Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-29/Hinduism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kanchanamala (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 14 August 2014 (→Merger with Animal sacrifice proposed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleHinduism
Statusclosed
Request date18:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Requesting partySikh-History
Parties involved

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Hinduism]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Hinduism]]

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The problem is at the Hinduism article, and in particular, with the inclusion of this paragraph:

Bali Sacrifice

Main article: Bali Sacrifice

Bali Sacrifice[1] (sometimes known as Jhatka Bali) is the ritual killing of an animal in some Hindu sects.According to Christopher J Fuller of Princeton University " animal sacrifice is still practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism".[2]Basant K Lal states "even to this day animal sacrifice has not disappeared from Hindu Practice".[3]. However animal sacrifice has always been less common than other forms of sacrifice such as sacrifice of fruit, milk, and ghee. [4]. Most Hindus abhor animal sacrifice[5], which has been banned in some Indian states.


The ritual sacrifice normally forms part of a festival to honour a Hindu God.For example, in Nepal the Hindu goddess Gadhimai[6], is honoured every 5 years with the slaughter of 250,000 animals. Bali sacrifice today is common at the Sakta shrines of the Godess Kali[7].

The Bali Sacrifice is confined to Sakta[8] tradition of Hinduism. The vast majority of Hindus, including Vaishnavite and Saivite Hindu's abhor animal sacrifice.

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

What is the dispute?

Some editors have accused me of trying to "discredit Hinduism", while others have sworn on my talk page. Others are using the pretext, that this is WP:Undue, I would argue that this has several citation and is practised by many millions of Hindus.

What would you like to change about this?

I would like editors to stop ganging up and stop WP:Censorship of articles and restore some WP:NPOV.

How do you think we can help?

You can provide WP:NPOV to this situation, as I feel I am being ganged up on.

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

I apologise for saying that the motivation of the edits was to discredit Hinduism, I should assume good faith. I do not think that a section on this marginal practice belongs on the main Hinduism page. A whole section of this on the Hinduism page would be akin to having sections on Flagellation#Christianity Flagellation and Snake handling in the main Christianity page. Animal sacrifice is only practiced by some sects of Shaktism within Hinduism. This is a small sect, figures are hard to find but a quote from the encyclopedia Britannica says that Hinduism comprises of "Hindus. 70% Vaishnavites, 25% Shaivites, 2% new-Hindus and reform Hindus"[1]. Obviously in some areas like Kolkata Shaktis form a significant percentage, but this is hardly typical of Hinduism as a whole. In fact Hindus, along with Buddhists and Jains are probably the religious group who find killing animals most abhorrent, with at least 25% being vegetarian. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some history: Sikh-history created article Bali Sacrifice on July 27 and added a section on Bali sacrifice in Hinduism and Non-existent Category:Bali Sacrifice was also added to Hinduism on the same day. Reverted by various involved users, who cited WP:UNDUE and re-added by Sikh-history citing NPOV. The dispute also involves the minor issue of Sikh-history repeatedly adding Category:Diet In Hinduism.

My point is that Bali sacrifice is NOT pan-Hindu. It is restricted to the worship of Shakta and Tantric rites and folk Hinduism, and not pan-Hindu. Pan-Hindu rituals like Yajna are also not discussed in detail (with sections) in Hinduism, as that would be UNDUE. IMO, Hinduism should have only pan-Hindu (not sectarian or regional) rituals. Every regional rite can't be mentioned with a section. The disputed section Bali Sacrifice -though referenced - gives too much detail. To adhere to NPOV, I have added one line in "Ahimsa and vegetarianism" section about Bali sacrifice. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the way you have mentioned it in the Ahimsa and vegetarianism and vegetarian section. I think that this the correct level of coverage, as you say it certainly does not merrit its own section unless we were to add all equivalently sized or larger regional Hindu festivals - which is clearly not practical. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Sodabottle (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Should the "animal sacrifice" be mentioned in the article? Yes it should as it has been done now. Does it require an entire section? - no. As Sikh-History himself mentions in the talk page - Hinduism is very diverse and has a lot of regional variations. Adding a section for each of them will be UNDUE and make the article unreadable. Creating a new article and wikilinking them would be the correct way to go. The knee jerk reactions of "making hinduism look bad" were unwarranted. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a position and nor do I care about whether and up to what extent Bali Sacrifice should be discussed in the main Hinduism article. However, one thing that I would like to point out is that the Hinduism article has repeatedly suffered from attempts to describe insignificant aspects of Hinduism in such as way that they appear as significant. Without getting into specific details, there are multiple instances of such attempts in past discussion. If we are to give casual readers an accurate Idea of what Hinduism is, such attempts should be avoided as far as possible. Given the scope, scale, and wide diversity of beliefs and practices in Hinduism, it is important to write the Hinduism article in such a way that significant aspects of Hinduism remain significant and insignificant aspects of Hinduism remain insignificant in the article. Desione (talk)
Desione you stated "I don't have a position and nor do I care about whether and up to what extent Bali Sacrifice should be discussed". Then why are you here? Thanks --Sikh-History 11:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

