Talk:Kutha meat

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia: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

17 March 2011 Sikh-history Talk page looked like this .
4 October 2011 Sikh-history (Archiving)
18 October 2011 Intothefire (No pressing need to archive as yet

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)[reply]

Pleas see WP:LAWYER. Thanks SH 09:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi Sikh-History

You stonewall a legitimate discussion here to avoid providing cogent reasons for your urgency to prematurely archive a discussion.
Reason provided by you: The discussion's are redundant, I'm adding a link to this archive. Please do not undelete archives again
When I do not edit war on the article page and instead urge your reasons , after stating mine for opposing this premature archive
Instead of fairly providing reasons you throw a Wiki rule WP:LAWYER , without providing your justification for its applicability
When I quote from the same Wiki rule you threw at me which expressly states 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
instead of validly explaining your reasons you simply reiterate WP:LAWYER again. You now state The matter is closed
you even delete a mere mention of this discussion from your page ??

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image of buffalo sacrifice in Delhi

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion is at WT:INDIA. Please voice your arguments there. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1] 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.^[2] 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)[reply]

References

^ 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.
^ Singh, Daljeet; Singh, Kharak (1997). Sikhism: Its Philosophy and History. India: Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh. p. 333. Retrieved 15 September 2021.

[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.

[1]

[2]