Jump to content

Talk:Cow protection movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ntu129 (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article can renamed as "Cow Protection in India" as most of information in this article pertains to India. A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntu129 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

What should the scope of this article be? Should it just be on the cow protection movement in the 19th century? Should it include the cow protection agitation of the 1960s? Should it include the contemporary cow protection activity?VR talk 04:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the title, I don't think that the article limits any timeline-scope. Pinging @Kautilya3: and @Ms Sarah Welch: if they're interested to give their suggestions on this. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be encyclopedic, not limited to a particular decade, nor WP:Recentism, nor a specific century. Again, as Kautilya3 mentioned elsewhere, be watchful of WP:POV-forks. One comprehensive and NPOV 40 page article is better than 20 two page articles with conflicting, POV-y, confusing, difficult to maintain articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the term "cow protection movement" is used for the political movement starting from Dayananda Saraswati. But the phenomenon no doubt existed earlier. All the Hindu/Sikh-ruled Mughal successor states banned cow slaughter. "Cow protection" was part of the ideology of Hindu states even earlier. It seems that cow protection turned into a political issue soon after the Delhi Sultanate got established. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point was, I guess, that historical events of the 19th century "Cow protection movement" are notable enough to deserve their own article. That can either be this article, re-scoped to just that period, or a separate one. By all accounts these were very historically significant events. Some books on the history of India actually have a chapter dedicated to this. Many scholars have compared their significance to the Khilafat Movement, which does have its own article separate from the Caliphate.VR talk 02:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudes towards the cow

[edit]

Can we add Sikhism and Christianity[1] to it? Cow slaughter or beef consumption is very common in North-eastern states where Christians form majority. Jionakeli (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But we can't use newspapers for history/religious views/etc. For reasons, see the related discussion here and here. We need to rely on quality peer reviewed HISTRS scholarship (WP:RS). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will try to expand it. Jionakeli (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is WP:UNDUE weight on attitudes towards the cow in this article. This is an ongoing issue. Most of this material belongs at Cattle in religion and mythology, not here. There shouldn't be anything here except material that is related to the cow protection movement as determined by a reliable source.VR talk 01:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: Your double standards are causing too much WP:TE by you.... you added and preserved the POV-y background in the past. Now, I have expanded it, citing scholarly RS. Lo! now you state, "there shouldn't be anything here except material that is related to the cow protection movement". You were right in the past though the version that inadvertently resulted was poor quality and not NPOV. You are wrong now in wanting to delete it all. FWIW, without context, the article will be difficult to understand, a confusing mess and not encyclopedic. Context is important to understanding cow protection movement. It stays. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" You are wrong now in wanting to delete it all". I never said all of it should be deleted. I only said that the part that is not related to the cow-protection movement should be deleted. For example, are there any reliable sources that say that Charles Spurgeon, Ellen G. White, John Todd Ferrier are related to the cow protection movement? If you can find such sources, I'm OK with that material staying. If you can't, it must go. The same goes for any material I add. Everything must be held up to the standard of WP:NOR, including WP:SYNTH.VR talk 14:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent: But it is you, who added and preserved a section called Attitudes towards the cow, long before my first edit. The "attitude towards the cow" is not same as "attitude towards cow protection movement". The section was, and remains, an important context. I will take another look at Spurgeon etc sources and see if we should revise it. @Capitals00: what do you think? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section is clearly important enough to preserve, it shows the factors. Capitals00 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim cow protection groups

[edit]

Do you think "Shia Gau Rakshak Dal"[2] or "Muslim Gau Raksha Samiti"[3] for cow protection deserve inclusion? Jionakeli (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jionakeli: Sure. Is there secondary scholarly literature on these groups? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there will be scholarly literature on them because they have been formed recently. Jionakeli (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification?

[edit]

I could not find the source text for the following material:

The response of Muslims, states Tejani, was equally stark in their "anti-Hindu sentiments".

@Ms Sarah Welch: seems to have added this. In particular, I can't find "anti-Hindu sentiments" anywhere in the text. Since it is put in quotations, presumably it is a direct quotation from Tejani. I'm looking at the given source.