When does a practice become marginal?
  1. When it is practised by 1 person?
  2. When it is practised by more than a million people?
  3. Why does a reasearcher from the esteemed Princeton University state this. Christopher J Fuller of Princeton University " animal sacrifice is still practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism".[9]
WP:Undue does not apply here, it is not "Pan-Hindu" (whatever that is), but mainstream Hinduism.:
  1. Because it is practised by Millions of Hindu's, in Assam, Bengal, Nepal, Orissa and other Eastern states [10].
  2. It is practised by Hindu's who are Balinese [11] of which there are 3.5 million..
  3. Kshatriyas [12] and Rajputs [13] practice this too.
It merits its own section, why:
  1. It is a ritual that is practised today and is mentioned in Medieval Hinduism too [14].
  2. Saktas [15], a major branch of Hinduism practice it.
  3. Millions of Hindu's practice it.
  4. It is practised cross sect (bar Vaishnavs) by Kshatriya/Rajputs.
I see several problems with the Hinduism article:
  1. Too India focused - Hindu's live in Surinam, Bali, Nepal etc
  2. Too Vaishnav focused - Vaishnavs tend to be very anti-meat etc
  3. There is an element of WP:Game too.

Thanks --Sikh-History 16:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if there is WP:Game going on it involves an attempt to make a marginal practice appear mainstream, not only giving it a whole section but adding a number of categories to draw attention to it, such as [Category:Bali Sacrifice] and [Category: Diet in Hinduism] -- Q Chris (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q Chris please answer this then:
  1. Why does a researcher from the esteemed Princeton University state this. Christopher J Fuller of Princeton University " animal sacrifice is still practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism".[16]. When and how does "widely" become "marginal"? Thanks

--Sikh-History 11:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way as something like speaking in tongues is may be described as common in Christianity[2] though it is not mentioned in the article because it does not form part of formal Christian doctrine, is not practiced by most Christians and is in fact seen by the majority as something to be avoided. -- Q Chris (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Q Chris, this in no way apllies here. The author is very specific. Christopher J Fuller of Princeton University " animal sacrifice is still practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism".. Why is he saying animal sacrifice is important and is practiced widely? Thanks--Sikh-History 08:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is it is abhorred by a vast majority of Hindus. All Vaishnava, the majority of Saiva sects, and (I believe) all smarta sects. This is exactly the same as speaking in tongues in Christianity. Remember that Shaktas, tough prevalent in some regions are only a very small percentage of Hindus -- Q Chris (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q Chris, so you are saying the researcher from Princeton University is wrong? Thanks--Sikh-History 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that "widely practiced" can refer to a minority practice that is the direct opposite of the majority practice. The book appears to be a popular rather than academic work, and I would be interested to see what research data was used to come up with that statement. I think that the fact that many states have banned animal sacrifice and surveys show that most devotees are opposed to it [3] demonstrate this. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop dodging the question. Is the researcher wrong from Princeton University? Thanks

--Sikh-History 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal sacrifices is a feature of Folk Hinduism. This is Hinduism that is practiced in villages. The Village Deities play a major role in Hinduism. But the religious practices in villages do not get much attention because

1. The villagers do not like publicity. They do not like others to comment on their practices. The newspapers which are urban based are not interested.

2. Animal sacrifices are mostly restricted to Dalits and lower castes. The Gods/Goddesses of Dalits and lower castes are not even recognized by the upper castes.

