Talk:Diet in Hinduism

Neutrality?
It is stated that "Many Hindus follow a vegetarian or lacto-vegetarian diet that are in sync with nature, compassionate, respectful of other life forms." I must ask if this meets standards of neutrality and encyclopedic language, as stating that groups are broadly "compassionate" or "respectful" does not seem to fit these standards, though I wanted to have a second opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.126.150 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The article states certain beliefs as facts. Thus it does not follow the standards on point-of-view. I have updated it accordingly, although there may be more work to do. TunaScud (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a typical missionary propaganda spread by ISKCON members, who have an agenda of spreading vegetarianism. This should be removed. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hindu food menu in sinhala
Images of hindu food menu 112.134.1.54 (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Image
I have restored previous image. Lets discuss the images on the talk. The new image basically looks like Dal rice. The image "File:Illustrative Hindu meals.jpg is better in quality and representation. Venkat TL (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The fish image you restored looks more like a restaurant dish rather than a typical Hindu menu.What do think of this image from the Malvan region? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * A white china plate is not uncommon in Hindu households. My dinner plate looks pretty much like this. Not sure why you think it to be restaurant image. The image of Fish rice that you had added was hard to identify. The pic "Illustative Hindu meals" (Malwani fish fry.jpg)on the other hand is clear about its ingredient. In fact the crystal glass and the cloth under the plate, gives pink pic a restaurant vibe. both second and the third pic are hard to make out what they are trying to show. Only rice and roti both veg, is visible in 2 and 3. So I suggest we stick with pic 1. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A Hindu meals served on a banana leaf is what is typical of the Indian tradition. Have added a couple of them for consideration. Image 3 is not a bad choice, but I think Image 4 (or 5) and Image 6 are the ones that come to a person's mind when they think of a typical Hindu diet. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rasnaboy the banana pic is even farther from being a representative pic. It should not be used in the lead. However you can use it in the history section. It is only used in temples and some functions in certain areas where banana trees are commonly found. The banana leaf as plate is not common accross the country. Venkat TL (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe yes. But since the topic of this article itself is about a diet connected to a religion, I think tradition counts more than availability or anything else. What do you think? Rasnaboy (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All the pics in this page and the article are connected to Hindu religion. Image 6 can be added in the section "Dharmaśāstras". Image 1 and Image File:The Complete Meal.jpg look good as representative meal for the lead section. Venkat TL (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Image 1 (fried fish with just some salad, and no carbs in sight) can be considered an "illustrative Hindu meal". It looks more like an appetizer/starter. Now that can be the first course in a modern Hindu meal at home, or more so in a restaurant setting but it does not fit the category of typical, or illustrative meal. The image quality is good but I am sure there must be many other images of Hindu meals with fish or meat  on commons. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy among the options discussed so far. 1 and File:The Complete Meal.jpg are the best pics for lead. There is no need to put an entire non veg Thali pic in the lead, because nothing other than small cups are seen in the pic. This pic is so good, if I am writing a book on non veg food I will use it as cover pic. If you can find even better pics, please feel free to propose. But among the 6 pics discussed above, 1 is a clear winner for meat diet lead pic. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Faxian quote
I have Removed the quote. Its factual accuracy is disputed, goes against mainstream history. and its relevance on this page has not been discussed on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This was added after a proper discussion and a resulting consensus (see ). So if you want to remove it please take it through an RFC to obtain wider consensus. Wonder what makes you remove this arbitrarily just because you think it is invalid and then begin a new discussion. Don't you think it's another kind of POV or a preconceived notion at play? The factual accuracy of the content of Faxian’s quote or its relevance to the current mainstream is not the point here. Even if it were proven to be wrong, it's as good as the geocentric theory. That Aristotle believed in and endorsed geocentric theory is a historical fact, notwithstanding the validity of the geocentric theory in today's science. That Aristotle believed it to be true is what is being conveyed there and what gives it the encyclopedic merit despite the theory having been disproven in the modern era. Likewise, even if what Faxian said were proven to be false, the fact that he said (and believed) it and observed it during his time is what is being conveyed here. The encyclopedic merit lies in the fact that it was said by none other than Faxian. And it is quoted from a valid source. I think the quote should stay there. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly while editing the lead, please discuss and obtain consensus. I see you’ve drastically changed the lead without any proper discussion, unlike @User:Jonathansammy requested. Fixing an image first and editing the lead drastically in accordance with the chosen image is not the way of achieving encyclopedic value to the content (although sources are available for both). I think Wikipedia works the other way round. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rasnaboy This page is not History of vegetarianism. Consensus on other pages need not apply here. I have not drastically changed anything. Jonathansammy had made some bold edits and I have followed WP:BRD and reverted them as I dont consider them improvement. Venkat TL (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion and the consensus was not just about the quote's relevance in the article on History of vegetarianism alone; it's rather about the quote's pertinence in the topic of vegetarianism itself and its history. This quote may not be relevant in "Diet in Islam" or "Diet in Christianity" articles but very much relevant in topics such as (but not limited to) diet in Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism etc. since all these are invariably connected with the history of vegetarianism in India. That said, the quote is relevant here, too. And I'm not talking about the last edit. I'm talking about the drastic changes to the lead without proper discussion (see ), which involved removal of several sourced claims. This appears more as a WP:POV. After your edits, the lead appeared more like a WP:COATRACK, until @User:Jonathansammy tried their level best to revive it as much as possible . Nevertheless, I feel the lead is still lacking in substance and is yet to be revived to its fullest. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , My edits on the lead were made to reflect the content in body of the article. AS it stands, the lead has no connection with the body. It is a great disservice to the readers of the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly my question. Hinduism, like all other Indic religions, bases its philosophies on ahimsa/non-violence, and the historical dietary practice in the Indian subcontinent was simply the result of that. That's what was recorded by Faxian in his writings. Amidst all the politics today, we need to acknowledge this. Today's mainstream Hindu diet being a mix of vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets is only an aberration from this philosophy over time, due to various factors such as various conquests and colonization. This should not be coatracked, starting from the lead image, but must be reflected in the article and the lead per WP:DUE. