books presented as one , a mistake ? -''' no it's fine.'''
:::::*Look at row 4 ....is this your opinion ?? or a credible quote from a verifiable source ...please provide a reference ??? - '''no again it's fine. Read the reference.'''
:::::*Next look at row 5 ....why did you misquote the content clearly given on the SGPC website ...its still there see it again ?? - '''There is no misquote.'''
:::::*'''Now lets look at your response above '''<BR>
:::::*Your point no3 says ''No Idea - someone's messed it up'' ...please see the history no one messed it , its the way you put it?? '''- Actually see the history.Other editors have been involved.'''
:::::*Your point no 4 says ''it is a summary of the paragraphs below. Please read the rest of the article''...what kind of a reference is this ?? ....you provide a reference to your own summary in the article ???? - '''Nothing wrong with that. See, ]]</small>'''
:::::*Your point no 5 says ''the Gurumukhi version says "Kutha". Click on the bottom right of the site and the Gurmukhi version comes up. I also don't take kindly to accusations I deliberately misquoted. Please WP:Assume Good Faith. I will ignore it this time.''. My friend am only quoting from the page you provided ...see the version in english ..please read it again ...I dont see anywhere in the reference you provided about it mentioning any other version . - '''It's fine. Look at the references.'''
:::::*your point no 7 says ''must be the second reference. Again, someone messed it up, I think I have corrected it,''.....no , no one messed it , this is what you wrote yourself .Please check the history of the page . - '''No someone has. ] again.'''
:::::*Your point no 8 ''Sikh Times is a reliable source. I will kill the vegetarian world link and find a better one''......you provide two sources ....one a non scholarly website ?? which you say you will now kill ?? and the other from The Sikh times . Is that a reliable source ...perhaps a knowledigible editor should be able to provide an informed opinion . - '''Both websites seem fine. Sikh Times is fine.'''
:::::*Your point nos 9 and 10 state ''Sikh Times'' . An article from a website about a book written by a person excommunicated from the sikh panth . '''3''' references from such a person's book .....and none from the mainstream Sikh opinion ?????<br> - '''So what. Salam Rushdie has a Fatwa? You point is?'''


Its largely only a discussion between you and me , I am not keen to archive as yet then why are you so keen to Archive just yet ,lets follow the Wiki guidelines on Archiving<br>
Considering your complaints and agressive deletions of content vis a vis other editors ,I think its time for an admin to see this and other odd edits by you . <br>
] (]) 17:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC) please undo this Archive .<br> .] (]) 02:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
::Pleas see ]. Thanks ] 09:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


:::::Hi Sikh-History ,<br>
==Pure ] and ]==
:::::Please read ], it states: ''In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations.'',<br>
:::::I requested you not to archive , you persist , and then I provide specific reasons in consonance with Wiki policy for archiving convention .
'''Please provide specific reasons for your insistence to archive this talk page prematurely.'''] (]) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Plrease read ] again. The matter is closed. Thanks ] 09:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)



::I think this is a poor attempt and ]. Again, you have been warned about ], based on the message you left on my talk page. Thanks --] 08:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Hi Sikh-History<br>
:::*.<br>Reason provided by you: ''The discussion's are redundant, I'm adding a link to this archive. Please do not undelete archives again''
:::*
:::* ] , without providing your justification for its applicability
:::* '' Misuse of the term, it states: In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering''
:::* You now state ''The matter is closed''
:::* ??

:::I understand your reticence to discuss as well as your urgency to hide the earlier discussion page under the pretext of Archive , I really shouldn't persist !!<br>
:::] (]) 12:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

== Hinduism and Jhatka ==

Why do all the articles concerning Jhatka in any way seem to promote the Idea that Hindus are mandated to only consume Jhatka meat, without providing any credible citations or sources from Hindu scripture.

It also seems a very strange supposition, considering the fact that Hinduism far outdates Sikhism, last I checked the only dietary laws placed on Hindus was that some of them couldn't eat Bovine flesh. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020202081302/http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html to http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

== Image ==
Fowler&fowler: I have restored the image. Images need to be illustrative per MOS:IMAGES. Outdoor slaughter on Eid is frequent. See , , , , , , , , etc, ] (]) 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
:Seriously, you think I was born yesterday? I'm in Delhi now, and you are attempted to tell me about India by producing garbage images of everywhere but India!!! Where is the proof that this is Delhi, that the participants are Muslims, and that the slaughter is halal? I will be removing the image again. I am happy to take this to dispute resolution for images. ]] 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

::See the tags below the image and study the image collection for evidence that this came from Delhi. Feel free to take it to DR. ] (]) 05:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

==Image of buffalo sacrifice in Delhi==
{{transcluded section|source=Talk:Cattle slaughter in India |part=Image of buffalo slaughter}}
{{#section-h:Talk:Cattle slaughter in India|Image of buffalo slaughter}}

== Line violating ] in the opening section ==

The following line violate ] guideline as the source doesn't say anything like that.