Hinduism as is projected outside India is based on the ideas of the Urban upper caste elite. It is packaged for sale in the West.

This article referred to does give a correct view. Animal sacrifice was and will be a a part of mainstream Hinduism in India. This is widely practiced by millions of Hindus. And it is not restricted to Sakthas of Eastern India. Their practices are known. Other practices in thousands of villages across India are not known

Please see this article.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2020/stories/20031010001205000.htm

Sankarrukku (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question2

Let me put these questions to check if there is consensus on any issue and understand the opinions of all parties. Please answer in Yes or no, the simplest answers. We can then focus on the details. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Do you object to the inclusion of Bali sacrifice in Hinduism?
No. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No (it gives it more weight than many other minority practices but not objectionably so), -- Q Chris (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No --Sankarrukku (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No --Sikh-History 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Pectoretalk 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do you object to the positioning of the current mention of Bali sacrifice in Hinduism?
No. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Sankarrukku (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No --Sikh-History 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Pectoretalk 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do you object to the inclusion of the whole Bali sacrifice section (quoted above) in Hinduism?
Yes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Sankarrukku (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - However, it does need rewriting, because sacrifice also occurs in Eastern India, Kshatriya/Rajputs, Balinese Hindu's and Nepalese Hindu's.--Sikh-History 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.Pectoretalk 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There cannot be an impartial consensus, because:
  1. There is definitely an pro Indian Hindu element here (as opposed to Balinese Hindu, or Nepalese Hindu)..
  2. There is definitely a pro Vaishnav element here.

We need a moderator to do this, because all we are seeing is the same thing over and over again. It is getting ridiculous when people are questioning verifiable sources. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Notified Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (as it is a very active noticeboard and attracts non-Hindu, non-Indian audience too) about the dispute.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to check if there is consensus about Q1 at least. So we can focus on Q2 and Q3 and direct our arguments on those issues. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I summarize the result: All parties agree that Bali sacrifice should be mentioned in Hinduism (Q1) and that its current position in the article is appropriate (Q2). The dispute is limited to the amount of detail about the subject that is needed in the article Hinduism (Q3).--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • However animal sacrifice has always been less common than other forms of sacrifice such as sacrifice of fruit, milk, and ghee. [17]. If one checks the source, the author Galvin Flood is referring to Vedic aryans. Is this line necessary?
  • The article "Animal Slaughter A Shame" has also been incorrectly cited. The sentence--"Most Hindus abhor animal sacrifice[5], which has been banned in some Indian states" is not correct; Checking the original article here says :"The Hindu American Foundation described the mass slaughter of animals at the Gadhimai Temple in Nepal, which began on November 24, 2009, as grotesque and nearly unrecognizable in the practice of mainstream Hinduism today." (emphasis added) The context relates to a Nepali animal sacrifice--described in next para--should probably be combined with this. Moreover the emphasized material rebuts the previous stuff--"According to Christopher J Fuller of Princeton University " animal sacrifice is still practiced widely...". Raising questions over neutral description.
  • The next sentence --"The ritual sacrifice normally forms part of a festival to honour a Hindu God.For example, in Nepal the Hindu goddess Gadhimai" is condemned by the hafsite cited before this, however, these two sentences have been presented in a non-neutral and unconnected manner.

