Talk:Cattle in religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Hinduism / Krishnaism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (marked as High-importance).
 

"Banned" or "permitted with limits"?[edit]

Back in March, an anonymous user changed "Cow slaughter is illegal in all of India except in two provinces" to "Cow slaughter is permitted with limits except in two provinces". Recently it was changed back to "Cow slaughter is banned except in two provinces". Is it illegal/banned or permitted with limits? The above discussion says both. Clarification is needed.

It occurs to me that perhaps both could be true: it's not banned/illegal in all India (by federal law), but it is banned/illegal by provincial law in all provinces except two. Is that the case? -kotra (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Muslim"[edit]

Resolved: Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Both those trying to <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>f=269889295&oldid=269821577 remove "Anti-Muslim" and those trying to retain it seem to have valid points. But it seems to me that the words "Anti-Muslim", even if true, are unnecessary and redundant because the caption goes on to say "protesting the Muslim practice of beef-eating." So why not leave it off? No information is lost. -kotra (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My main problem with the anonymous editor is that they are assuming the info is hate-filled original research. The material comes from several books. They need to look up the info before they start making such comments. A previous editor who originally added the caption to the picture just didn't add the citations. Since you are kind of enough to air the issue here, I'll agree to remove the "anti-Muslim" part. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see my edit summaries. Using inflammatory rhetoric like "Anti-Muslim" is a clear evidence of partisan bias. I have numerous academic sources that state that Islamic Sharia Law is anti-Semitic, anti-Buddhist, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu etc but it would be biased to refer to Sharia in the primary narrative in this fashion. This is a clear double standard if Indians are being singled out for discrimination in this article.70.112.6.69 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Further elaborating, wikipedia defines Islamophobia as hostility towards Islam as a religion. Since Islam takes no position on the consumption of beef as such (neither supports nor opposes), and beef is not a primary meat for consumption in the Muslim world (it's typically mutton, and Hindu law does not explicitly prohibit mutton, a lot of Bengali and Kashmiri Hindus are mutton eaters, incl. Islamic Halaal mutton). Beef eating is a cultural practice among Muslims and not a religious one (at least, no more than Pork consumption is a "religious Shinto practice" among Japanese Shintoists). Implicitly using the term "anti-Muslim" to describe this is communal incitement based on deliberate misunderstandings of Hindu and Islamic dietary laws and definitely qualifies as hate speech.70.112.6.69 (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just for arguments' sake: those who practice a religion that bans something can certainly be against another religion just because it doesn't ban something. It doesn't matter if that second religion doesn't say anything about that something. Simply because the second religion doesn't ban it is enough to send some people in the first religion into a rage. That doesn't mean the first religion is hateful or intolerant, just that some of those who follow it may be. -kotra (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sharia is irrelevant to this content, there is no "double standard" because the image in question is not being compared in the article to Sharia or anything else. Also, "Anti-Muslim" as a description is not inflammatory since that is exactly what the image depicts. I suggest that if there is anything inflammatory it is the image itself. If you feel it puts Hindus in a poor light, I would note that the image was published way back in 1912, the caption never says it was the prevailing opinion among Hindus at any time past or present, and there has always been racism and bigotry in every culture (where I'm from there's been a lot of it). However, you do not need to continue this pointless edit warring (which is fortunate, because you are both nearly in violation of WP:3RR) because Ghostexorcist has agreed to leave it out. -kotra (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see what's "anti-Muslim" specifically about this. The depiction is that of a mythological demon is trying to slaughter a symbolic cow. By your logic, Jews who depict the perceived evil of cremation (it is explicitly forbidden in Judaism on the religious ground that burning dead flesh inhibits the separation of the soul from the body) would be "anti-Hindu" and "anti-Sikh" because Hindus and Sikhs cremate their dead. If this particular depiction is called 'anti-Muslim' by certain -ahem- "scholars" (using the term "scholar" loosely) then it showcases their own partisan biases.70.112.6.69 (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I am appalled that you assume I am some racist who hates Muslims. Not everyone hates Muslims. Second, as I've previously stated, the source material says Kali was considered an embodiment of Muslims. In fact, the source states “The Magistrate [at Deoria] found Muhammadans excited because they heard a picture was in circulation representing a Muhammadan with a sword drawn sacrificing a cow, and this they considered an insult.” --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've looked over both sources, and they both say "Kali yug"/"Kaliyug" was widely understood to symbolize the Muslim community. The second source might be partisan, but the first doesn't appear to be. And even if it was, our verifiability policy says "verifiability, not truth"; i.e. we don't publish the truth, we publish what's verifiable in reliable sources. Unless there are more convincing sources that claim the opposite (that Kali doesn't represent Muslims in this picture), we can verifiably say Kali represents Muslims in this image. Although, I emphasize that we aren't saying that anymore in this article, so there shouldn't be any problem. -kotra (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The other point of view[edit]