I have removed it. If someone can quote the text, I'll restore it.VR talk 14:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will embed a quote and reword it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quran interpretation and newspapers

[edit]

Jionakeli: Newspapers are not the appropriate RS for interpreting religious texts. I suggest you find a peer reviewed scholarly source instead of citing newspapers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we explicitly use the Quran as the source? There are many sources where translations are available. --Jionakeli (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jionakeli: Yes, you can quote from WP:Primary. You can use Template:Cite Quran, like this,[Quran 2:71] for example. But for the Interpretation of Quran's view on cow, we should seek peer reviewed scholarly sources. I have several Quran's translations in my personal library and RS too on all this, but I encourage you to find the sources and draft something, since you brought this content in. Wikipedia is collaborative project. @Kautilya3: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use Quran as a source, obviously. It would also be UNDUE in this article. It is enough to say what the scholars say. The op-eds cited here seem to be from authors with credentials. So they can stay for now, until better (peer-reviewed) sources are found. However, we would need to attribute the views to the authors, as per WP:NEWSORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please suggest me where to look for peer-reviewed sources? Jionakeli (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books and Google Scholar. You might need to be innovative in trying search keys, e.g., "Islam cows" or something like that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does the following have to do with the subject of the article, which is Cow protection movement:

According to the verses of the Quran, such as 16:5–8 and 23:21–23, God created cattle to benefit man and recommends Muslims to eat cattle meat, but forbids pork.[45] Chapter two (The Cow) of Quran permit cow slaughter with certain restrictions such as verse 2.68 states "a cow neither with calf nor immature; (she is) between the two conditions", "cow has never till a land or water the field" (verse 2.71), "cow should be bright yellow in color" (2.69).[46][47] Also the cow has never till a land or water the field (2.71) and the cow should be bright yellow in color (2.69).

Please see my comments above in Talk:Cow_protection_movement#Attitudes_towards_the_cow. Unless we can find a reliable source that connects the above verses of the Qur'an to the cow-protection movement, they shouldn't be in this article. They should be moved to Cattle in religion and mythology.VR talk 01:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to "attitudes towards the cow". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is on "Cow protection movement".VR talk 03:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, it is you who added and preserved a section called Attitudes towards the cow, long before edits by Jionakeli or I. You were right in the past, but are wrong now in wanting to delete or object to content relevant to "Attitudes towards the cow" section. No double standards please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I also added a section called "20th century". That doesn't mean we start added everything that happened in the 20th century to this article! When I add a section called "20th century", really what is implied is that "Cow protection movement in the 20th century". Of course, I don't write the first part because it is redundant given the name of the article.
Hence Attitudes towards the cow in this article really means Cow protection movement's attitudes towards the cow. Material on "Attitude towards the cow" that has nothing to do with the cow protection movement doesn't belong in this article. For example, we don't add Native American religion's attitudes towards the cow in this article. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the "Cow protection movement".VR talk 03:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent: But you added a POV-y edit on the "attitude towards the cow" in the Vedas! If that is important, so is Jionakeli and Kautilya3 supported content on cow in Quran. FWIW, the sources are not stating that there is "cow protection movement" phrase in the Vedas!! You should study your old edits, because your recent double standards and persistent arguing on this point to WP:TE by you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point made here is patently false and misleading, You have mentioned that the cow should have certain attributes in order to be allowed to be killed in muslim dietary restriction laws, however the interpretation is taken from a particular story from the quran where a particular cow is described, that is a special case and not a general one and the specific heifer to be sacrificed at that specific time is described in the verses 2:68-2:72 Umarmattoo (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources to back up your claims. The article content at the moment seems reasonably well-sourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tejani's views

[edit]

MSW has added Tejani's views that mischaracterize what Tejani actually writes and includes some OR.

Tejani compares the responses of Hindus and Muslims after the riots. This includes a letter to editor by a Hindu to TOI and Muslims making exagerrating remarks about Hindus on the aftermath. By contrast, the anti-Muslim cow protection posters occurred before the riots and Tejani puts them in a separate chapter. MSW wrote 'According to Shabnum Tejani, the cow dispute has been overwhelming interpreted as evidence of "fundamental antagonism between Hindus and Muslims".' Actually what Tejani says instead is that "responses to the Bombay riot overwhelmingly interpreted it as evidence of fundamental antagonism between Hindus and Muslims".

Therefore I will move the post-riot stuff that Tejani writes about to below the riots and the pre-riot stuff to above the riot.