--TheMandarin (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Offence but the Hindu American foundation should be renamed the Hindu Vashnavite foundation. That is NOT a rebuttal, but a non-neutral source and is pure WP:POV. The Princeton University research has far more validity. Thanks--Sikh-History 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask a simple question: If Puja (Hinduism) - the most universal (not sectarian or regional as Bali sacrifice) and perhaps most popular (every devout Hindu does it daily at home) has just 3-4 line (which is enough) in "Practices" section, why should a non-pan-Hindu rite like Bali sacrifice get a section?? Why WP:UNDUE does not apply to the Bali sacrifice section??? --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe Puja (Hinduism) needs a section? Thanks --Sikh-History 09:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See FA Islam: Notice the coverage of the important practices of Islam. Not more than 1 para of 3-4 lines, same as coverage of puja.--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is all what is needed. Neither emphasis nor denial of animal sacrifices.Sankarrukku (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think it is WP:POV to suggest that the Hindu American foundation does not represent all American Hindus. I think Sikh-History is using his own POV interpretation of one source to try and push a strawman image of Hinduism that is contrary to the experience, beliefs, and practices of the vast majority of Hindus. This agenda is clearly demonstrated by the POV tags he added to try and draw attention to his Strawman, and the insistance that this section be added even if it means adding many other sections on practices either major or marginal. I think a fare more ballanced expression can be found in the Humane society's statement [4]
Ancient Hindu ritual and scripture in some instances call for sacrifice. For a marginal minority of Hindu sects, this translates into the practice of animal sacrifice. While this has occurred throughout history, and continues to be practiced by a rare few today, the vast majority of Hindus do not partake in, nor do they condone, animal sacrificing rituals. Most Hindus carry out their sacrifice to the Divine using foods like fruit, grains and clarified butter, and through austerity measures such as fasting.
Of course this will be dismissed as it is made in conjunction with a Hindu source, and they obviously can't be trusted to say what they believe. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The society's name (Humane society) is itself an indication as to where their leanings are. That is not a balanced view.Sankarrukku (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above confirms my comments
  1. Too India focused - Hindu's live in Surinam, Bali, Nepal etc
  2. Too Vaishnav focused - Vaishnavs tend to be very anti-meat etc
Sankarrukku you are 100% correct. My own maternal family are Rajput Hindu's and often complain of the pro-Vaishnav leanings in Hinduism today. There seems to be a Hindu Vaishnav media blackout on the importance of sacrifice today, and ancient Hindu texts. This sentence "I think Sikh-History is using his own POV interpretation of one source to try and push a strawman image of Hinduism that is contrary to the experience, beliefs, and practices of the vast majority of Hindus.", is an example. It not only contovenes WP:AGF, but is symptematic of the bias shown by the Vaishnav controlled India media, that seeks to turn Hindu's into a race of weaklings. Bottom line is book sources are better than websites. Thanks--Sikh-History 11:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, first a bunch of meaningless warnings and false claims of Personal attacks and incivility, and now allegations of a Vaishnav mafia (which includes a Buddhist, at least two or more other non-Hindus, and others of ambiguous religious backgrounds)? First off, relying on the throwaway line of one professor is a stark violation of WP:UNDUE. Ironically, Fuller himself says that "Popular "superstitious" practices, like animal sacrifice, are no longer just devalued as inferior; they are now condemned as wrong and not even part of authentic Hinduism" (Fuller 2004). Sunil Sehgal notes that Saktism (an obscure sect) is the only refuge of animal sacrifice in modern Hinduism (Sehgal 1999). Q Chris and Redtiger have patiently illustrated the obscurity of and displeasure with regards to animal sacrifice in current Hindu society. Your responses (note I am commenting on your responses, not you as a person) have lacked factual basis, smack of paranoia, and indicate a strong tendentious bias towards Hinduism in general. Wikipedians should assume good faith and be civil, but we need not be naive and ignorant.Pectoretalk 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pectoretalk, your comments are indirect attacks on me. You leave abusive remarks like "Bollocks" on my talk page and then you try and play the WP:UNDUE card. Well it won't work. What you are doing ammounts to WP:Censorship., and Fullers, comment is a swipe at the Brahmins and their elitist attitude in Hinduism by Vaishnavs. He goes on to say sacrifice is still an integral part of Hinduism, so please get you facts right. Also as has already been established Animal Sacrifice is not only confined to Sakta-ism. Furthermore Sakta-ism, with its millions of followers is hardly "obscure" (in fact I cannot find where he calls it obscure).--Sikh-History 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sikh-History, even if all non-Vishnavas it would still be a minority practice. It is also not practiced by Smartas, at least three of the six schools of saivism (Pashupata Saivism, Saiva Siddhanta, and Veera Saiva) and not all shaktis practice it either. It is a marginal practice, not followed by most Hindus. It certainly soes not warrant a whole section, which would give it the same level of exposure as karma or samscara (ignoring the POV categories you added to make it appear even more important). -- Q Chris (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q Chris, please define "minority"? 1, 2, 3. 4 million, 10 million? Also please add references here. Thanks--Sikh-History 07:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minority does not refer to numbers but proportions. In a room of three people wanting coffee and one wanting tea the one would be the minority and three the majority. In a country of a billion people obviously all the figures you give would be a minority. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q Chris, Let us not play games. See the references below.
You are the one playing games. For example you know fully well that most Kshatriyas don't practice animal sacrifice, as most are Vishnavas, also many Salivates won't. You are talking about giving a practice carried out by a small percentage of Hindus (obviously in absolute numbers it might sound big) to the same level as universally accepted principles. This would be exactly the same as giving speaking in tongues the same level of prominence in the Christianity article as Jesus dying for sins - it is something practiced by a small percentage of Christians, tough in absolute numbers quite large. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Orissa, Bengal, Nepal (and othern Eastern States) carry out such rituals.
  2. The Balinese carry out such rituals.
  3. Some Southern Indian states carry out such rituals.
  4. Saktas carry out such rituals.
  5. "Sudra"s (largest caste amongst Hindu's) carry out such rituals and are defined as Sudra because they carry out such rituals. #Kshatriya/Rajputs carry out such rituals.
Please tell me what it is about this practice that makes it so insignificant, it does not warrant a mention?
Don't bring up straw-man arguments. Only one person has indicated that they object to a mention. Most are fine with a brief mention as is in the current version, what we are not happy with is it being given a whole section, or various new categories invented to make it look as though it is the most important aspect of Hinduism. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. It is important and is mentioned in Hindu texts from the begining. Just because some modern day revisionists wish to edit out animal sacrifice, it does not make it less important. Thanks--Sikh-History 07:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Sikh-History 08:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I go back to my original questions:[reply]