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Rasnaboy, you are discussing too many topics in your comments in this thread. I will only respond to comment about Faxian quote in this thread. You seem to be under the impression that discussion on other page applies to this page, No it does not. The central thrust of my opinion is that Faxian's quote does not accurately represent the diets of Hindus of that time nor the Hindus in General. His opinion should be considered as WP:FRINGE WP:POV. Wikipedia only covers Mainstream view of the scholars so that the readers are not mislead into believing something that is factually inaccurate. If you want to include this quote, you will have to establish (with WP:HISTRS (1) that Faxian's quote accurately depicted the Hindu diet of that time. (2) His opinion is a mainstream view shared by historians. (3) Why adding it in this article will benefit the reader. I understand why promoters of vegetarianism like his quote and want to plaster it on every Indian diet related article. I must advise you not to support such efforts. Venkat TL (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I have explained you why the discussion in that thread is valid here. We need not repeat it in every talk page per WP:MULTI. As I said, the quote is not about the validity of what was said, but rather the widespread or mainstream view of his time said by one of the most notable travelers in history. Even the primary source could be used to illustrate it per WP:HISTIP. Here, as discussed in the History of Vegetarianism article, we're not quoting Saxena as before but Faxian himself from another reliable source. WP:HISTRS isn't the requirement per se but is only proposed as a best practice. Thus, it can't be considered a fringe for that reason. With a consensus for using this, if you disagree you're free to go for an RFC. Using (or plastering) this quote in articles that substantially deal with vegetarianism isn't a promotion but is absolutely pertinent in my view. And the topics aren't too many but one single issue that is central to this article. Thus, only avoiding responding or coatracking the central theme is what gives the impression of promoting the other side. Rasnaboy (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the issues already raised, what is the source for linking the quote to Hinduism? The book title ("A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms") as well as the chapter in question ("OF THE MONKS, VIHARAS, AND MONASTERIES." in Mathura) seem to show that he saw and described what were mainly Buddhist areas. Historians note this as well. Hemantha (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hemantha. This is a very important point that I had missed. Venkat TL (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While the perspective was about Buddhism (Faxian being a Buddhist himself), the quote was about the practice in the Indian subcontinent, not just Buddhists. All these religions share a common philosophical roots and they have heavily influenced each other in history. For example, although early Hindu scholars pioneered in the concept of ahimsa, the concept in the later-day Hinduism was heavily influenced by Jainism and Buddhism, changing the dietary and other practices throughout the country (Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (2nd ed.), Stephen H. Phillips et al., 2008, Elsevier Science, pp. 701–849, 1347–1356, 1867; Nonviolence to animals, earth and self in Asian Traditions (1993 ed.), C. Chapple, 1990, State University of New York Press). Thus this holds in all vegetarian-related articles, more so with Indic religions, namely, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and, to an extent, Sikhism. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From a quick google books search at least, I'm unable to find the quote or any mention of Faxian in those books. Did you mean to say those were the sources linking it to Hinduism or were you using them for a WP:SYNTH argument, similar to the one about animal rights before? If it was the second, same objections as in that thread apply. We have no means of knowing whether Faxian believed or intended that early Hindu scholars pioneered in the concept of ahimsa and as such his quote is irrelevant to this article. Hemantha (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are going round in circles, Hemantha. :) Will try my best to explain how. While ancient Asians connected vegetarianism with ahimsa, early and medieval Europeans connected the same with non-violence. When the term ahimsa entered the English vocabulary, it was realized that the both "ahimsa" and "non-violence" were essentially the same. While the two words are still used interchangeably most of the time, they are also used sometimes to provide two different contextual meanings (even Wikipedia has separate articles on each of these two: ahimsa and non-violence). If we take the term "non-violence" from a Western literature and connect it with "ahimsa" or take the term "ahimsa" from any Indian literature and connect it with "non-violence", it's not synthesis. It's obviously and categorically NOT, as WP:NOTSYNTH has it. Similarly, vegetarianism in India is not exclusive to Hinduism or Jainism or Buddhism, but is a combined influence of all these religions/philosophies. Although observed from a Buddhist's perspective, Faxian's quote is about vegetarianism on the subcontinent in general, referring to the practice of the entire society at that time. Thus, quoting Faxian in any Indian vegetarianism or other similar topics (including non-Buddhist ones, such as Hinduism, Jainism, or Sikhism, or even animal rights in ancient India) is absolutely valid and doesn't qualify as WP:SYNTH. Quoting Faxian for vegetarianism in anicent Greece or Roman Empire or for animal rights thoughts in the Western world may come to be seen as SYNTH, but doing so in an Indian context (be it Jainism or Buddhism or Hinduism) is not (since the discussion on the talk page of History of animal rights article does include animal rights thoughts in the ancient Eastern world). Hope this clarifies. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Lede
, Once again, although I contributed heavily to this article in the past, right now I mainly want to see the lede being a summary of what is in the body. ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jonathansammy I have seen this message. I will respond tomorrow in detail on my objections. on this thread. And we will work towards building a consensus version for the lead. thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's my concern, too. To give a rough picture, the article must cover, as it did, the historical raise of ahimsa philosophy in the first millennia BCE, the Jain and Buddhist influences, the resulting changes in the society, their further development during the Bhakti era, the later influence of Mughal and British invasions, and the modern practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. The approach need not be necessarily "secular" since the very subject of the article is about the diet of a particular religion based on its religious principles. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, thank you for your patience. Please refer to this diff to discuss the changes in the lead. First of all we do not need to define Hinduism in this article. The reader is expected to have that knowledge. Feel free to link Hinduism page. So I removed that. What is your point in comparing the meat eating per capita of Indians vs other countries? This article is not the right place for such comparisons. So I have removed it. You have inappropriately removed pork and beef despite they being part of diet of Hindus. So I have restored them. Venkat TL (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ,, Once again the lede should reflect the body. At present the lede says "(mainly lamb, goat but also beef, and pork)", but the body has nothing on pork, and when it comes beef, it is mentioned only under sections on scriptures. Also why mention Indus valley when we don't know what religion they followed? At present, the lede reads like a stand alone section rather than a summary. I recommend you go through the entire article and rewrite the lede based on the body, or add sections on beef and pork consumption in contemporary Hindu society. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The lede should summarize the content of the article (MOS:LEAD). A good lede can even be complete do without citations when everything is properly cited in the detailed sections to follow. Also, we should avoid simplistic and context-free statements like "Diet of non-vegetarian Hindus can include [...] beef, and pork". Diet in Hinduism can refer to scriptural recommendations ("laws"), historical practice and the modern constructed self-image shaped by the Hindutva movement. Making statements about one of these aspects (e.g. historical practice) appear as if they are relevant for one the others (e.g. contemporary views on dietary laws) is just as ahistorical as the Hindutva construct of Hinduism as a monolithic system of beliefs and pratices. –Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Demerge
Also I am interested in the diet of contemporary "Hindus". Should we again have a separate page on that? Merging of Hindu diet law with Diet in Hinduism has skewed this page on the philosophy rather than what people eat today. Any thoughts?ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Jonathansammy (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I am against any demerge. I agree with the consensus to merge the similar topics. It does not need a separate page. I think we need to consider both philosophy, history as well as contemporary diets for a good picture for the reader. Splitting into different pages will not help to reach this objective. Venkat TL (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once the article covers everything, I guess a separate section in the article will do. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Section on Upanishads, Samhitas and Sutras is too large
The Section on Upanishads, Samhitas and Sutras is too large and need to be split into subsections. Please suggest headings for the subsections of the section currently named Upanishads, Samhitas and Sutras. I guess "Ramayana and Mahabharata", and "Tirukkuṛaḷ" are two candidates for section headers. Venkat TL (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Will see if I could find some sources for these. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Rasnaboy why do you need new sources to split a section? we need to decide most appropriate section headers and split it. I suggested 2 headers above, do you object to these headers? Venkat TL (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Think I got it wrong. Sure. These can be done as the progression of editing warrants. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Following your response, I made the split in this edit. Venkat TL (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple images
Any reason we should have two images from the same ceremony that took place in Silchar in 2013? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the discussion. This pic File:The priests annoting the buffalo before it's sacrifice. A pre-buffalo sacrifice ritual..JPG that shows the Vedic ceremony where the priest is following the Vedic procedures. This is highly relevant to the section on Vedas that is discussing animal sacrifice. The pic shows that the animal sacrifice is still prevalent in Hindu communities. The pic shows the Puja in action with Pandits and the devotees in the background. This is a good representative pic in my opinion. The second pic File:The man carrying the sacrificed buffalo's head..JPG shows the Puja ceremony after the sacrifice, with the head being carried. Both images are important parts of the scene being shown to the reader. The page is not overflowing with images I dont see why we should remove pics that is relevant to the page and helped the reader in understanding the text that they are reading. Venkat TL (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that it is a vedic ceremony? I am OK if you just say Hindu ceremony but to make it vedic, you will have to provide reliable sources. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hindu rituals conducted by Pandits are all based on Vedas. Please google. Venkat TL (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please add your assertion to the article with a reliable source. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Holi menu
, Venkat TL, You should look at the headline of TOI article you cited. It clearly says Bihar, and in your quote it also says "regional version". The article is also about fifteen traditional holi dishes of Bihar. That being the case, why do you want to insist that mutton is the preferred festival dish for Holi all over India? You can say that but please provide sources to support your assertion. I am pinging other editors who have contributed to Hinduism related articles for their opinion on this, and the article as a whole. Thanks ,, Jonathansammy (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also removed all content sourced to Kancha Ilaiah's op-ed (called "Commentary" in EPW), which has no citations, no data and gives no idea of where this supposed information comes from. Some of the content was plain ridiculous, like guests get "humiliated" if you serve them vegetarian food! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy did you read the new sources and the quotes before reverting? Venkat TL (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The TOI article is Bihar specific. All the recipes are also Bihar specific. As I said before, please find sources that validate your claim of chicken mutton for Holi being a pan Indian tradition. I am all for learning of new traditions but they have to be backed by reliable sources. I don't think even a newspaper articles are reliable but that is my personal opinion, and therefore I will not remove it. There is a long consensus that we don't use pre-1947 sources when it comes to India related topics.I know you want the article to mention traditions of the subaltern groups, and I welcome that but in the process, please don't tilt the article in totally that direction. You also mention Urmila Pawar, is she even a Hindu now? Anyhow, let us work together to make this a neutral, and a comprehensive article. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Kancha EPW
WP:REPUTABLE says Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors. The content from EPW was reliable and accurate. Even the part about humiliation. Not sure if you are aware but even in marriage parties, guests call it humiliation if meat dishes are not served. Venkat TL (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hardly reputable. He is a loose cannon, who is tolerated because one of the few "academic" voices representing a backward community. In this 1996 article, he wrote that 45-50% of India's people were beef-eaters and BJP's efforts to ban beef would "boomerang". Has it boomeranged? Has anybody corroborated his statistics of beef-eating in India?
 * This was a "commentary" in the EPW issue, which is reserved for commentaries on current events by knowledgeable analysts. This particular piece was just an opinion column, expressing the author's personal prejudices. None of it is evidenced. Maybe some of it is true, but most of it is just wild imagination. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Disproportionate focus on meat
This diff exemplies what Venkat TL has been doing to this page. There are now two huge sections on meat diet, which didn't exist before, and enormous amount of space has been devoted to scriptures and bygone days. The focus of this page should really be on Hinduism as it is practised today.

