Talk:Cattle slaughter in India

The whole "Legislation by State or Union Territory" section has no citation at all. Can someone please add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.253.137 (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. BigJolly9 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their 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. Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Origin of cattle slaughter

I have re-added content concerning the origin of cattle slaughter. The statement said that slaughter became "prominent" in India after the arrival of Islam and not that it began at the time, which is why it was removed by another editor. I was looking through older versions of this article, and I can see that a lot of content was removed for copyright violation (as the section above notes). In this version before the content was removed, under the Ancient India section, there are a lot of sources that indicate that cattle slaughter and beef consumption occurred even before the arrival of Islam. In my opinion, it also better explains the change in attitude towards cattle slaughter over time. I'm not an expert on the matter, but if some editor could add the content that was removed (after removing copyright issues) then it would better explain the history of the subject. 123.237.137.5 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Text is not small, it will take some time to rephrase. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nepal within scope?

Anyone has any thoughts whether cattle slaughter in Nepal falls within the scope of this article? Uanfala (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cattle slaughter in India. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-gurus/sri-guru-tegh-bhadur-sahib-ji-p2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110134335/http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-i-introduction.aspx to http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-i-introduction.aspx#item10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cattle slaughter in India. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cow-thefts-on-the-rise-in-India-For-new-breed-of-rustlers-nothing-is-sacred/articleshow/20290663.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125093504/http://dahd.nic.in/ch2/an2.6.htm to http://dahd.nic.in/ch2/an2.6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109104315/http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-ii-executive-summary/annex-ii-8.aspx to http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-ii-executive-summary/annex-ii-8.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029185034/http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-ii-executive-summary/annex-ii-8.aspx to http://www.dahd.nic.in/dahd/reports/report-of-the-national-commission-on-cattle/chapter-ii-executive-summary/annex-ii-8.aspx

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) 04:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Attacks on suspected cow smugglers in India

Topic may be notable with the sourcing but I believe it is more appropriate as section on Cattle slaughter in India rather than on its own. -- Dane ^talk 03:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Cow Slaughter in india

Hi Please check the map of india is not showing the right terrotory of j&k and china — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalreck (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced edits; misinterpretation of sources; WP:OR

Rashkeqamar, what on earth are you doing through WP:EDITWARring? Majority of what you wrote in your recent edits is WP:OR. Please note that the sources have to explicitly tell what you write, even if you completely believe that its accurate.

• Cow is treated as a holy animal mostly among Hindus in North India, than in South India and Northeast India, where it is legal to slaughter and consume cow meat.
• South India Hindus in states like Kerala, Goa ,Telangana and Karnataka eat cow meat(beef), where it is treated as a secular dish. Hindus in Northeast and states like Sikkim and West Bengal eat beef on a regular basis. [What the heck is "secular dish"? Where did that even come from?]

These things are present in none of the sources you have provided. — Tyler Durden (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Clear picture of Beef and cow slaughter perception in India must be added

Clear picture of Beef and cow slaughter perception in India must be added.
Cow is treated as a holy animal mostly among Hindus in North India, than in South India and Northeast India, where it is legal to slaughter and consume cow meat.
Scientific studies show that a gene mutation called 13910T which originated in Europe some 7,500 years ago could be the reason for north Indians and western Indians to consume far more milk and far less meat than east Indians or south Indians.

Non-uniformity: North India and Rest of India difference

South India Hindus in states like Kerala, Tamilnadu, Goa ,Telangana and Karnataka eat cow meat(beef), where it is treated as a secular dish. Cow meat (beef) accounts for 40% of all meat consumed in Kerala. Hindus in Northeast and states like Sikkim and West Bengal eat beef on a regular basis.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rashkeqamar: Please read WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH. The sources we cite for WP:V should directly support the content that we write. Keeping this in mind, please address the concerns which I have pointed out in the above section. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

More specifically, which of your sources talks about "holy animal", and which one says there is a difference between north and south India's in terms of holiness? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Middle of first millennium?

@Ms Sarah Welch: please see. It is not clear to me that cow slaughter was accepted by Hindus in earlier times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• Kautilya3: Indeed, we should add Nanditha Krishna source to clarify. I will try. But, please fine tune where appropriate, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

God's creature?

@Tyler Durden: Any RS for "the cow's traditional status as a respected creature of God in Hinduism" in the lead? I don't see the support in the main article. Strange phrase it is, with capital G and several qualifiers, but perhaps I am missing something. Once you provide a source, I will review the context and the support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:OR and complete nonsense. All creatures are creatures of God in Hinduism as well as other Indic religions. In contrast, man is a special creature of God in the Abrahamic religions and other creatures are apparently meant for the service of man.

Nandita Krishna quotes from the 10th Mandala of Rigveda (10.87.16) where apparently horse is singled out as a taboo rather than the cow. (The horse taboo still persists in all Indo-European societies.) Also, by the time of the 10th mandala, Aryans were not purely pastoral; they were largely agrarian. That is why meat-eating could be shunned (which would be practically impossible for pastoral people).

If eating horse is taboo for pastoral people, eating cow is taboo for agrarian people following exactly the same logic. No special invocation of God is necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah & Kautilya: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I was just reinstating the lead-sentence to the older version of the article, while removing the ahimsa thing. I'm watching this page for a few months, and the lead was staying intact since then without any changes/disputes, and so I thought there was no issue there. Hence I simply copy pasted the older lead-sentence, without bothering much about it. My mistake, I should have noticed it, at least while reinstating. Actually, the problematic "God's creature" was inserted in this edit in October 2015 by some IP (apparently, along with some other weird stuff also, which was removed in subsequent stages) and thereafter, strangely & funnily, it stayed in the article till date. Its undoubtedly nonsense. Sorry again, Tyler Durden (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback: POVs, lead, Ahimsa...