When does a practice become marginal?
  1. When it is practised by 1 person?
  2. When it is practised by more than a million people?
  3. Why does a reasearcher from the esteemed Princeton University state this. Christopher J Fuller of Princeton University " animal sacrifice is still practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism".[18]
WP:Undue does not apply here, it is not "Pan-Hindu" (whatever that is), but mainstream Hinduism.:
  1. Because it is practised by Millions of Hindu's, in Assam, Bengal, Nepal, Orissa and other Eastern states [19].
  2. It is practised by Hindu's who are Balinese [20] of which there are 3.5 million..
  3. Kshatriyas [21] and Rajputs [22] practice this too.
It merits its own section, why:
  1. It is a ritual that is practised today and is mentioned in Medieval Hinduism too [23].
  2. Saktas [24], a major branch of Hinduism practice it.
  3. Millions of Hindu's practice it.
  4. It is practised cross sect (bar Vaishnavs) by Kshatriya/Rajputs.
I see several problems with the Hinduism article:
  1. Too India focused - Hindu's live in Surinam, Bali, Nepal etc
  2. Too Vaishnav focused - Vaishnavs tend to be very anti-meat etc
  3. There is an element of WP:Game too.

Thanks --Sikh-History 07:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just check sources!

People, this is turning into a waste of time. What's happening here is that one user is pushing to get something included in the article, accusing all reasoned arguments against the inclusion as being "biased", "impartial", "WP:GAME", "ganging up", "WP:Censorship", and so on, and most ironically, after these accusations, further accusing everyone else of not assuming good faith.

Anyway, I think this whole discussion is uncalled for. We have a simple, general, common-sense way of dealing with such issues throughout the encyclopedia. Just as we are not in the business of deciding what is true, and simply report on the published literature (per WP:V), we are also not required to waste time debating what is prominent and not. For an article like Hinduism that must be written in WP:SS with supplementary material moved into sub-articles, and with an extensive literature of secondary and tertiary sources to draw from, there is a simple test of what is WP:UNDUE and what is not: just check the published books on the subject. If broad surveys of Hinduism (i.e., books about Hinduism as a whole) find it worthwhile to devote a section to some topic, we do so too. If most books on Hinduism as a whole don't devote man pages to Bali (sacrifice), there is no reason for us to devote a disproportionately long section on a short page. This may or may not correspond to its popularity in the real world (though in this case all but one of us agrees it does), but we will be properly reflecting the published literature on the subject, which is the goal of an encyclopedia. Even if one wants to claim there is a bias in all the world's literature, that most books don't talk about something even though it's prominent, Wikipedia is not a place to right real-world wrongs. User:Sikh-history has done great work in finding sources, which will be very useful for the respective articles, but spending all this time trying to directly re-interpret importance (for WP:UNDUE) from first principles and data goes beyond the mandate of enyclopedia-writing, and approaches WP:OR territory. The point is not to discuss the extent of prevalence of animal sacrifice, but only how long a mention it should have in the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am not asking for an entire essay, but I think there is enough information to warrant a section. Maybe it could follow the following route:
  1. Definition of Bali Sacrifice
  2. History of Sacrifice in Hinduism
  3. Religious texts on sacrifice in Hinduism
  4. Development of Sacrifice Animal and Vegetable
  5. Sects and Sacrifice in Hinduism
  6. Indian Regions and Sacrifice
  7. Non-Indian Hindu Sacrifice in Hinduism
  8. Caste Variations and Sacrifice in Hinduism

