Talk:Kutha meat/Archive 1

Baffling Accusations by IntotheFire about reference provided by user named Sikh-history[edit]

Hi Sikh-history,

This entire article to date has been contributed by you , considering you are an admin I am truly puzzled by the odd references provided by you . Its another matter that you have also made similarly odd references on other articles .
Next even the external links on this article have a spin .
But first would you please care to provide an explanation of the references here .

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

Two books and one reference no ? ...ref to reference no 2
Which are the eight books refered ?? .....I only see 3 books and the SGPC Site ...which also you have misquoted

Intothefire (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think when this article was first put together it flowed, but subsequent additions have made the references go all over the place. Using ibid was bad practice on my part however. Will look into int when I get time, which I haven't had much of. Thanks--Sikh-History 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory check

on:

Ok
Page 75
No Idea - someone's messed it up.
it is a summary of the paragraphs below. Please read the rest of the article.
the Gurumukhi version says "Kutha". Click on the bottom right of the site and the Gurmukhi version comes up. I also don't take kindly to accusations I deliberately misquoted. Please WP:Assume Good Faith. I will ignore it this time.
ibid refers to the Sikh Code of Conduct web site.
must be the second reference. Again, someone messed it up, I think I have corrected it.
Sikh Times is a reliable source. I will kill the vegetarian world link and find a better one.
Sikh Times
Sikh Times
2nd reference.

Some Notes for you:

This entire article to date has been contributed by you , considering you are an admin I am truly puzzled by the odd references provided by you . Its another matter that you have also made simillarly odd references on other articles . - This is not WP:AGF. Please reword your questions.
Next even the external links on this article have a spin . - Spin? in what sense? What are you insinuating?

Thanks --Sikh-History 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2 from Intothefire

Every single references provided on this article till the date of my first on (22nd Nov) message, are by User Sikh-history .No one else messed up or added references .

As for the changes you have now effected .

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

Considering your complaints and agressive deletions of content vis a vis other editors ,I think its time for an admin to see this and other odd edits by you .
Intothefire (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure WP:GAME and WP:LAWYER[edit]

I think this is a poor attempt and WP:GAME. Again, you have been warned about WP:AGF, based on the message you left on my talk page. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cut slowly"[edit]

Islamic method of slaughter does not permit cutting slowly. In fact, the idea is to quickly cut the blood supply to the brain causing a neurological shock (instant black-out followed by death). The spine is not severed because this way the heart continues to pump for a few more seconds to pump out most of the blood (blood contains contaminants and disease). So, I suggest revising this article in light of this and correcting the spot where it says "cut slowly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.82.111 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote from the book. Thanks --SH 14:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ ibid

[1] ^ ibid

[1]