[Copied from User talk:Vice regent/CowVigilantism]

Hey there,

Someone recently told me to seek help from you regarding an article I'm developing in my userspace: User:Vice regent/CowVigilantism. Could you please leave some feedback? I'm particularly interested in knowing if you think it is neutral.VR _talk 01:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vice regent, I don't involve myself with content in this area as I admin here and I don't want to get WP:INVOLVED. I think Kautilya3‎, Vanamonde93, or Joshua Jonathan‎ would be better equipped to give you feedback. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Add Ms Sarah Welch. My knowledge on this topic is nihil. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am not current with topical and political issues there, so please take what follows in that context. @Vice regent: A quick read suggests the article has NPOV issues, strange claims, reliance of news sources accused for their one-sided POVs (Aljazeera is cited; Aljazeera's one-sided POV pushing is one of the reasons why Saudis/UAE/Egypt/Bahrain/etc broke up with Qatar, per some British sources). The article also relies on eccentric sources. The background section is weak, there are reasons why cow killing is frowned upon in the texts of Hindus/Jains/Buddhists. Not just cow, all life forms. It is strange to rely on a student's association president that "beef is cheap protein in India" (it isn't, beef costs more than $2 per lb bulk production price in a country where the poor live on less than $2 per day) or "25% of their country's population, not including their ~14% Muslims, are beef eaters"... all such exceptional claims need high quality RS, not gossipy student rep quotes and what is currently cited in the draft. If you look at the RS, such as FAO and USDA/FAS, cow+buffalo beef consumption per capita is very low in India. If just their Muslims eat as much meat beef per capita as Pakistanis or Turks do, that would account for 90%+ of their domestic beef consumption. I see Tyler Durden is discussing the draft with you on the draft's talk page. One suggestion: review the useful comments by admin Nyttend below, about the need for caution with news sources in wikipedia (cutting-pasting from the wall of text there).

Be careful with newspapers/etc as sources

Ian.thomson saw my comments elsewhere and asked me to chime in here. Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. Of course, all this applies if there's no significant dispute; a faithful adherence to WP:NPOV will demand that we use the best sources from (or about) each position, and we can trust a journalist to report on the rise of a new popular movement that advocates a different perspective on such-and-such an idea, but journalists being primary sources in such situations, we shouldn't use them to interpret something about the different perspective. – Nyttend

Newspapers, tabloids and certain magazines are useful sources in some cases, but not RS for many cases. Always attribute primary sources when you quote them (you shouldn't interpret primary sources). Sorry and thanks SpacemanSpiff for letting us (ab)use your talk page for this non-admin discussion!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Sarah, the other editor, VR, invited me on my talk page. So I got involved, didn't put any serious effort though. I just wandered there for a couple of days and left, as VR stopped developing it. I thought to go back after he starts making changes again, if he aims to publish it.

Since you tagged me, I just want to humbly & politely note that there is a lot of inaccurate and faulty OR in what you said above. I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss all of that point by point, so I won't elaborate. Also, regardless of your argument about "beef is cheap protein in India", it is not even there in that user-space article. I don't see anything written anywhere as such!

Above all, in any case, much of your discussion belongs to the article: Cattle slaughter in India. Not this one. This user space article: Cow vigilantism in India, is particularly intended to deal with the violence in the name of Cow-protection, carried out by the extremist-Hindutva mobs, who take law into their own hands. This is not an article that is meant to focus on the larger Cow-slaughter issue in India. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: The "cheap protein" comment was more to question the reliability of the source that uses a student's association president as the dietary / sociology expert. Newspapers can be useful primary source of events/tragedies/new developments. Not rest, see Nyttend's caution above. For the background section consider this, this, this and this as potential sources instead. On another note, I thought beef production/consumption/exports from India was mostly buffalo beef, but I am not current on all this and situation there, please check and clarify if appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Another source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sarah, again, I'm afraid you're not noticing that this draft-article is on Cow/cattle vigilantism in India. Not Cow/cattle slaughter in India.

I thought beef production/consumption/exports from India was mostly buffalo beef. - Yeah, you're largely right here.

Firstly, on a side note, as for this line above - there are reasons why cow killing is frowned upon in the texts of Hindus/Jains/Buddhists. Not just cow, all life forms., and your lead sentence-change here, where you opened the lead with because of the ethical principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) and the belief in the unity of all life: please try to understand that this page is a hugely contentious page where everyone and their brother can find some author(s), perfectly reliable, who is/are seemingly supporting their favorite family sentiment/prejudice or political agendas. (for eg., we have a renowned Indian historian D. N. Jha for one side, who wrote a book titled The Myth of the Holy Cow, saying, this cow-issue started just with the "Hindu-nationalists making the animal a symbol of the unity (& identity) of a wide-ranging people, and challenging the Muslim practice of its slaughter", also asserting that the Hindus consumed beef in ancient India, and cow is not any sacred during then — all of which attracted & entertained many audience.[1] [2] [3]) I'm not saying you are doing that, not at all. But you are opening the page to that, which will allow the POV warriors (again, you're certainly not one of them) from both sides to push their propaganda. We need to look at the broader picture, in detail. The fact of the matter is, Hindu-vegetarianism, in reality, is an empty argument in India, in the socio-political context. [4] - 70% of India is non-vegetarian, and majority of its Hindus (at least 60% of them) are apparently non-vegetarian, irrespective of what their religious texts say or do not say. Especially in the entire Southern and Eastern belt, you'll likely feel very lucky to find 2 vegetarians for every 10 Hindus you pick. (scroll down and see the image here) Frankly, there are probably more people who believe in ghosts & black magic, than those who follow vegetarianism in this whole region. Ahimsa (i.e., 'prevention of animal-violence' in this context) or vegetarianism is so weak an argument that even Hindu nationalists do not carry it as their political agenda for cow-protection.

The standard and the most popular argument, in its basic and brief form, is that Cow is like a mother to us, as it provides milk and so many things ("more than the earthly mother", in Gandhi's own words). Indian Hindus clearly & unarguably have a special love for cattle, particularly the cow, not only as per their religion, but also as per their way of life (as they put it). Why they have it, how it evolved since the past, and why it became a part of their socio-political conflict with Muslims, Christians & Dalits; especially the Muslims, in India — is all a pretty big & complex story. But all in all, apart from religion, there is a significant social and political dimension here, in the 'cattle/cow-slaughter issue' in India, which needs to be remembered.

Now cow/cattle-slaughter aside, and please think and suggest — what, in your opinion, should the Background section majorly cover, in an article that is on 'cow-protection violence'? Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Emperor Babur responds to D. N. Jha's rant as follows:

[Babur] wrote: "Son, this nation Hindustan has different religions. Thank Allah for giving us this kingdom, we should remove all the differences from our heart and do justice to each community according to its customs. Avoid cow-slaughter to win over the hearts of the people in the matters of administration. Don't damage the places of worship and temples which fall in the boundaries of our rule. Evolve a method of ruling whereby all the people of the kingdom are happy with the king and the king is happy with the people. Islam can progress by noble deeds and not by terror...."