Thanks--Sikh-History 07:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It warrants a mention but not a whole section, unless we are to add literally hundreds of other minority practices to the article also to regain balance. As I have said it is equivalent to speaking in tongues in Christianity, mentioned in original sources, practiced by quite large absolute numbers but a small proportion, and not held as valid by the majority. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The outline described is a good one for a separate article, though obviously, it's absurd to include so much in the Hinduism article. The criterion for inclusion isn't "I think there is enough information to warrant a section". Again, to quote WP:UNDUE:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

What's true for viewpoints is also true for aspects of the subject. We may have loads of information, but the only criterion of what is important and not (for Wikipedia) is how much attention is given to it in other sources on the topic (not specialised sources). Based on these criteria, mentioning sacrifice is not worth more than a sentence, at that. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the long list of must-haves about Bali - Sikh history has suggested, Hinduism will need a long para about Bali. I reiterate what I said before: even the most famous, important, pan-Hindu (across regions and sects) practices like puja and yajna do not warrant some sections, which would be UNDUE in Hinduism article. Important practices of Islam have the same amount of coverage (about 3-4 lines) in the WP:FA ("Wikipedia's best work", which adheres to all policies) Islam article. About WP:Censorship and WP:POV accusations: currently Hinduism article does not deny it (the sentences included are sourced to Sikh history's references). However, it does not need to emphasize it too with a para (WP:UNDUE). About accusations of "ganging up" (all vs 1 user), some neutral party needs to examine if it is "ganging up" OR a WP:CONSENSUS, which is unacceptable to 1 party. IMO, it is pointless to discuss further without a mediator as we are reaching nowhere. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree . Shreevatsa (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. If all practices of greater or equal importance and prevalence are given their own paragraphs the article will be extremely long. I doubt that anyone could argue that puja, yajna, japa, ritual bathing, pranayama, each of the four major yogas, marriage, Annaprashan, Śrāddha, and Rath Yatra to name a few are any less important or widespread than bali. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We all seem to agree on one thing at least. :) Thanks--Sikh-History 08:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do WE Have Consensus?

Ok, I have added to Redtiger's contribution (references), do we have consensus? Thanks--Sikh-History 12:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the current coverage of animal sacrifice in Hinduism. I have made a few changes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also happy with the current coverage. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me weigh in with my two cents. Ritual animal sacrifice was very much part of vedic religion of ancient India. That is why you have references to Ashwamedha (horse sacrifice), Gomedha (bull sacrifice) in Vedas. But they did not involve indiscrimate killing but were reserved for certain occasion of religious significance. For Kshatriyas these sacrifices (yajnas) were a must. But later on due to the influence of Buddhism and Jainism, animal sacrifice waned, even though Buddha was a meat eater till his last day. The Bhakti movement further eroded its appeal. But Rajputs and Kshatriyas still practiced it to some degree as part of battle readiness.
Animal sacrifice is also found in Sikhism but is restricted to Nihang Sikhs. Sikhs adopted this ritual, along with many other symbols, from the Rajput-Kshatriya culture. The first band of militant Sikhs were trained by Rajput instructors sent by Rajput princes who were liberated from Gwalior prison due to Guru Hargobind's efforts. Since then animal sacrifice or Jhatka has always been part of Nihang cantonments, while general Sikhs do not practice it and are generally vegetarian. Nihangs refer to this consecrated meat as "Mahaprasad". Please note they do not eat halal meat and even Jhatka meat which they have not slaughtered themselves using their ritual prayer.
It would be fair to say that within both Hinduism and Sikhism, animal sacrifice exists but is restricted only to certain class and certain occassions.--History Sleuth (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History Sleuth, lets not confuse the Sikh issues now with Hinduism. The ritual you are refering to at Hazur Sahib is called Shastar Tilak. We have already established through lengthy previous consensus that Jhatka is a method used to sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself. The Nihang Jhatka tradition is an article initself see here Thanks--Sikh-History 12:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sikh History, lets agree to disagree on this. Many of Hindu and Sikh practices are clearly interlinked and need no debate. With regard to goat slaughter at Hazur Sahib, i.e. Tilak, it is very much a religious ritual. The blood of the goat is offered to Bhagauti embodied in the weapons (swords) which are placed before Guru Granth Sahib. This is very much a religious sacrament, preceded by liturgical recitations from Chandi Di Var. People can see in the You Tube video and judge for themselves...the blood of slaughtered goat is part of an elaborate ritual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8gUr9fIKc&feature=related