Further very few of the sources used for this historical information are WP:HISTRS. Random newspaper op-eds abound, often without attribution or without even citing the author. Moreover, only the information about meat-eating is selectively cherry-picked and any information about vegetable diet is shunned. Really really weird!

I am minded to set this back to what it was before Venkat TL's POV attack, unless there is some genuine explanation is forthcoming. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about this, too, right from the beginning, especially after the removal of the Faxian's quote (which caught my attention to this issue) and the change of the lead image, where declared that the fish image "is a clear winner for meat diet lead pic" all by himself when neither  nor myself completely agreed with the change . I even cautioned him when my insistence on retaining Faxian's quote was accused by him as "promoting" or "supporting" vegetarianism . I feel this article requires a complete revamp. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The NPOV tag is linked to this section, but I'm confused though. Given that vast majority of Indians (and thus, by transitiveness, Hindus) eat meat, and that the pattern is only increasing according to the latest NFHS survey, how is the current content - I count two equally long sections about meat and vegetarian diets; one section about scriptures, which even though is titled "Meat diet in scriptures", appears to once again devote equal space - focusing too much on meat? Hemantha (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not bothered to look at the particulars but there needs to be substantial focus on meat pursuant to the intricate attention imparted to various aspects of the topic in scholarship. Consult Staples (2020; UoWP) etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article should mainly be of theological and philosopical outlook on diet in Hinduism, with some coverage of the political and practical realties. This isn't the Diet of Hindus or Diet of India article. compare Kashrut and Christian dietary laws. In the current state it looks more like a "non-vegetarianism among Hindus" article, a pretty bad POV problem. I'll be reverting it to state prior to Ventak TL's edits, if there are no objections. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 21:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your idea of scope is diametrically opposed to what has been suggested above as well as what the "prior state" was. The earlier revisions also had devoted around half of the article to discussing current practices. So it is entirely unclear what will be achieved by taking the article back. Hemantha (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If half the article in the "prior state" was devoted to meat, where was the need for expanding it? The diff shows that almost all the content that has been added is regarding meat-eating, that too in a blatantly POV manner. For example, the lead paragraph says that beef was eaten by "Indians" in the "Vedic period", i.e., 3000 years ago. And never bothers to mention that Hindus today refrain from beef. What kind of encyclopaedic writing is that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I said half of the article to discussing current practices, not meat. TryKid has introduced another angle here - of scriptural guidance vs current practice - and I was pointing out that older revisions too devoted equal attention to current practice. If it's only about the lead, I have no objections about bringing the old one back.  Would some of the scope issues be clarified by considering that another article, History of Brahmin diet already exists? Hemantha (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Brahmin diet" is only a subset of "Diet in Hinduism". The former would be more specific while the latter would be wider. As Kautilya3 and TryKid says, the topic should center around what the current, evolved Hinduism says, rather than what it said in its primitive stages some 5000 years ago (which can of course be touched upon in the history section of the article). For instance, while the practice of beef eating did exist in the Vedic period, today's evolved version of the scriptures insists on the ahimsa philosophy and a subsequent lacto-vegetarian diet. Again, while the religion insists on these, a greater portion of the mainstream population follows a non-vegetarian diet due to various reasons. The article should discuss all these with proper sources. The current lead does not mention "ahimsa" at all, for instance, although it did before the POV attack. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * [T]oday's evolved version of the scriptures insists on the ahimsa philosophy and a subsequent lacto-vegetarian diet. - Interesting. Any source? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are a few: (1) Fiala, A. (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Pacifism and Nonviolence. Taylor & Francis. ISBN: 9781317271970. (2) Walli, K. (1974). The Conception Of Ahimsa in Indian Thought. Bharata Manisha. (3) Phillips, S. H., et al. (2008). Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (2nd ed.). Elsevier Science. (4) Chapple, C. (1990/1993). Nonviolence to animals, earth and self in Asian Traditions. State University of New York Press. (5) Tähtinen, U. (1976). Ahimsa: Non-violence in Indian Tradition. Rider. ISBN 0-09-123340-2. The evolution can also be observed in the emergence of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy; Jain and Buddhist influence in Hinduism; works of post-Sangam poets such as Valluvar, Vilambi Naganaar, Kani Methaviyar, and Putham Sernthanar; and reforms of Vedic practices by people such as Basava, Swaminarayan, Dhayananda Saraswathi, Vallalar Ramalinga Adigal, etc. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you invoke Saraswati in a continuum of people who evolved the Hindu (how do you define it?) tradition towards a more fundamental acceptance of ahimsa but not Savarkar, who was roughly contemporaneous and equally, if not more, influential. That popular "reformers" preached of ahimsa, vegetarianism etc. is neither indicative of "Hinduism" veering to non-violence over the course of time nor evidence of such ideas having much influence among the populace. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes please, you can remove Dayananda and add anyone as you wish (I would add Thirumular of the Bhakti era to this list). After all, this list of "popular reformers" are just for supplemental reading, not the main source. That's exactly what I said in the next line that although the religion insists it, the greater portion of the populace follows a non-vegetarian diet. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed rename of sections
@Jonathansammy Please explain these section renames and section moves without discussion 2 days back.