:The objection to kutha meat is based on the belief that the slow death by bleeding of an animal is an inhumane method of slaughter

What the source says is following:

:In Hinduism, animal meat obtained through instantaneous death of animal is allowed so we can say that slow killing of animals to obtain meat is perceived negatively in Hinduism but we can't state the reason that why it is perceived negatively (because source does't mentions it). To state the reason will be ].

:In Sikhism, reason given for rejection of Kutha meat is due to rejection of belief in animal sacrifice by Guru Gobind Singh and right of Muslims to impose it on non-Muslims. Slow killing is perceived as inhumane method of slaughter is no where mentioned in the source. So, to mention it is ].

So, the line should be rephrased as:

:In Sikhism specifically, the objection to Kutha meat is because of belief that sacrificing an animal in the name of God is mere ritualism (something to be avoided) and also as an opposition to right of Muslims to impose it on non-Muslims. ] (]) 14:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have finally rephrased it as following

:In Sikhism specifically, there are two more reasons for objection to Kutha meat - firstly because of belief that sacrificing an animal in the name of God is mere ritualism (something to be avoided) and secondly as an opposition to right of ruling Muslims to impose it on non-Muslims.

Rephrasing was necessary to avoid copyright violation. ] (]) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
::Hello! I just stumbled across this article and have edited the paragraph mentioned here before checking the talk page. After seeing your question I searched around myself, and found that the belief's purported anti-muslim origins<ref>{{cite book |last1=McLeod |first1=W. H. |title=Sikhs of the Khalsa : a history of the Khalsa Rahit |date=2003 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New Delhi |isbn=0-19-567221-6 |page=239 |edition=2005 |url=https://archive.org/details/SikhsOfTheKhalsa-AHistoryOfTheKhalsaRahit/page/n238/mode/2up |access-date=15 September 2021}}</ref> are much older than expected and as such this sentence may be an extension of a general criticism of Islam, but I have also found support for this exact opinion in another text.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Singh |first1=Daljeet |last2=Singh |first2=Kharak |title=Sikhism: Its Philosophy and History |date=1997 |publisher=Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh |location=India |page=333 |url=https://archive.org/details/Sikhism-ItsPhilosophyAndHistory/page/n381/mode/2up |access-date=15 September 2021}}</ref> The latter reference is likely fine under ]. See also ] & ] in regard to ] (though that, too, needs sourcing). Good luck! — ] (]) 23:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Latest revision as of 13:34, 4 June 2024

This article was nominated for merging with Jhatka on 31 March 2022. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Merge.

MISC

Archive 1

Should this article have a "Sikhism sidebar"? Ruffling (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. ThanksSH 07:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What was the pressing need to Archive just yet

Sikh-history
Please see Help:Archiving a talk page :It States

“ The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact ”

Also See Talk_page_guidelines#When_to_condense_pages :It States
When to condense pages


“ Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.

Archive—do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it. See Help:Archiving a talk page for details on why and how to. Summarize ("refactor"): See Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages for details on why and how to refactor talk pages.

”

But there were only 2 Main topics and not 10 when you Archived , and the page smaller than 50KB when you archived

Lets take a look

  • 18 October 2011 Sikh-history,
    Sikh-History's edit summary states : The discussion's are redundant, I'm adding a link to this archive. Please do not undelete archives again.

But the discussions are not redundant , the number of topics are not 10 but 2 and the page is not too large for difficulty in navigation or uploading .

Its largely only a discussion between you and me , I am not keen to archive as yet then why are you so keen to Archive just yet ,lets follow the Wiki guidelines on Archiving
please undo this Archive .
.Intothefire (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Pleas see WP:LAWYER. Thanks SH 09:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sikh-History ,
Please read Misuse of the term, it states: In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations.,
I requested you not to archive , you persist , and then I provide specific reasons in consonance with Wiki policy for archiving convention .

Please provide specific reasons for your insistence to archive this talk page prematurely.Intothefire (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Plrease read WP:LAWYER again. The matter is closed. Thanks SH 09:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Sikh-History
I understand your reticence to discuss as well as your urgency to hide the earlier discussion page under the pretext of Archive , I really shouldn't persist !!
Intothefire (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism and Jhatka

Why do all the articles concerning Jhatka in any way seem to promote the Idea that Hindus are mandated to only consume Jhatka meat, without providing any credible citations or sources from Hindu scripture.