It is also noteworthy that Hazur Sahib does not follow rewritten Rehit Maryada which SGPC tried to impose on other Sikh groups after 1922. Hazur Sahib and Patna Sahib being outside Punjab retained their earlier Sikh practices in original form while Sikh pracitices in Punjab fell under heavy influence of Singh Sabha revisionism. There are clear Shakta influences in Dasham Granth which are acknowledged even by revisionist Sikhs who are now trying to disown this scripture and erase Shakta influenced practies like Jhatka and Tilak still followd by Hazuri Sikhs.
If goat slaughter and Tilak were not religious ceremonies why else would goat meat be distributed as Mahaprashad as part of the Langar?
"The most special occasion of the Chhauni is the festival of Diwali which is celebrated for ten days. This is the only Sikh shrine at Amritsar where Maha Prasad (meat) is served on special occasions in Langar" The Sikh review, Volume 35, Issue 409 - Volume 36, Issue 420, Fauja Singh, Sikh Cultural Centre., 1988


Why would blood be offered to swords representing Bhagauti in an elaborate sacrament (also shown in the above Youtube video?

BTW:, the link you provided itself acknowledges that Jhatka is a religious sacrament which involved recitation of Sikh hymns:
When performing Jhatka on a goat, first the goat is bathed, then Japji Sahib and Chandi Di Var are read. One Singh stands by the head of the goat and upon the final lines of Chandi Di Var being read, ‘Those who sing this divine ballad will be liberated from the realm of life and death’, at this moment the goat is decapitated with one blow and the soul of the goat is liberated. The goat itself lowers its head to receive salvation”. (Giani Thakur Singh, Asa Di Var Viakhya Part 25)

--History Sleuth (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not Bali (sacrifice) as described in this context. What you are describing is some sort of blessing. In anycase, we seem to have reached a consensus on the Hinduism article. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Bali simply means Sacrifice. You are resorting to WP:Point and wikilawyering. You have also deleted a lot of soured content on the article in dispute. But that is besides the point.
Consnesus is not permamnent. It can be called into question whenever there is evidence to question . I don't see Conensus being reached in this case except your unilateral pronouncement.

Merger with Animal sacrifice proposed

To all here: I have recommened the article to be merged with Animal sacrifice. The reason is that there is already a general article on the theme to which Hindu and Sikh animal sacrifices can be added as sub topics. I think this new article needlessly duplicates a topic. What is next? Are we going to have separate articles for animal sacrifice in each tradition? There are thousands of creeds which practiced animals sacrifice with various theological inspirations. To dedicate a separate article for each is bit of an overkill, imho. Kindly weigh in with your opinions. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I should point out that you are talking about the merger of the article Bali (sacrifice) merging with Animal sacrifice. As a matter of procedure I don't think that this should be discussed further here, but in Talk:Animal sacrifice#Merger with Animal sacrifice in Hinduism proposed. (unsigned)
This is not the right page to discuss the merger of the Bali article. This page should be limited to the Bali-related content in Hinduism page. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NGO www.jhatka.org believes that Jhatka is discriminated against by Government, so it has filled an Petition with Petition Committee on Petition, Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India, Praying that let there be separate labels and tenders for Islamic Halal and Jhatka so that there is no confusion.