 * old revision of this page, as edited by Venkat TL (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 23 May 2022


 * new revision of this page, as edited by Jonathansammy (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 31 May 2022

especially the section "Diet in Hindu scriptures and texts" which was consensus header was renamed without any discussion. I am objecting to the new header. Jonathansammy please self revert your section renames and content moves and discuss them first to create consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Really Venkat TL? "Diet in Hindu scriptures and texts" may have been a consensus header but your massive additions to the section without consensus rendered that heading inadequate for the content. By adding new sections or renaming them, I have made it easier for the reader to navigate the article.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy, Rename/splitting of sections are major changes and clearly controversial. This was reason why I had started the discussion at before proceeding. But you made wholesale content moves and section renames, without any prior discussion/consensus and now you are trying to put the blame on me for your actions. If your changes are beneficial for the article, it will be easy for you to get consensus and do it later on. Right now I am objecting to these major changes.
 * I am asking a second time, Please self revert your changes you did 2 days back and start discussion threads to get consensus for these section moves and section header renames. Venkat TL (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Diet in Hinduism" does not mean "everything the Hindus ate over the last 2000 years with a special focus on meat". It means what Hinduism as a religion dictates about diet, either positively or negatively. Everything that Hindus do or did is not "Hinduism". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed but there need to be some discussion on how obeyed these dictums were by "Hindus". I suggest gutting this page (the sources are trash) and rewriting afresh. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with rewriting of this article.A lot of content here on "meat diet" in Hindu scriptures [...] Jonathansammy (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy This section with a title and opening post is to discuss a specific issue, the renames and section moves you made on 29 May. I asked you twice and waited for 2 days. Since you did not reply or self revert, I went ahead and reverted it. In this section you can try to make consensus for your changes. If you have proposals like rewriting etc, better start new thread. before any gutting and re-writting scope of the article should be decided. Venkat TL (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting the article
,,, ,,, ,, I agree with rewriting of this article.A lot of content here on "meat diet" in Hindu scriptures should really belong to the Animal sacrifice in Hinduism article than on this page.Most of the content talks about sacrifice anyway. Also if Hindu diet and diet in Hinduism mean different things then that should be discussed in the article. Also given the economic conditions, meat of any kind is used sparsely in India even now.

Under the caste system, those groups, such as the mahars in Maharashtra or chamar in northern India, that consumed beef only ate flesh of cattle that had died naturally. In Maharashtra under the village Bara Balutedar system disposal of dead cattle was the duty of the Mahars. The same was the case for chamars under the Jajmani system in north India.When the chamars in some areas, in order to improve their social status, decided to stop disposing off and eating the flesh of dead cattle, the villagers had the difficult task of taking the dead animal to the forest and bury it.The already poor chamar also in the process lost access to proteins provided by the flesh.

I hope rewriting the article doesn't make the pendulum swing in the other direction, with only the diet of upper caste and urban hindus being discussed.I look forward to your comments and collaboration in improving the article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * To do this page right, you need to take a book on Hinduism and see what it says about diet. My guess is that it will say practically nothing. If it is fairly advanced, it might talk about sattvic, rajasik and tamasik distinctions. But who follows these things nowadays anyway?
 * There is nothing called "Hindu diet". Barring beef, Hindus eat pretty much everything everybody else does. I have no idea where there is all this hullaballo about Hindu diet. As for beef, there is a humongous page on cattle slaughter in India. You can take any beef-grinding issues there and argue about it till the cows come home. I won't interfere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can take a book on food ethics and history and see what it says about Hinduism. Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics has an article on Hinduism, and walks through the Vedas, the Dharmashatras, the Mahabharata, and to Gandhi's thoughts influenced by his reading of some Western ethical vegan/vegetarian work of the concept of ahimsa. There is also enough material on how Bhakti reformists, the co-option of vegetarianism by Brahmanism, dairy production, and maybe on alcohol, etc etc. We can structure with sections on 1. Diary 2. Meat 3. Plants (talking about how vegetables like onions or garlic might be eschewed by some groups), and maybe 4. Alcohol; but I'm not completely sure that's the best option we have, do suggest if someone has ideas on a better structure. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, yes. A simple google search on Diet in Hinduism throws many exclusive works on the food practice in the religion. Listing a few: (1) Narayan, S. (2020). Food and Faith: A Pilgrim's Journey through India. HarperCollins. ISBN: 978-9-35357-904-3. (2) Jayaram, V. (2012). Introduction to Hinduism. Pure Life Vision. ISBN: 978-1-93576-011-5. (3) Ali, M. E., & Nizar, N. N. A. (Eds.). (2018). Preparation and Processing of Religious and Cultural Foods. Woodhead Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-08-101892-7. (4) Narayanan, V. (Ed.). (2020). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Materiality. Wiley Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-11868-832-8. (5) Sen, C. T. (2015). Feasts and Fasts: A History of Food in India. Reaktion Books. ISBN: 978-1-78023-352-9. (6) Berry, R. (1998). Food for the Gods. Pythagorean. ISBN: 978-0-96261-692-1. There are many more out there. Rasnaboy (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Kural
The edit summary - requires multiple citations - indicates WP:SYNTH. The sources I can access aren't saying anything to support the addition: Roy is restricted to comparing its discussion of military theory to Sanskrit texts; Zvelebil says "every religious group has claimed him"; Iraianaban doesn't appear to be reliable and I've already shown how Pillai's text says something different. , can you quote where it is termed a "Hindu or Jain text"? Since OR and SYNTH are the grounds on which I'm questioning this, your own commentary will be entirely unhelpful. Please just quote source text. Hemantha (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the religious affiliation of the Kural has been ascertained for sure thus far. Scholars for the most part opine that it is either of Hindu or of Jain origin. There have even been claims that Valluvar was a Buddhist or even a Christian, but these have long been discredited by the academia. The wider scholarly consensus today is that Kural is either a Jain or a Hindu text. Scholars such as Zvelebil and P. S. Sundaram consider it a Jain text (though they aren't sure). Pillai gives in to the doubt that it can be both and states "Hindus and Jains claim him as their poet." Roy compares it with Hindu texts of Sanskrit origin, particularly Book II of the text. Zvelebil states that "Kural is rather a reflection of the Jaina moral code". Sundaram states, "There are some indications in the Kural of Valluvar having been a Jain." W. J. Johnson lists the Kural among Hindu works in his Dictionary of Hinduism. Scholars such as Thomas Manninezhath, Mathew Ricard, P. R. Natarajan, and R. Nagaswamy consider it a Hindu text. Sundaram acknowledges both Hindu and Jain elements in the work, but favors more towards Jain origin. Summarizing all these as "likely a Hindu or Jain text" is not synthesis per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY (The fact that the source explains why the sky is blue in a rather technical manner does not affect the validity of the summary.), especially when we have the word "likely". Thus, a claim requiring multiple citations does not necessarily mean a synthesized one. This can be commonly seen with most of the ancient works, especially those whose origins cannot be ascertained (such as most ancient Indian works, including the Kural). Rasnaboy (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Golwalkar was Hindu; does that make We Or Our Nationhood Defined a Hindu text? Except for Kural is rather a reflection of the Jaina moral code, nothing you've shown is even talking about the work; and even that sentence is not making that assertion. There is a reason no such claim is in the Thirukkural article. Hemantha (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right on a different plane, Hemantha, and more so in Golwalkar's regard because we know much about the contemporary Golwalkar and his political writings need not be necessarily about his religion. But in the case of ancient texts like the Kural, nothing is known about the work or its author. That said, the general academic practice is that what is known about one (that again being a scholarly assumption) is invariably attributed to the other (one can see this in other similar texts). Like the Naladiyar, the Kural is secular in its outlook and teachings, but is generally considered a Jain or Hindu text due to those elements in its contents, just like Naladiyar is considered a Jain work (because all the 400 authors of it were Jains), Manimekalai a Buddhist work (its author being a Buddhist), Silappathikaram a Jain work (its author being a Jain monk), and so forth. That the Kural being a probable candidate of being a Hindu text (or Jain text) is the very reason for its being included in this discussion about diet in Hinduism. Hope this clarifies. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Please revert or put any additional supporting quotes from reliable sources here so that I can take it to WP:NORN. Hemantha (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By "nothing is known about the work or its author" what I meant was "very little is known about them" (we wouldn't have had Wiki articles on these topics otherwise). Since more scholars opine a Jain or Hindu origin, I said "a probable candidate for..." or "likely a Hindu or Jain text". After all, the very use of the words "probable", "likely" etc. clearly shows the underlying uncertainty. They don't mean a definite claim but only the majority of the scholarly assertions. Nevertheless, since only you and I are arguing, I'll go by your suggestion and revert this for now. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