Enough said. As to why it became a socio-political conflict with Muslims etc. one reliable source says this:

Veneration for the cow increased in medieval times. Although "the stages by which the doctrine of the cow's sanctity spread throughout the Hindu community are not clearly discernible," it "comes conspicuously into view during the period of Muslim invasions, when Hindus were shocked by the constantly recurring examples of cow slaughter."[8] Early Muslim invaders killed cattle in the same iconoclastic spirit with which they smashed idols. This slaughter probably intensified Hindu veneration for the cow. The manner and extent of permitted slaughter became both a gauge of the status of Hindu and Muslim communities and a means of conciliating potential opposition. For example, Akbar prohibited cow slaughter as part of his effort to consolidate Hindu support, and he made violations of his order punishable with death.[9]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Tyler Durden: Our goal should be an encyclopedic article, not merely a topical WP:Soap-y essay on current events summarized out of newspapers/blogs, no matter how valid or pressing they be. WP:Recentism is not the way to create a robust article, not that you are suggesting that we do so, but I note that for other page watchers. The context and the scholarly WP:RS on ancient and medieval history is important to any encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is a resource for all sorts of readers, from around the world. Build it over the Longue Durée!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden "I just wandered there for a couple of days and left, as VR stopped developing it." Sorry! I got a bit busy. I've also been adding to Cow protection movement.VR _talk 04:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I understand concerns about WP:Soap. Which is exactly why I reached out to several users because I believe the best way to make something NPOV is to bring various different viewpoints. Thanks for the four sources you provided for background! The first two of them are unfortunately in accessible by me currently. The other two (a pdf and a preview of a book on google) I will use. Feel free to add too.VR _talk 05:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• PS: Apparently, a significant portion of the discussion here is about the content in Cattle slaughter in India. So, I'm copying those parts of discussion to that article's talk page. — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@K: Well, I did not endorse Jha's POV. I even clearly stated that its one-sided in my previous comment itself ("for one side"). And yes, McLane's perspective above is quite appropriate, I agree. Regarding Babar's words, they can be certainly true since cow-slaughter was undoubtedly forbidden in Hindu society by Babar's time. But to take them at face value, I think we should look for corroboration from better & well-published sources (After all, it is Emperor Babar's will & testament to his son, it should've been observed by at least a couple of good scholarly sources). Rafiq Zakaria is clearly not a WP:HISTRS, and not reliable enough for this claim (IMHO). But regarding the cattle or cow-veneration / slaughter-prohibition in ancient India, there is apparently no clarity & scholarly consensus on that. Here is an RS which gives another interesting treatment of POVs on this subject from Marvin Harris, which is also later reproduced in several well-published books: (emphasis mine)

But all this ignores history. There is more to be said for cow worship than is immediately apparent. The earliest Vedas, the Hindu sacred texts from the Second Millennium B.C., do not prohibit the slaughter of cattle. Instead, they ordain it as a part of sacrificial rites. The early Hindus did not avoid the flesh of cows and bulls; they ate it at ceremonial feasts presided over by Brahman priests. Cow worship is a relatively recent development in India; it evolved as the Hindu religion developed and changed.

This evolution is recorded in royal edicts and religious texts written during the last 3.000 years of Indian history. The Vedas from the from the first Millennium B.C. contain contradictory passages. Some referring to ritual slaughter and others to a strict taboo on consumption. A. N. Bose in 'Social and Rural Economy of Northern India, 600 B.C. —200 A.D.' concludes that many of the sacred-cow passages were incorporated into the texts by priests of a later period.

By 200 A.D. the status of Indian cattle had undergone a spiritual transformation. The Brahman priesthood exhorted the population to venerate the cow and forbade them to abuse it or to feed on it. Religious feasts involving the ritual slaughter and consumption of livestock were eliminated and meat eating was restricted to the nobility.

By 1000 AD, all Hindus were forbidden to eat beef. Ahimsa, the Hindu belief in the unity of life, was the spiritual justification for this restriction. But it is difficult to ascertain exactly when this change occurred. An important event to that helped shape the modern complex was the Islamic invasion, which took place in the Eighth Century A.D. Hindus may have found it politically expedient (this is another big POV-word) to set themselves from the invaders who were beef-eaters by emphasizing the need to prevent slaughter of their sacred animals. Thereafter, the cow assumed its modern form and to function much as it does today.

Regardless, Kautilya, my concern was about the mention of "ethical principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) and the belief in the unity of all life" POV in the lead-sentence. Not anything else. And for that, I was presenting Jha's POV also. I would like to know your opinion in that regard.

@Sarah: Cattle slaughter has been historically opposed by various Indian religions because of the ethical principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) and the belief in the unity of all life. - I see that you still chose to put this perspective in the lead, this time not in the lead-sentence, but in its third sentence. I won't strongly resist you now since I don't intend to get into a POV war here, but I surely can't support this. Please note the caution of Ludwig Alsdorf in his book: The History of Vegetarianism and Cow-Veneration in India (source credits: yourself): (emphasis mine)

Firstly, it should once more be stated clearly that vegetarianism and a cattle-taboo must be distinguished despite all relatedness: millions of Hindus, [5] it is true, eat fish, chicken and goats, but on no account beef. The ban on cattle-killing prevails also in places where, perhaps in the service of the goddess Käli, or in religious festivals especially in Nepal, streams of goat- and buffalo blood flow, and any tourist to India has experienced that even in English-run hotels they are served chicken or what is called mutton (which in reality is goat) at every meal, but very rarely beef. The cattle-taboo is, therefore, to be treated as distinct from vegetarianism, or in addition to it. Secondly, Indian vegetarianism is unequivocally based on Ahimsa; ...