It also seems a very strange supposition, considering the fact that Hinduism far outdates Sikhism, last I checked the only dietary laws placed on Hindus was that some of them couldn't eat Bovine flesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.45.165 (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kutha meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Image

Fowler&fowler: I have restored the deleted image. Images need to be illustrative per MOS:IMAGES. Outdoor slaughter on Eid is frequent. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you think I was born yesterday? I'm in Delhi now, and you are attempted to tell me about India by producing garbage images of everywhere but India!!! Where is the proof that this is Delhi, that the participants are Muslims, and that the slaughter is halal? I will be removing the image again. I am happy to take this to dispute resolution for images. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
See the tags below the image here and study the image collection for evidence that this came from Delhi. Feel free to take it to DR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Image of buffalo sacrifice in Delhi

This section is transcluded from Talk:Cattle slaughter in India. (edit | history)
A buffalo slaughter in India

There has been on-going discussion elsewhere. Copied below:

Fowler&fowler: I have restored the deleted image. Images need to be illustrative per MOS:IMAGES. Outdoor slaughter on Eid is frequent. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, you think I was born yesterday? I'm in Delhi now, and you are attempted to tell me about India by producing garbage images of everywhere but India!!! Where is the proof that this is Delhi, that the participants are Muslims, and that the slaughter is halal? I will be removing the image again. I am happy to take this to dispute resolution for images. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
See the tags below the image here and study the image collection for evidence that this came from Delhi. Feel free to take it to DR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have included the image here to ease the discussion. Please note that the uploader of the image in 2006 tagged it on Flickr that the buffalo sacrifice took place in Delhi. The slaughter is similar to images from the Islamic Eid sacrifice festival linked above, and the participants are wearing similar caps. This slaughter is as illustrative as the Assam image which someone else added to this article in the past. In both cases, we are relying on tags / uploader providing information. I welcome a discussion on which images should be included. I am also open to a revised caption. Any concerns and suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: is there a way to display this same section on the other talk page (Talk:Kutha meat)? There is no sense is having the same discussion on multiple talk pages. I tried the Transclusion template, but I must be doing the coding wrong because it is not working in preview mode. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Done

You are all wasting you time, engaging in side discussions here. The discussion is at WT:INDIA not here. The titles of the images have already changed per my request and submission of reasons at Commons. The five images now no longer refer to Delhi, India, sacrifice, halal, or dhabihah. As you must know, open air slaughter has been illegal in municipal areas in India since 2001, a violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 2001. I have provided the link at WT:INDIA, and have already checked with lawyers in Delhi, where I happen to be now. What sort of nonsense are you all attempting to pull. What do I care that other images have been wrongfully uploaded. Two wrongs do not make a right. Enough of this nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The old lead image in the article
F&f: You misrepresented to wikimedia commons that the source does not state Delhi. It does. See links above. Just because the wikimedia commons changed the title, along with hundreds of titles they rename everyday, does not mean you are right. The image is as illustrative as the Durga Puja sacrifice image that someone else added, which apparently you don't care to remove. Whether outdoor buffalo sacrifice by a religious community is crime in India, or not, according to you.... that is irrelevant, the image just shows what happened. Sacrifice is a form of slaughter. I suggest we keep both Durga Puja and the above buffalo sacrifice image. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is at WT:INDIA. Please voice your arguments there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Line violating WP:OR in the opening section

The following line violate WP:OR guideline as the source doesn't say anything like that.

The objection to kutha meat is based on the belief that the slow death by bleeding of an animal is an inhumane method of slaughter

What the source says is following:

In Hinduism, animal meat obtained through instantaneous death of animal is allowed so we can say that slow killing of animals to obtain meat is perceived negatively in Hinduism but we can't state the reason that why it is perceived negatively (because source does't mentions it). To state the reason will be WP:OR.
In Sikhism, reason given for rejection of Kutha meat is due to rejection of belief in animal sacrifice by Guru Gobind Singh and right of Muslims to impose it on non-Muslims. Slow killing is perceived as inhumane method of slaughter is no where mentioned in the source. So, to mention it is WP:OR.

So, the line should be rephrased as:

In Sikhism specifically, the objection to Kutha meat is because of belief that sacrificing an animal in the name of God is mere ritualism (something to be avoided) and also as an opposition to right of Muslims to impose it on non-Muslims. Jasksingh (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have finally rephrased it as following

In Sikhism specifically, there are two more reasons for objection to Kutha meat - firstly because of belief that sacrificing an animal in the name of God is mere ritualism (something to be avoided) and secondly as an opposition to right of ruling Muslims to impose it on non-Muslims.

Rephrasing was necessary to avoid copyright violation. Jasksingh (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I just stumbled across this article and have edited the paragraph mentioned here before checking the talk page. After seeing your question I searched around myself, and found that the belief's purported anti-muslim origins are much older than expected and as such this sentence may be an extension of a general criticism of Islam, but I have also found support for this exact opinion in another text. The latter reference is likely fine under WP:SELFSOURCE. See also Dhabihah#Animal_welfare & Shechita#Animal_welfare_controversies in regard to Five_Virtues#Daya (though that, too, needs sourcing). Good luck! — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. McLeod, W. H. (2003). Sikhs of the Khalsa : a history of the Khalsa Rahit (2005 ed.). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 239. ISBN 0-19-567221-6. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  2. Singh, Daljeet; Singh, Kharak (1997). Sikhism: Its Philosophy and History. India: Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh. p. 333. Retrieved 15 September 2021.