rewrite
I've rewritten sections of the larger Scripture section. the Manusmriti and Dharmashatra sections can be further merged and shortened, perhaps with the added help of Bryant 2006 and the Food Ethics encyclopaedia. a section of Puranas needs to be added and the influence of Buddhism and Jainism might need mention somewhere. a non primary source discussing Tirukkural should also be found.

directing attention to the two later sections, I intend to merge them into something like "contemporary expression", mainly using statistics and whatever details, like fasting, festival dietary habits etc of contemporary food practices are found in reliable scholarly sources. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 13:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Have added Kapisthala Katha Samhita of the Yajurveda under the Vedas section, but Shatapatha Brahmana may be older by some accounts. Depending on the sources, we may have to check their ordering. Will refer to more sources and fix this. Also have added some non-primary sources for Tirukkural. I think more on puranas can be added as we expand the Vedas section. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a section on the Puranas below everything as that's the order it's covered in Bryant. Also did a quick bare bones rewrite to make the article neutral. it can be neutrally expanded from here. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 11:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just added an intro sentence to the lead, which I feel gives a gist of what the article is talking about. Please review and feel free to revert if it doesn't belong there. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Change page name to "Vegetarianism in Hinduism"
It only talks about vegetarian in Hinduism. Winninggrin (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

revert

 * 1) The 40%+ figure is sourced to Pew Research Center, as you can see in the contemporary Hindu diet section. it is most recent reliable survey I've found, the figure is decidedly not "fake".
 * 2) I'll be rewriting the later sections with better sources than some memoir, hopefully that'll settle the lead section. "does not make judgment one way or the other" seems to be a wild understatement given the overwhelming vegetarian orientation of Hinduism. "varies with diverse traditions", while better, still does not do justice with what I've found in the sources about religious Hinduism. ( might find this paper that comes to mind, his point about subaltern diet is well taken). regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is 44% and it should be added on lead which I have done now. If you really want a better lead then you can copy from this version but I am fine with current lead as it is good enough. CharlesWain (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * When you say "40% are vegetarian" means 60% or the majority of Hindus have non-vegetarian orientation rather than vegetarian orientation.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hindu diet and Caste discrimination
Some information from these links should by included here

In charts: Vegetarianism in India has more to do with caste hierarchy than love for animals

Food Apartheid: Non-vegetarians Not Allowed!