The cow/cattle-taboo concept is not "unequivocally" based on "Ahimsa and the unity of all life". There is distinctly a special love for cow/cattle here. I would urge you to use your best judgement in this case with WP:COMMONSENSE. Ahimsa or vegetarianism may be one of the reasons/rationales/justifications for the prohibition of cow/cattle-slaughter, I'm not denying that, but it is not clearly a major reason, and considering it so is a pro-Hindu POV. And it is surely not reason enough to be mentioned in the lead. Please cover this discussion in the body, but not in the lead. It is as undue as writing things like, "beef-restriction among Indian Hindus became a common practice perhaps out of their political expedience/opposition/indignation/whatever in order to set themselves from the Islamic invaders who were beef-eaters by emphasizing the need to prevent slaughter of their sacred animals", in the lead. Today anybody might not insert things like these, but someday, may be at least after some years, somebody can possibly come and do so, seeing the present lead, again with the direct & indirect support of multiple perfectly reliable sources. (You can see a newbie POV-pusher in this very talk page above, who even inserted something like: "Beef has been a 'secular dish' in Kerala in recent times", bringing an Indian Express article[5], and I had to war with him.)

Having said all this, I'll leave it to you & Kautilya (and other editors, if any) to decide regarding what to do on this. If you don't find my concerns genuine or neutral or necessary, please ignore them, never mind. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is that, to the extent that D. N. Jha says that the cow-issue was started by Hindu nationalists, he is wrong. I have no idea why he should say that because it is well-known that cow-slaughter has been a contentious issue between Hindus and Muslims since medieval times. --- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, Jha is biased. And he took his bias to the scholarship too. As you very well know, he is not the first scholar who did that. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, he may be biased. But what does he say that is usable by us? What we call "Hinduism", based on familiar deities like Vishnu, Shiva etc., is not the same as the Vedic religion. 200 AD is a fair guess as to when "Hinduism" got crystallised, but it was in various formative stages earlier. It was heavily influenced by Buddhism as well as Jainism in that period, even though this is not acknowledged in the sources.

You seem to disagree that the prohibition of beef has anything to do with ahimsa. I can't be sure of that. There is vegetarianism all over Hinduism. Brahmins are pure vegetarian in most parts of India. Even several non-Brahmin communities have adopted vegetarianism. Others that eat meat avoid it on religious or sacred occasions. All of that speaks to the principle of ahimsa and the regard of meat-eating as degraded in some sense. Different kinds of meat then have different levels of degradation. I see nothing wrong in stating that the taboo on beef follows from the principle of ahimsa. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is little from Jha's book that is usable by us. I was just referring to it to indicate that there are even these kinds of authors representing several POVs for two sides, on this contentious subject. Mind you, he's WP:RS according to our guidelines, and that's a quite unfortunate & dangerous thing. And I didn't write anything from Jha. Someone at sometime earlier wrote this - according to Jha, cattle including cows were neither inviolable nor revered in the ancient times as they were later. And yes, Hinduism was also greatly influenced by Buddhism & Jainism, M. N. Srinivas writes this, though not particularly in the context of cow/cattle-taboo. In any case, in this context, I personally find the treatment of Marvin Harris quite reliable in this regard, which I quoted above. Of course, except for his "politically expedient" word.

I never disagreed that the prohibition of beef has anything to do with Ahimsa/vegetarianism. I said that it was/is not the major factor. Yes, many Hindus are vegetarians, some 30-40% of them are, acc to stats, if we take the whole country at once. But in contrast, some 95% of them don't eat beef. Those who avoid other meat on religious or sacred occasions, avoid beef everyday. That should give an idea. Not me, but Ludwig Alsdorf, who studied this whole matter in detail, cautions to "treat cattle-taboo as distinct from vegetarianism". (See the quote above: Firstly, it should once more be stated clearly that vegetarianism and a cattle-taboo must be distinguished despite all relatedness...) And therefore, all I merely asked was to consider due & undue weight while stating this Ahimsa & vegetarianism POV in the article, not altogether be silent on it. My botheration was only that (initially the lead-sentence itself was opened with it). Anyway, I left this debate, and I've no interest in coming back. I'm just writing this since you asked. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• Tyler Durden: The third sentence does not include the word "unequivocal" or "equivocal", or anything equivalent. Alsdorf acknowledges that "Indian vegetarianism is unequivocally based on ahimsa" citing ancient smritis and itihasa of Hinduism. He adds, "to the majority of modern Indians" there is "no ahimsa without renunciation of meat consumption". Further, this is not just a precept in Hinduism. Please get over and unlearn this is just their Hindu thing. "No meat production, trading or consumption", which includes "no cattle meat" is an important precept in ancient and medieval texts of Jainism and Buddhism too. There are zillions of RS on this. Yes, religious precepts =/= actual practice. All three of their ancient religions give freedom to their followers, everything has been left as a choice in Indian religions. Ahimsa or vegetarianism is not a compulsion, it is a matter of personal persuasion, a heritage and a way of life. This difference between the religious and the secular life is unlike some non-Indian religions, where religious rules have been mandatory. Lets stop using or summarizing Indian or other newspapers as sources for history / anthropology / precepts of religions / etc. For why, see Nyttend's comment on "Be careful with newspapers" above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

requote

Alsdorf acknowledges that "Indian vegetarianism is unequivocally based on ahimsa" citing ancient smritis and itihasa of Hinduism. He adds, "to the majority of modern Indians" there is "no ahimsa without renunciation of meat consumption". Further, this is not just a precept in Hinduism. Please get over and unlearn this is just their Hindu thing. "No meat production, trading or consumption", which includes "no cattle meat" is an important precept in ancient and medieval texts of Jainism and Buddhism too. There are zillions of RS on this. Yes, religious precepts =/= actual practice. All three of their ancient religions give freedom to their followers, everything has been left as a choice in Indian religions. Ahimsa or vegetarianism is not a compulsion, it is a matter of personal persuasion, a heritage and a way of life. This difference between the religious and the secular life is unlike some non-Indian religions, where religious rules have been mandatory.

- Okay. So? Is this article on "Vegetarianism/Ahimsa in Indian religions"? — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

TD: Just diff-link it. Else this will get to a WP:WALL, Forum-y TL/DR.

So, Alsdorf discusses cattle-protection, cattle-killing (cattle slaughter), ahimsa and vegetarianism together on the same pages 2-4 (and pages 40-73 in greater depth). It is his context, it is what explains and adds depth. A short summary from Alsdorf is relevant to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence

Tyler Durden: The lead sentence in your latest version looks better than the absurd and misleading one before, but it still has balance issues. Lets brainstorm alternates a bit. Here is one suggestion,

Cattle slaughter is a controversial topic in India because of the cattle's traditional status as an endeared and respected living being to many in Hinduism and other Indian religions, in contrast to cattle being considered a source of religiously acceptable meat by the faithfuls of non-Indian religions and others.

Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

in contrast to cattle being considered a source of religiously acceptable meat by the faithfuls of non-Indian religions and others. - I have a doubt. Who are the "others" here? — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

others = who neither subscribe to the Indian religions nor the non-Indian religions. See the sources. I am fine if you would like to drop the "and others" at the end? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No preference. Its up to you whether you want to keep it or drop it. But things get pretty complicated with that "others". It requires explanation, with footnote(s) or something. In the 2011 Census of India, the response form required the respondent to choose from six options under religion. Of which four were Indian religions, and the other two non-Indian religions: Islam & Christianity. The seventh "Others" option was meant for minor or tribal religions as well as atheists and agnostics. [6] There were also people who chose none of the options, who were categorized in the census as: "Religion not stated", who are usually perceived to be irreligious people. Now, we cannot call these tribal religions as non-Indian because they did originate in India. Also, the term 'Indian religions' is perhaps not suitable for them, since it is most generally & popularly used for Dharmic religions. So, these tribal religions should come under our "others". But then again I don't know if cattle-meat is religiously acceptable for all of these tribal religions because some of them are syncretized and culturally assimilated with Hinduism or Buddhism or both.[7] And as for the remaining all of the irreligious people, "religiously acceptable meat by the irreligious people" makes no sense. Acc to census data, all these people together amounted to some 0.9% of the population. (others - 0.7% and 'religion not stated' - 0.2%) [8] If you have the will and energy to address all these issues at a time in that single line with accuracy, through the word "others", keep it. Or else, drop it. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a helpful explanation. The sources indeed mention tribal people etc. But it is more complicated. There have been Indian Hindus/Buddhists/etc who supported cattle slaughter and ate beef, there have been minority Sufi sub-sects within the Indian Muslims/etc who supported a limited ban on cattle slaughter and were vegetarians, etc. The article needs to summarize all this minor but important sides, in the main article, for NPOV and balance. Lets try a slightly trimmed lead sentence version for now, covering the two major/largest sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer we mention religions by name e.g. "Islam and Christianity" vs "non-Indian religions". And I agree with Ms Sarah Welch about the need to also include dissenting POVs amongst Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims etc.

What would actually be nice is if we had a table early in the article that summarized the views of various religious communities on beef consumption in India.VR _talk 02:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the main article. Adding the names of several religions to the lead would make the lead sentence too complex, and open to concern why some minority religions are mentioned and others not. Lets reflect on this a bit please, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@VR: Yeah, I too had serious concerns regarding the use of term "non-Indian". None of the Muslims and Christians of India call their religion as "non-Indian", and neither would they want anyone else to do so, since the term at its face value clearly tends to make them "non-Indian" or at least indicate that they're 'less-Indian', which is more than absurd. And yet we, as Wikipedia, chose to use it in the lead-sentence itself and also opened a section with that as the heading, that too in this highly contentious article. I have no idea if any scholar, who has never lived in India, and who merely studied India, its society, culture & religion(s) from books, chose to use that term, for all I care. But not only is the term heavily problematic for being sentimentally offensive, but is also a NPOV issue for it is a word used by nobody in India to refer to Indian Muslims & Christians, except those Hindu-nationalists for whom it is likely a favorite term for obvious reasons. [9] - Not to mention those agencies and publishing houses in the streets of Old Delhi who carry the "sacred responsibility" of propagating Hindu-nationalist or pro-Hindu agendas. Hence I badly wanted to change the term "non-Indian religions" to Islam and Christianity, after I saw it. But however I was afraid that this is not something I can make Sarah understand, and she would rather presumably think that her work is being attacked and therefore customarily start defending the word in all the ways she can. That's why I did not raise a word. And regarding the "table of views of various religious communities on beef consumption in India", this is, as everyone knows, largely an issue of Hindus+Sikhs+Jains vs Muslims+Christians(also many Hindu-Dalits in a number of instances, at least in contemporary India, which is unfortunately nowhere covered in the current article), and conveying that succinctly is sufficient for the lead. Let us please reserve all the other trivial & minor aspects, viewpoints and exceptions for the body. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: Good that you struck that! Next time, WP:AGF and speak up, not cast aspersions later. Lets help make wikipedia a collaborative space, not a speculations-driven PA battlefield. Kindness and AGF is particularly important in discussions of controversial topics such as this article. Indian religions is a widely used scholarly term outside India. Perhaps, instead of "non-Indian religions", a better phrase is "religions that originated outside India", as that would include Zoroastrian community and others in India, and would avoid confusing interpretations. I see some recent edits to the lead sentence. They come across like inadvertent lead fixing with NPOV issues, despite the good intentions of Vice regent and you! There is no discussion of contemporary Christian support or opposition for cattle slaughter in the main article. None on "lower caste" Hindus either. You two have not yet summarized the new sources anywhere in the main, nor summarized other mainstream scholars who present a different POV. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the main article, see WP:LEAD guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I will add to Cattle_slaughter_in_India#Lower-caste_Hindus when I get the chance.VR _talk 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@S: Well, I apologised while striking and will apologise again if that's what is being expected. AGF is good, but the accurate phrase would be "religions that originated outside Indian subcontinent" which is yet another awkward phrase for the lead-sentence, and more importantly, is absolutely unnecessary. This article is not the place to tell the readers which of the religions are originated inside or outside the Indian subcontinent, definitely not in the lead. And the Parsis, who constitute less than 0.1% of the Indian population, scattered for their trade and other economic activities that are dear to them, living majorly in peaceful homes in cities like Mumbai, have got no role to play in the cattle-slaughter issue in India. I'm not sure why you unduly want to take them to the lead, if you're interested in covering Parsis, please do so in the body, somewhere briefly. Actually the case is more or less the same with Buddhists & Jains (1% of the population, both combined), but they have already been added with great detail in the main, as well as a mention of two times in the lead, which is all a WP:WEIGHT problem. But I have no energy to take any issues now, so I leave it with that, its upto you whether you want to address this. And Christians were brought to the lead by yourself, when you added "non-Indian religions" to the lead-sentence. So if you feel that Christians are not summarised properly in the main, that is not anybody's affair. Regarding the Dalits, I neither took them to the lead, nor added sources. VR did that, and later I just tweaked the words a bit, and also added a corresponding section for Dalits in the main with the 'empty' template indicating that the content needs to be added. So, if you want to cite those WP policies & guidelines regarding any of the additions to the lead, please direct them towards VR alone, and not you two. Thanks for working on fixing the issue of summarising Dalits though. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't want to misstate the sources, and imply cattle slaughter opposition to be a "Hindu only" phenomena! Or that 100% Dalits or 100% Christians or 100% Muslims or 100% others support cattle slaughter. That is not what the RS state. NPOV requires us to summarize all significant sides proportionately from the reliable sources. This does not mean make it one sided, or cover only 50%+ of a population, or ignore 20% or suppress the views of 5% or the minorities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• (imply) that 100% Dalits or 100% Christians or 100% Muslims or 100% others support cattle slaughter. - Who are you saying this to? And what for? If it was to me, I never wrote anything close to that, if fact I even added "some" for Dalits here, to address this very issue. And I also don't remember anyone else writing/indicating/implying anything as such. So I'm not sure why this was stated.