Finally, MSW introduced 19th century language in the article by using direct quotes which obfuscate what's going on. Its best to summarize. For example, instead of "proclaiming the hour of prayer", its best to just use the term adhan.VR talk 02:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the OR? If 'after' or 'before' is the issue, there is a better way to resolve it. We should avoid creating WP:CFORK issues. Quoting exact does not obfuscate, particularly with the 1890s mentioned in the para. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already said what is the OR. The first is your equation of anti-Muslim literature and dramas to the post-riot response of the Muslims. You say that Tejani claims the two were "equally stark". That's false. Tejani instead says the TOI letter was "equally stark" to the post-riot Muslim response.
Secondly, is definitely the before and after the riot issue. You are conflating what happened before it with what happened after it.VR talk 03:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I have already embedded quote from the source in the cite with "equally stark" language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When Tejani says "equally stark", she is not comparing the the post-riot Muslim response to the pre-riot Hindu literature. She is comparing the post-riot Muslim response to the post-riot Hindu response. This is the third time I'm repeating this point.VR talk 03:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If one is relevant and due in this article, so is the other. Lets keep them together for readability, just like the source keeps them together. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not challenging that the other isn't notable. And Tejani does not actually keep them together. She puts them in two different sections. At least that's how it appears on Google Books. Do you have a version of the book in why she does it differently?VR talk 16:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violence WP:Summarystyle section

[edit]

Vice regent: Why did you delete the sources and sourced content here and replace it with this? We want to summarize the violence over a period of time, therefore I have reverted you. FWIW, I have moved some of your new text here after explaining the context. Your summary inappropriately left out the 1806-1808 context on page 68 of McLane. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3:, @Vanamonde93:, @Jionakeli:, @Capitals00:, others: What are your thoughts on this version? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you have countered those edits pretty well with your recent edits. I don't think "South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies" as used here[4] is a reliable source. Capitals00 (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is reliable and scholarly. See this.VR talk 03:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I removed sourced content. But I did move the content on violence in the 20th century to the section called "20th century" and the violence in the 21st century to the section called "21st century". Also, the links you posted - are they diffs? Because I can't really see the exact change I did in that link so its hard to see what exactly you're referring to.VR talk 03:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MSW, you forgot to @Fowler&fowler:.VR talk 03:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We need a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE of cow-related violence in this article, per CFORK and article split guidelines. This version is therefore better than your version. That is so because the Riots & Aftermath section in your version predominantly discusses 1890s riots, and does not give summary overview of violence; so much 1890s focus is undue and not summarystyle. I have moved some sentences and content per your edit summary comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your version is that you have removed the information from this article. Even though reliable sources clearly connect it to the Cow protection movement.
"1890s focus is undue". Not at all. Because most books actually discuss the 19th century riots when using the term "cow protection movement".VR talk 03:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. We should mention the 1890s riots in summary style along with the numerous others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just lump the 1890s riots together with violence more than a century later. The riots in 1890s deserve their own separate subsection where they are covered. They were directly tied to the Cow-protection movement.VR talk 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

@Vanamonde93: Given the general consensus on a narrow post-2014 focus in Talk:Cow protection-related violence, and the discussion to move violence history either here or the Cattle slaughter article, I have moved it here. Two reasons: the cattle slaughter article is already big with laws/beef export industry etc, and the violence part seems to better fit in here. Suggestions and comments are welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Vanamonde (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cow protection movement. 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) 23:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on the Cow Protection Movement Page.

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Idell

Cow Protection is a very contentious matter in India. And is currently being used to suppress the Beef consuming Minorities in India; especially Muslims. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/19/india-vigilante-cow-protection-groups-attack-minorities

The Edit removing spurious claims about the restrictions on beef consumption in Islam is necessary in order to keep information accurate & to inform people of the orthodox & majority opinion that is held by most Muslim populations including those in India. it's ture that Islam doesn't obligate Muslims to consume beef or Meat but it places no restrictions on Beef consumption either; unlike the claims in the citations. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2521/ruling-on-not-eating-meat-or-dairy-products-veganism

As for verse 2:68 of the Quran; then it is a well known story of the Prophet Moses. It has nothing to do with Cow Slaughter for Meat consumption. Since you seem to know Arabic; For more information Read the verses 67-73 of Surah Al Baqarah & their explanation (Tafsir).

Wikipedia is a source of information to many people including Indians. However such misinformation about cow slaughter may then be used to create actual laws discriminating against Muslims as is currently happening in India.

I can say with complete confidence (100%); That my edit is correct & the information before the editing was wrong.

by Oneuseeditor.

21 February 2021, at 21:36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneuseeditor (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oneuseeditor: I, now, agree with the removal of those sentences. The citation was definitely absurd. Initially, I added them back because there are some conditions or tests for sacrificing animals that should be satisfied, such as, the minimum age requirement. But the removed text incorrectly referred to it as "maturity", among other errors. Idell (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cow_protection_movement&oldid=1243795761"