The Hidden Politics of Vegetarianism: Caste and "The Hindu" Canteen

Unravelling politics of Hindu vegetarianism and animal rights in India

Why is vegetarianism in India linked to purity? NaveenSS99 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes . I agree with that.You should start adding content from these sources.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, journalists are not reliable for analysis of caste system. They are reliable for news events and trivial caste information that does not require training (X belongs to Y caste etc.). Not for analysis of why non-vegetarian diet is related to discrimination. I partially agree with the views but we need high quality sources for such analysis. Also, Bengali and Kashmiri Brahmins are known to eat meat. But they have not faced discrimination from Hindus, have they? This is a controversial topic and I think we should use very high quality sources only for any analysis- not scroll.in etc. Just a thought.LukeEmily (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear, I totally agree with your views on using newspaper articles. If you look at my contributions, very rarely I use news articles, or websites for any content, let alone on religion or caste. This was just to get to start contributing the article.Regards Jonathansammy (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , no issues. I understand. BTW, this article is not balanced. For example, the Puranas section is quite incorrect. The Devi Puran clearly advocates non-vegetarian food but the section cherry picks from Puranas that advocate vegetarian diet. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Agree.You should spend time on this article and fix the Puranas section.Although I should also look at what Hindu scriptures say on diet, I am a "here and now" person, and therefore more interested in contemporary hindu diet practice.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ramayana and Fish eating amongst Bengali Hindus
what's the point of this name dropping, ? what the early Vedic people ate is already present in the Veda section—the section isn't supposed to be a collection of every reference to any meal in any Hindu text? do any scholars have anything significant to say about what stance Ramayana takes on diet? if no, the section doesn't belong. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 22:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have added another sentence about Bengalis and fish—but I fail to see how that relates to the core subject of the article—that many Hindus, from many different castes and linguistic groups, are not vegetarians is already noted, going into detail of what kind of food some linguistic group eats when it does not specifically relate to any Hindu specific doctrine is useless here. At best the Brahmin part might be relevant in the caste section—the so called "vegetarian castes" have numbers of non-vegetarians. Providing detail about the justifications (fruit of the water?) might even be entertaining there. I'll remove it from the current section. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 23:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * discuss, I don't think one can push a particular POV for this article.The non-veg section does not have much at all on fish.The Bengalis as well as coastal brahmin communities such as the GSB treat seafood as vegetables from the sea as their justification for allowing its consumption.The source I cited also says that some bengali brahmins eat fish yet refrain from eating onion and garlic.This information is important in order for readers to get a proper nuanced view of Hindu diet.
 * Hi Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  and Vanamonde, please help me with this. A few months ago, we had an editor going for POV which almost implied that Beef eating is common amongst Hindus.Now we have another one who would like push it in other direction to imply that vegetarian diet is the norm.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of pinging people who have edited or shown interest in the article, or even just an administrator (not something that should be done just for a content dispute), you're pinging editors you might think are likely to help you... is that not canvassing?, has recently edited the article, and there are others above in the talk page discussing the scope, content, etc. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 03:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

PoV "without a source"
, you've removed a quote from a source saying "it's without a source". Do you not recognise the irony? If its PoV then it's PoV of the source, the PoV of Wikipedians ("it's because of the economy") cannot supersede it. Since it was part of a quote from the source, I'm not sure how "PoV" would apply. You cannot remove quotes from a source just because it doesn't align with your view. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Using India and Hinduism as synonyms
, the vast majority of Hindus live in India. What is relevant in the context of Hindus is India is relevant on this page, such as the Pew Survey done in India, and the account of the influence of Dharmic traditions on slaughter and flesh consumption in India. Do not remove source content. I'm restoring the content, please discuss and justify on talk before restoring. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * this isn't an article about the combined diets of India. Muslims are not Hindus. India isn't all Hindu. An article about what people eat in India isn't relevant here. I am seeing serious competency issues if you think Hinduism and India are the same. Don't readd this content. Very Average Editor (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , I reiterate. The quote you removed is from a book called "Dharma and Ecology of Hindu Communities: Sustenance and Sustainability". It specifically talks about dharmic traditions and their influence on diet. There is no "article about what people eat in India" here. It's a book analysing Hindu ecology. I expect a better explanation than you have offered here, and will revert if you fail to provide it. and  who have been active on this article: please look into this. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 21:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * , I take your point that one can not equate India with Hinduism but Hindus do form nearly 80% of the 1.4 billion Indian population. Hindus outside India in comparison form a small percentage of total global Hindu population.You might say this is SYNTH and you will be correct., we have to find sources that give us statistics on meat consumption by Hindus,even if it is just for India.My two cents. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , we already have found such a source—the Pew Research survey. 44% vegetarians and 80% avoidance of flesh consumption for certain kinds of flesh or on certain days. I don't see the relevance of WP:SYNTH when a source discussing Hindu ecology mentions flesh consumption statistics and attributes it to Dharmic traditions. The source has already done the synthesis, and we just have to report it. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "The question is a meaningful one, particularly because, even in the modern world (or perhaps especially in the modern world), more Hindus eat meat than subscribe to vegetarianism". From Steven J. Rosen's chapter Vaishnav Vegetarianism. Rosen discusses this using some older statistical data and cites Jain in the footnote (no. 4) next to it, Pankaj Jain points out that meat consumption is actually quite low in India relative to its population, despite statistics to the contrary. Those who eat meat, he writes, do not eat it every day, and when they do eat it, portions remain small. So yeah, this synthesis of data, of Hindu religious ethics and Indian dietary practice (of even non-vegetarians consuming little flesh), is well established. I can see why Very Average Editor might be troubled by the interchangeability of Indian and Hindu there, but that's how the sources deal with it, and probably it isn't very consequential (in skewing the results in some direction) since most Hindus are Indian and most Indians are Hindu (i.e. there's significant overlap between the two categories). I think I remember some more discussion of this in other sources, I'll try to find more. But hopefully this is enough for the satisfaction of Very Average Editor. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 23:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't good enough. Hindus and Muslims both eat less meat in India, and more in other countries. It is not because Islam is a dharmic tradition, or that Hindus outside of India no longer follow a Hindu diet. This source is informative about /India/ but not Hinduism. We should be specific, and not generalize people. That would be like making an article about the Christian diet and basing it on the diet of Bolivia. Very Average Editor (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since all the Dharmic religions share the common fundamental ideologies such as ahimsa, non-violence and other concepts, we must understand that when we talk about diet in Hinduism, it invariably has overlaps with diet in Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. Although, Hinduism today refers to Sanatana Dharma, traditionally and culturally the term refers to the entire cultural, political, social, and spiritual aspects of the Indian Subcontinent. Thus, the influence of all the Dharmic religions on one another and their overarching tendencies cannot be overstated. Thus diet (and other aspects) in all these religions, unlike with the Abrahamic religions, invariably share common ideas, history, lineage, and thus even common sources. Having said that, I agree with User:TryKid in including those sources, which would only expand to more sections, if not into more related articles. Since most of the Christians and Muslims in India were formerly Hindus and thus share common roots, Muslim/Christian dietary practice in India is undoubtedly influenced by the Indian tradition, unlike those in the rest of the world. While Christian diet cannot be based on the diet of Bolivia, Hindu diet is, for the most part, based on the diet of India. Although Hindus have migrated to various parts of the globe, the traditional roots of Hinduism lies in the Indian subcontinent and its philosophies and practices. Thus it is the practice in the Indian subcontinent that should be the focus of this article. Any variations in the practice of Hindus from other parts of the world can be included in separate sections within the article as "Practice outside Indian Subcontinent", "Practice by country", etc. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject here is Diet in Hinduism, and the prose we are using is directly about all Indians of all religions. Using prose describing the diets of India to describe the diets of Hinduism is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst. Let's just describe the diet of Hinduism instead. That would mean removing this text about what India eats. Very Average Editor (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Non vegetarian diet
This section mostly discusses not eating beef. I propose a section about beef, and letting this section focus on what meat eating hindu diets are like. Very Average Editor (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose the following edits to the section on Non-vegetarian diet.Let me know what you all think.I am still struggling to find sources that refer to Hindu population  rather than the broader Indian population.We can all collectively try to find these sources.I am sure thy exist.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-vegetarian diet
A significant portion of Hindus are non-vegetarians,. Non-vegetarian Hindus in India mostly prefer poultry, fish, other seafood, goat, and sheep as their sources of meat. In Eastern and coastal south-western regions of India, fish and seafood is the staple of most local communities.For economic or cultural reasons, even meat-eating Hindus in India  have lacto-vegetarian meals on most days. Globally, India consumes the least amount of meat per capita. A small minority of Nepalese Hindu sects sacrifice buffalo at the Gadhimai festival, but consider cows different from buffalo or other red meat sources. However, the sacrifice of buffalo was banned by the Gadhimai Temple Trust in 2015. Some Hindus who eat non-vegetarian food abstain from eating non-vegetarian food during festivals such as Janmastami. In Bengal, on the other hand, traditionally goats are ritually sacrificed during the festival of Kali Puja in the Hindu month of Kartik (late October - early November in the Gregorian calendar) and the meat cooked is offered to the deity, and then consumed by the devotees as the prasad.