• NPOV requires us to summarize all significant sides... - Parsis, Buddhists & Jains in India who together constitute about 1% of the population and who have never appeared in the arena of cattle-slaughter controversy in India, are not any significant sides in this subject. Nevertheless, I did not say they should be covered. I merely asked you to consider the WP:WEIGHT factor, which in the current state, is a clear problem.

• ...proportionately - Jains and Buddhists, who again constitute 1% of the population, are unequivocally not even one-tenth as significant a side as Muslims, who are a primary party to this controversy, along with Hindus. Now the former two have individual sections each in the main body, which together occupy content that is almost thrice as large in size as the latter's section (Islam). I don't think that this comes nowhere near proportionately. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You missed what I explained. Nowhere does WP:NPOV say proportionately as related to demographics! Quote where it does! Read what I wrote and the NPOV policy again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sarah, firstly, irrespective of anything, I see that things have got unnecessarily heated up between us here, for which I'm very majorly responsible because of my useless rudeness & aggression since a day. For that, I humbly and extremely apologise. Sorry for all the disrespect and irritation I possibly have caused you. As Wikipedians, we have no reason to get into heated debates, while our only objective is to work for improving the article, which I have failed to put into practice. As a quite senior and seasoned editor compared to me, I sincerely hope that you'll forgive me. Please take what I say in a positive sense, I do have some genuine concerns.

Having said that, I have read everything you explained. Yes, the NPOV does not particularly say proportionately as related to demographics, but it is clear commonsense in this case. We have absolutely no basis to believe/think that Indian Jains (0.4%) or Indian Buddhists (0.7%) carry weight equal to that of Indian Muslims (15%), if not more, that too in this cattle-slaughter controversy. Indian Muslims are unarguably a primary party to this issue. No respectable RS out there covers Jains or Buddhists to an equal extent as Muslims, in the context of "cattle-taboo". You can take any parameter for checking the weight. Compare the hits on Google search, or the number of results in Google-books, or anything like that. In the article, in its present stage, the sections on Jainism and Buddhism individually carry more than equal content as compared to the section on Islam, which appears to me as a WP:WEIGHT issue. If you find merit in what I say, please try to fix this, if possible. This is not a demand, its my request. My best wishes to you, Tyler Durden (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about the first part. I like your constructive, passionate approach. On your second point, "proportionality's relationship to demographics" is not commonsense, but the opposite. Someone added the Christians (27 million) to the lead, but why not Sikhs (20 million)? If 14% Muslims and 2% Christians are significant, why not rest! Indian Jains and Buddhists and Sikhs are important, their beautiful views do carry weight, as do the beautiful views of Hindus and Muslims and Christians! Adding Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists views adds balance, avoids implying that the cattle slaughter opposition has been or is a purely Hindu thing. It helps the article not imply by silence that all minorities in India love cattle slaughter, want cattle slaughter, consume beef. The scholarly publications containing their views are indeed relevant and an important side. NPOV requires we include them. Wikipedia at its best is not a soapbox and advocacy platform to right-great-wrongs-depending-on-one's-POV, it is an encyclopedia, a reference. One more thing... some of my comments may come across as saying more than I need to, but my intent is not anything ulterior. Please remember this talk page is public. Readers with less familiarity with wikipedia policies, now and in distant future, need to understand our disagreements, our approach in trying to reach a consensus in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Proportionality doesn't directly affect notability, but there are certain things that do. With regards to the cattle slaughter issue its clear that certain communities have been more involved than others. Hindu, Muslim and Dalit involvement is fairly clear. Christians were involved during the time of the British raj as the Cow protection movement also had an anti-imperialist theme to it. Also, beef appears to be allowed in states with large Christian populations (Kerala and the northeast). Sikhs are also notable for opposing cow slaughter. But from my research on the topic, I don't really notice Buddhists, Jains or Parsis playing a significant role one way or another.VR _talk 05:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hey K... Your opinion, please? Something objective and to the point? Thanks in advance, Tyler Durden (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting @Vanamonde93:'s suggestions also, for the same... --- Tyler Durden (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, can you summarise what the dispute is? The discussion above is a bit all over the place. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

[10] - K, see the second para in this edit of mine. PS: Again, I'm not at all saying that we've to be silent on Jains and Buddhists. Not in the slightest scale. All I'm asking is not to please blow them out or proportion. Consider WP:WEIGHT and compare the present content in the article (main body, not the lead) w.r.t. Sikhs+Jains+Buddhists vs Muslims+Christians, or more specifically Jains+Buddhists vs Muslims. — Tyler Durden (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It is still not clear what your position is.

• Talking about the lead sentence, the other Indian religions are mentioned by name twice. But nothing significant has been said about them. I don't find this excessive. I notice that Sarah started by saying "Indian religions" first and then expanded them out. I am not sure why, but presumably because Sikhism needs to be mentioned by name and so others are mentioned too.
• In the body, Buddhism and Jainism have their own sections. Perhaps these could be pared down a bit. But the need for discussing them arises (irrespective of the numbers) because these religions have influenced Hinduism historically. They also go to show that this is a cultural issue more than a religious issue. So, once again, I don't see the need for any major surgery.