Animal Sacrifice

The statement that "animal sacrifice is still practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism" is just not true. Kanchanamala (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Extended content
  1. ^ O.P. Radhan (Sep 2002). Encyclopaedia of Political Parties. Vol. 33 to 50. Anmol,India. p. 854. ISBN 8174888659.
  2. ^ Fuller C. J. (26 July 2004). "4 Sacrifice". The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India [Paperback] (Revised edition edition ed.). Princeton University Press. p. 83. ISBN 069112048X. Retrieved 29th July 2010. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Lal, Basant K (1 May 1988). "7 Hindu Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science". In Tom Regan (ed.). Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science (Ethics & Action). [Paperback]. John Bowker (U.S.; Reprint edition ed.). Temple University Press,. p. 201. ISBN 0877225117. Retrieved 30th July 2010. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  4. ^ "Indeed the offering of milk into the fire was more common than animal offerings."Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521438780. p. 359.
  5. ^ Template:Cite article
  6. ^ Lang, Olivia (24th November 2009). "Hindu sacrifice of 250,000 animals begins". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 July 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Julius J. Lipner (23 July 1998). "9". Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) [Paperback]. Routledge; New edition. p. 185. ISBN 0415051827. Retrieved 27/10/2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. ^ Harold F., Smith (1 Jan 2007). "12". Outline of Hinduism. Read Books. ISBN 1406789445. Retrieved 29th July 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  9. ^ Fuller C. J. (26 July 2004). "4 Sacrifice". The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India [Paperback] (Revised edition edition ed.). Princeton University Press. p. 83. ISBN 069112048X. Retrieved 29th July 2010. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  10. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=To6XSeBUW3oC&pg=PA83&dq=assam,+nepal+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=uVBUTK_gF86G4gaHgbmnBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=assam%2C%20nepal%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  11. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RzUPfuQ1GO0C&pg=PP54&dq=balinese+hindu+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=olNUTKLiEJDt4gaV2dinBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=balinese%20hindu%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  12. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OHs386EZkRwC&pg=PA12&dq=Kshatriya+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=ElBUTLDuLMee4Qbs1eimBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Kshatriya%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  13. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z6eR2CX_zbsC&pg=PA287&dq=Rajput+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=YlFUTLnZNcWA4QargJmnBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Rajput%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  14. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=apnn55kIKo8C&pg=PA381&dq=Hindu+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=Q1JUTNjbMc7M4AaImOymBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Hindu%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  15. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XsnqJA2IU2AC&pg=PA287&dq=Sakta+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=BFNUTMTQHcOx4QaPjrGWDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Sakta%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  16. ^ Fuller C. J. (26 July 2004). "4 Sacrifice". The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India [Paperback] (Revised edition edition ed.). Princeton University Press. p. 83. ISBN 069112048X. Retrieved 29th July 2010. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  17. ^ "Indeed the offering of milk into the fire was more common than animal offerings."Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521438780. p. 359.
  18. ^ Fuller C. J. (26 July 2004). "4 Sacrifice". The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India [Paperback] (Revised edition edition ed.). Princeton University Press. p. 83. ISBN 069112048X. Retrieved 29th July 2010. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  19. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=To6XSeBUW3oC&pg=PA83&dq=assam,+nepal+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=uVBUTK_gF86G4gaHgbmnBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=assam%2C%20nepal%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  20. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RzUPfuQ1GO0C&pg=PP54&dq=balinese+hindu+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=olNUTKLiEJDt4gaV2dinBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=balinese%20hindu%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  21. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OHs386EZkRwC&pg=PA12&dq=Kshatriya+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=ElBUTLDuLMee4Qbs1eimBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Kshatriya%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  22. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z6eR2CX_zbsC&pg=PA287&dq=Rajput+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=YlFUTLnZNcWA4QargJmnBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Rajput%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  23. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=apnn55kIKo8C&pg=PA381&dq=Hindu+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=Q1JUTNjbMc7M4AaImOymBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Hindu%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
  24. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XsnqJA2IU2AC&pg=PA287&dq=Sakta+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&ei=BFNUTMTQHcOx4QaPjrGWDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Sakta%20animal%20sacrifice&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-29/Hinduism&oldid=621249269"