Beef
Hindus who eat meat, often distinguish all other meat from beef. The respect for cow is part of Hindu belief, and most Hindus avoid meat sourced from cow as cows are treated as a motherly giving animal, considered as another member of the family. The Cham Hindus of Vietnam also do not eat beef.


 * I for one like these changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Average Editor (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is any need to split the section into two. It can definitely be shortened, along with its vegetarian counterpart above. I also do not think there is any need to write of what exactly is consumed beyond what is already noted very generally in the Jain footnote, since the specifics vary with the region (it would be more appropriate in various geographic cuisine articles) and do not have much to do with Hinduism and its doctrines. What is specific to Hinduism, i.e. what is (prasadam etc) and isn't (slaughter) consumed because of the religious doctrines and ethics, is what is talked of in the various general sources on the subject, and that is what should be followed here. I think the current version is better than what is proposed. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 11:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead
Vegetarianism is an aspect of significance in religious philosophies, more so in Dharmic religions where it is insisted and practiced strictly. That said, saying "44% of Hindus are vegetarian" is of more encyclopedic significance than its factual counterpart "56% of Hindus are non-vegetarian," which is also true but is of less significance. To put this into perspective, it's like saying "21% of atmospheric air contains oxygen" rather than say "79% of atmospheric air is not oxygen," owing to oxygen's biological significance. The significance of vegetarianism from a religious perspective is what is being implied here. So the sentence in the lead should read "44% of Hindus say they are vegetarian" (not "56% say they are non-vegetarian"). Rasnaboy (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the reasoning. In addition, that's also how the sources phrase it. For example, Pew Research Survey news piece, after noting the significance of ethical conduct in dietary practices in the Dharmic traditions, writes, Among Hindus, in addition to the 44% who are vegetarian, another 39% follow some other restriction on meat consumption. This is how it should be phrased on Wikipedia too, not just in the lead, but in the body too. regards, TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 10:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * All the active editors on this page know that India has one of the lowest meat consumption.Even in muslim majority Bangladesh the main flesh source for eating is fish is, not any mammals.Getting back to Hinduism, I have no problem in saying 44% are strictly lacto-vegetarian and the remaining ones occasionally consume food based on animal flesh (BTW, the word meat is specifically applied to flesh from land animals). In Maharashtra (excluding the coastal area where seafood is a staple for the majority) during the past, rural folks would eat meat only during the annual jatra or festival of their local deity.Even this was from a sacrificed goat or chicken, and so one can call it a prasad. For the rest of the year people followed a lacto-vegetarian diet.My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm reverting the change made by . Thanks, TryKid and Jonathansammy. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is for readers, not editors though. What we know about dharmic religion can't be assumed of readers. In many places, there is a common myth that Hindus are usually vegetarian. I feel like leading with the minority diet helps enforce the old myth. Very Average Editor (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , If you have sources that say that meat (excluding fish and eggs) is a staple for Hindu non-vegetarians, then please add that to the article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's nonsensical, fish are meat. Please, examine your words. Very Average Editor (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)