But, on the whole, the article is tedious and boring, targeted more to the believers and unbelievers rather than to the curious readers. All of us need to make efforts to improve that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vice regent: I do not understand your strange comment about notability? Why are Indian Jain, Buddhist, Sikh POV in multiple WP:RS not notable? Why is Indian Christians POV? You state Kerala and few northeastern states there have high Christian population. But then Jain population similarly is high in Gujarat and a few other states, where % Christian population is far less. % Buddhists is high in Maharashtra etc, if my memory is right of their demographics. Your ability or inability to notice Buddhists/Jains/Christians participation in this historic or current debate does not determine what goes in wikipedia articles. Reliable sources determine that. This article can't be driven by WP:Recentism. If you read the numerous scholarly RS recently added to this article, both with respect to history and now, the Jains/Buddhists/Sikhs need to be mentioned in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Tyler Durden: I support replacing "as well as respected as an integral part of rural livelihoods for Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists" with "as well as respected as an integral part of rural livelihoods". The two legislation sections are unusually long with too many tedious details. How notable are Krishnam Raju, Ahluwalia etc discussions? I do not see these in any secondary and tertiary literature, I have reviewed so far. Someone just wholesale copied a public domain text into this article. Consider removing all that, providing a WP:EL link instead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• @S: As to your first proposal, fine. Please do so. And after "respected as an integral part of rural livelihoods", attach "and also seen as an essential economic need" (or something like that) - please consider adding this Marvin Harris's perspective which you covered in the 'Economic imperative' section. (Thanks for that!) Its a quite significant and useful POV. Also, consider trimming the sections of Jainism & Buddhism in the main body, a bit, if possible. That's all I was crying for, above. And when I say trim, I don't mean remove any POV, not at all. Keep all POVs, that are presently there. Just make sure that each POV is represented in a simple and brief manner, and see that same/similar POVs are not repeated twice or thrice in the same section just from diff authors/contexts. Give it a shot if you're interested. Because leaving all these WP policies aside, as I read from K's comments, we should also make the article less tedious and boring for curious readers, rather than focusing more on believers and non believers of 'Cow-worship'. On a side note, I think we need to improve content upon Muslims. Except a mention of some Quranic verses and Bakrid, their role is not much elaborated. Along with Dalits who depend on this for livelihood, which I see is mentioned in one line in 'Dalits' section, many backward Muslims (they are largely backward) also have taken this thing for their occupation, slaughter-houses, butcher-shops, skin-for-leather - all these things. If it cannot be incorporated in 'History' section, we must look for some appropriate space to mention this.
• Regarding your second proposal, thank you very much. You are absolutely right. All that crap has been staying in the article since ages. In Indian Parliament, Private member's bills on national beef-ban get introduced every now and then, many of which do not even reach the table of Speaker. Even recently we had a wannabe icon of Hindu-nationalism, Subramanian Swamy, who introduced a private bill proposing death penalty for cattle-slaughter. I felt glad that nobody brought it to the article, and added it to that list. Since I came here, I've been longing to remove all of them, but was reluctant as I was afraid that some Hindu nationalist would come and war with me arguing they are relevant, sourced, bla bla bla. I'm grateful to you for partnering with me on this. They are not at all notable, I'll remove them. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Durden: The Buddhism section is currently less than 200 words, Jainism section currently less than 300 words in an article that is over 14,000 words. The sources cited have numerous pages each on Buddhist views, Jaina views on slaughter exclusively. So, we need to ask if it is too short or too long given what is in multiple WP:RS. Indeed, the Muslims section is short, it should be improved both in history and contemporary sections. In legislation by state section, please consider more clean up. The table and text are repetitive. For example, the legal, illegal and penal parts from table for Andhra Pradesh and other states are repeated in the text sub-section. No need to repeat. Delete one. Further, whatever legal information is retained, state which year that applies and attribute it. Laws change. Wikipedia should not imply/mislead that a 1997 or 2008 law is still valid in 2017, unless the source states so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper and WP:RS

@Tyler Durden: Please read WP:NEWSORG. It is a part of the community agreed content policy on how to identify reliable sources. Please avoid using newspapers as your sources for legal / medical / health / history / religion / etc scholarship in this article (see Nyttend's explanation above for why). We need to be careful, as the policy explains, given the WP:CIRCULAR problem with news media. Yes, newspapers are good primary sources for news / current events / new development / announcement / etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sarah, WP:NEWSORG nowhere says newspaper sources cannot be used for legal information. Neither does Nyttend's explanation, which is however not any WP policy. And please stop citing these policies & editor's comments repeatedly, which anybody can do. Kindly be specific and think & discuss in the context. In any case, Nyttend cautions about the use of newspaper sources in case of a significant dispute. There is no dispute here, at all. The content is about an existing policy-position in India regarding beef-exports. No analysis is being made here or no opinion being put forward by any newspaper source. [11] - And more importantly, the newspapers in this case are reporting the observations of Nirmala Sitharaman, the Central Minister for Ministry of Commerce and Industry (India) — meaning, the policy which is in discussion is totally under the purview of her jurisdiction, where, in fact, she herself is the policy-maker in this regard. Moreover she will have a whole team of PR & legal experts behind her back while making such observations, especially in a controversial subject like this, and if at all, she had made any mistake in what she has noted, a vast number of pundits would have refuted her statements the very next day, while apparently nothing of that sort happened. If you still doubt the accuracy of the content or sources, please explain why. — Tyler Durden (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I interpret that part of the lead as trying to present the legal status of import and export of meat from cattle slaughter. Is it? What has "meat of goat and sheep and birds is permitted for export" got to do with the subject of this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, nothing to do. You may omit "goat and sheep and birds" if you want. My concern was about the blanket removal of the content on policy in your first step, and the removal of this — Bone in meat, carcass, half carcass of buffalo is also prohibited and is not permitted to be exported. Only the boneless meat of buffalo [...] is permitted for export. — in your later step. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". Legal info / trade laws of a state is an academic topic. A better for source for trade law info would be trade-related publications of EU / US / UN / law journals / law books. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sarah, firstly, one source is generally better over the other, comes into picture when the two sources have any contradictions or dissimilarities, such dispute does not arise when both the sources clearly corroborate each other. None of our "EU / US / UN / law journals / law books" contradict anything that is presently written in the article, but rather perfectly corroborates it. Secondly, we're not writing any analysis of the policy, but rather writing the policy itself. And here is the head of that very policy-making Ministry telling us, "this is the policy", and it is not being contradicted by any other source, and we're writing directly from this literally authoritative source. There is no reason for us to not believe what she's stating. If you still think there is a problem, we need to find any contradicting source to this, if we can. For eg., we can try finding the original official document of the policy and see whether anything we're presenting in the article is inaccurate. Until then, peace. Best regards again, Tyler Durden (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Dalits and castes