Jha, D.N. The Myth of the Holy Cow (2002) (excerpts available on Google Books) adduces a lot of citations and quotes from Hindu Scriptures to prove that cows were systematically killed, sacrificed and eaten in Vedic times. I only added one sentence referring to the argument in the beginning, but the sections on Hindu scriptures still reflect only the "pro-cow" view and provide only quotes supporting it. I'm too lazy and disinterested to make more edits, but something should be done about this.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Title needs to be changed to "Cattle in HINDUISM"[edit]

The article is clearly focused on the Hindu perspective and even when other religious traditions are mentioned, they are mentioned with a Hindu polemical slant. The section on Zoroastrianism is pure BUNK. What the hell is "geush urva"? No such thing exists.

I'm going to rewrite the Zoroastrian section and I recommend the entire article be reviewed for its obvious Hindu POV violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.104.21 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because this article used to be called Sacred Cow in Hindu culture. But, against my advice, it was renamed and a few meager references to other Egypt and Zoroastrianism was added it. I originally advised those who did it that more info should be gathered first. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I found a book on Google book that stated guesh urva means "soul of the cow." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
To be accurate, the name of this article has only been "Cattle in religion" and, before that, "Sacred Cow"; there has never been any mention of India or Hinduism in the title. I did, however, suggest at one point splitting off the Hinduism-related content into a sub-article called "Cattle in Hinduism"; there were no comments on that idea so I didn't pursue it; but I think it would still be a good option. I do not, however, think that just renaming the current article to "Cattle in Hinduism" is an acceptable option, because we have sections on Zoroastrianism, Ancient Egypt, and East Asia. This information belongs somewhere. -kotra (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That's why I only linked the "Sacred Cow" part. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood you then. Sorry about that. -kotra (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In East Asia[edit]

The In East Asia section is in very poor shape. I attempted to improve the grammar but nearly of the sources cited are apparently either blogs or original research (in the case of the citation of "Classic of Rites"). I will try to ask Chinese speakers for assistance in verifying these, but I am not hopeful and the whole section may have to go if there are no reliable sources found. -kotra (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All but the last reference in that section are blogs. The last sentence "Occasionally, some cows showed a tear before slaughter, and these cows are often released to temples nearby" is confirmed to be true and relible by the Yahoo HK news. According to this news report, in 1983, a 17-year old cow was at the Cheung Sha Wan slaughterhouse waiting to be slaughtered. It keeled down and cried. People saw this and spared its life, releasing it to a temple. The cow died 11 years after this incident. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have removed the blogs now, and reworded the last sentence to match what you've described. It doesn't sound like a pattern of crying cows being released to temples, so I've only described the single incident. I'm not really sure if this one incident in 83 is worth mentioning, though. -kotra (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5707554.ece http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/13/2490893.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Implicit error in this article[edit]

This article creates a misimpression that cattle slaughter is somehow illegal in India or opposed by Hinduism generally. That is incorrect. Only the slaughter of female cattle (i.e. cows) is banned in most states of India. Oxen are legal to slaughter virtually everywhere in India. Buffaloes of either gender are also slaughtered legally. --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Google it http://www.google.co.in/search?q=do+hindus+eat+beef&

premise of this article might be inaccurate.123lightki (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Article mess[edit]

It's fine if most of the text gets shunted off to a Hindu-specific article, but we should have a page somewhere addressing cattle gods in general. I'll add two links to two Celtic goddesses, but I'm sure there's much more.  — LlywelynII 14:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Is this a subject of scholarly (or even general) interest? The comparative analysis of bovine deities seems like an extremely narrow topic. A simple list would probably be sufficient. My vote is to change this article to Hindu-only since that is very obviously what it wants to be. Krychek (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Just take out 20 mins, and write anything like "Islam", "christianity", and especially about the role of cows in those 2. The article title is fine, fits for it's purpose. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)