Hello

the following section reads awkwardly and should have a with between along and his

Dalits and castes

Some scholars state that the Hindu views on cattle slaughter and beef eating is caste-based, while other scholars disagree. Dalit Hindus eat beef state the former, while the latter state that the position of Dalit Hindus on cattle slaughter is ambiguous.[101][102]

Deryck Lodrick states, for example, “beef-eating is common among low caste Hindus", and vegetarianism is an upper caste phenomenon.[101] According to Simoons and Lodrick, the reverence for cattle among Hindus, and Indians in general, is more comprehensively understood by considering both the religious dimensions and the daily lives in rural India.[103] The veneration of cow across various Hindu castes, states Lodrick, emerged with the "fifteenth century revival of Vaishnavism", when god Krishna along his cows became a popular object of bhakti (devotional worship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:48F6:77BE:E5E1:6F57 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

PUDR report

@Ms Sarah Welch: I think this content is not exactly supported by the cited source:

According to People's Union for Democratic Rights, in contrast, the opposition to cow slaughter is widespread among Hindus, the social identity of those who slaughter cattle is unimportant, and the Hindu opposition is at cow-slaughter, not specific religion or caste. The situation has been complicated, states Singh, by the media and by the attempts to gain political attention by some who project caste or religion of those who slaughter cow, to be a driving factor. The selling of old cattle for skin is, states Singh, supported by members of both "dominant and subordinate castes" for the leather-related economy. Some Dalits work in leather which includes cow-skin and they rely on it for their livelihood. Yet, some Dalits also question whether it is accurate to allege that they have been singled out as a target by higher caste cow protectors, because some cow-protectors are Dalit.

References

The PUDR report is mainly focused on the Dulina incident, with some vague remarks on the general situation. It neither states nor denies that the Dalits engage in cow-slaughter, but, according to the report, it is widely believed that they do so. Many of the statements that you attribute to the PUDR are actually attributed to the VHP and Bajrang Dal in the report. I don't think this report is actually contradicting the scholarly source that is cited earlier. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks. I will take another look, and embed quote or revise/reword it since it is challenged. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

European memoirs on cattle in India:

They would not kill an animal on any account, not even a fly, or a flea, or a louse, or anything in fact that has life; for they say these have all souls, and it would be sin to do so.

—Marco Polo, III.20, 13th century

Venetian traveler to India[79]

@Sarah: Do we really need this quote? a) It is in the 'Christianity' section but saying nothing about Christianity in India. b) It is saying nothing about the cattle in particular, nor is it the context of cattle from the source. c) The same/similar message is conveyed already, some around 20 times in 'Indian religions' section, and also in the other two quotes, placed in the article above. Why this quote again?

And moreover, why does anyone want travelers' quotes from 13th century? History started being well-recorded by that time, and everyone knows that Indians made a fetish out of their cow/cattle by 13th century! --- Tyler Durden (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Nehru

Who added Nehru's views to this article? That Indian traitor is not notable in Hindutva nation today. Biased newspapers will note his views, wikipedia should not. Read WP:HISTRS. And Vamsee Krishna alias Tyler Durden is using improper edit summaries for wikipedia. Senior admins please see this abuse of religions - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cattle_slaughter_in_India&diff=785638551&oldid=785612967 He should be blocked from editing immediately. Mahant Yogi Adityanath (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mahant Yogi Adityanath, or whoever you are: [12] --- It was me who added Nehru, with all the right I have. I have read WP:HISTRS a hundred times while editing Kashmir conflict and related articles. I'll bring you tonnes of corroborating scholarly sources for this if that is your problem, I was lazy to add them before. Everybody who has a slightest idea of cow-slaughter issue in India, knows that it is Nehru's liberalism that saved India from facing the disasters of a national ban on beef. And that's about the notability of the content.

And as for the notability of Jawaharlal Nehru: one of the most leading and significant personalities of Indian Independence movement, second to none other than Gandhi himself, one of the foremost leaders who endorsed & strived for Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence) even before Gandhi, served a jail-time of a five and half years during the movement, (while of course, your "Hindutva" heroes were mostly playing marbles with one another and exploring various ways to gain some political presence by siding & lobbying with the British or by looking for some representation in INC itself until some of their people planned and murdered Mahatma Gandhi); and who later went on to become the first Prime Minister of India, served in his capacity for 17 years till his death, which is till date the longest serving time of any Indian prime minister, during which he was instrumental in "building the nation, through laying its foundations" politically, socially & psychologically, for which he is known as the "Architect of India", and was greatly loved by the Indian masses, also by children as he was called "Chacha Nehru", and even by his political opponents like Jayprakash Narayan, to the extent that as one historian wonderfully wrote, "the Nehru's voice became the voice of India", and also received extreme admiration internationally regardless of political leanings, from the likes of Churchill to Fidel Castro; whose birthday is still commemorated every year in India as 'Children's Day', when every Indian Prime Minister pays homage to him at his memorial, situated in the middle of New Delhi which stands forever as a symbol of his legacy; whose statues stand eternally throughout the country; whose name is used for innumerable number of streets, institutions and other public places (do I still need to go on?); — and having said all that, the one who is cited by perhaps thousands of Indian scholars and hundreds of scholars from outside India — now you expect Wikipedia to be silent on this man's views?

Incidentally, as you took the liberty to call him an 'Indian traitor', had he been alive today, he would have really felt more than happy, since his fellow countrymen are well-enjoying the freedom he has provided, and in the very manner he has provided.

Oh yeah, and I'll write whatever I wish in my edit summaries. And won't answer until a responsible editor questions me, at least not to a possible sock. You are welcome to file a report in WP:ANI. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)