Talk:Ritual slaughter

Christianity has no animal sacrifice
Please correct the History part of the article. There is nothing like ritual slaughter or animal sacrifice in Christianity. Thank you. 2003:CD:93CE:6E42:916E:C032:49C1:990 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Ritual slaughter is not the same as animal sacrifice. Nowadays, ritual slaughter refers to the way that animals are killed for eating purposes. I think this redirect is quite problematic. I propose a dab instead, though I haven't thought it out yet. Thanks HG | Talk 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

DAB suggestion:

Shechita, for the killing of livestock for food according to Jewish law.

Ḏabīḥah, for the killing of livestock for food according to the Islamic tradition.

Animal sacrifice, for the ritual killing of animals, for food or otherwise.

Please comment below, thanks. Or feel free to revise the DAB wording. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Future directions for this article
In the future, this could become a full-fledged article incorporating the full topic, with 3 spin-off articles already written. Anyone up to the task? Aren't there forms of ritual butchering outside of Islam and Judaism? Isn't there research and policymaking (e.g., the bans) that cover various types of ritual slaughter, thus demonstrating the needs for an overall (i.e., properly synthesized) article? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Bans on ritual slaughter and/or Islamic and Jewish dietary laws compared
The Bans on ritual slaughter appears to represent a WP:POVFORK representing arguments against ritual slaughter. Suggest merging the articles here. --Shirahadasha 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) The Islamic and Jewish dietary laws compared is currently entirely about their respective methods of ritual slaughter. Suggest moving this content here. --Shirahadasha 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be done by moving Bans on ritual slaughter to Ritual slaughter. Two days ago, Ritual slaughter was a redirect, while the "bans" article has a history that needs to be preserved. --John Nagle 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In principle, the rename (move) makes sense to me, since I'd be assuming that the article could then provide broader coverage of ritual slaughter, maybe its history and scope, its regulation, pro/con's, etc. Is that what you had in mind, John? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More or less. Let's see what happens.  We can probably put most of the existing material under a heading like "regulation of ritual slaughter".  --John Nagle 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

it is hardly possible to create a "fork" of a disambiguation page, but I agree that once we turn this into a full article, the "bans" article should be linked as a subtopic (WP:SS) from a "legal aspects" section or some such. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing out the comparison article. This kind of content would definitely belong in the Ritual slaughter article. (However, the current version looks like it might be original research, a question I've raised there.) Thanks Shirahadasha, ciao HG | Talk 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! By adding these merge tags, I was simply making a proposal. I wasn't intending to limit discussion of reorganization and any appropriate reorganization approach is up for discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the comparisons article very useful and succinct, so please try to keep it easy to find and brief if merged. - Oreo Priest  11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamic and Jewish dietary laws compared does have some info that is not about slaughter. By all means, any useful information should be appropriated for this article, but I think that article should remain as well. --Eliyak T · C 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to get to the bottom of basic definitions, in case they should go into one, or several separate articles or sections, as the article on "bans" (now legal bans) was cluttered. Sticking is a technical term meaning cutting the carotid arteries of an animal. The animal (goat, lamb etc) dies from blood loss. The same procedure is done when hunting, and the animal has been killed by being shot. Wikipedia has an entry sticking knife describes cutting the carotid arteries with such a dagger-shaped knife, either as a killing method, or after shooting the animal. Slaughter with the sticking knife is practised in rural Italy and similar places. Or else when hunting after the animal is shot.

Using a dagger to stick the point in is forbidden to Jews who have a more refined method with a long, straight, razor-sharp knife. But the carotid arteries are cut in the same way. The Jewish method called by the hebrew word for slaughter: shehitah has detailed rules on how the knife is wielded, the level of knowledge required by the shohet etc ...

Judd points out that it was with the introduction of improvements in stunning techniques (going over from hammers and axes to firearms and ammunition) that the anti-shehitah / anti-schächten lobby felt Jewish shehitah (which previously was obviously superior from an Animal Welfare POV had now been improved upon. This is a cultural war "We are better than you."

Then there are accusations that the amount of "religion" in shehitah and dhabiya / zabiya is more than it actually is.

Judds description of the schäcten debates from 1850 onwards are a good starting point to objectively describe the contoversies in the shechten (shehittah) debates objectively. They should be kept separate and objective. RPSM (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles and definitions in other languages
I note that in the German article shächten (sorry, I don't know how to link to articles in other languages) shächten, by way of introduction is defined as being the same as shehittah

2) In the Swedish article skäktning (the word derives from Ger. shächten) skäktning is defined as covering both Jewish shehittah, and islamic halal slaughter (zabiya, etc.) as does one article in English (reference later)

3) I believe that the English term ritual slaughter came to be used during the schächten debates (1850 to today) to refer to "schächten" and is the same term translated.

4) Therefore a dictionary definition would have two entries 1) The equivalent of schächten in German, and Swedish schäktning as it was used in the 1930s when it only referred to Jewish slaughter, shehittah 2) A more general term: meaning any kind of slaughter connected with a ritual. (I wonder whether this system of definitions does not conjure up unwelcome associations - particularly with regard to the history of antisemitism and accusations of ritual murder against Jews. Swedish academics ( Pia Karlsson in Religiös slaughter and one co-author - make a point of avoiding the term Ritual Slaughter in Swedish just for this reason. I have previously argued that this should hold in English too, and the argument against has been put that the term is firmly established in English (and I note that Jews themselves use the term).

5) The tricky bit is exactly this: Ritual Slaughter in English historically has a usage to mean firstly - specifically Jewish slaughter when only the Jewish community was concerned - and now that Muslims and Sikhs have migrated to Britain, Europe etc, the term Ritual Slaughter easily expands to include these. [An attempt was made in Sweden to make kosher slaughter serve as a general term to include halal slaughter as well, as ritual slaughter was unacceptable in Swedish].

6) While halal slaughter ordinarily is not a sacrifice, this is the case at the end of Ramadan - at Id al fitr. And in other types of ritual slaughter generally there is a magic ritual or ceremonial purpose.

This is not the case with Jewish slaughter (except when the Temple is standing). And Jews wish to drive home the point that laws pertaining to shehihtah are to avoid unnecessary suffering to the animal. And therefore, somehow to make a clear demarcation. Nowadays, English accepts foreign loan words from all kinds of foreign languages, and shehittah seems most appropriate in English to refer to Jewish slaughter, kosher slaughter, Jewish ritual slaughter.

Non-Jews and non-Muslims do not realise the extent of the ritualisation of daily life by orthodox Jews and observant Muslims, so that many insignificant events are made into rituals. (eg procedure for going to the bathroom (UK English toilet). There is a case to emphasise the ordinariness of shehittah, and to point out that the religious requirements are mostly to make the slaughter as quick and painless as possible. RPSM (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology
Ritual slaughter is the common name used for a long time for shehitah in the United Kingdom.

Now English has become an international language, and this raises problems.

The Italian Government, in their paper on Ritual Slaughter (on the web in English, quoted by me anon earlier, used the title "Ritual Slaughter" and then the writers of the document felt it necessary to justify this term and what ritual is used - in the case of Jews saying a blessing, and in the case of Muslims, saying the name of Allah.

Judaism ritualises many aspects of daily life, so that eating an apple, or washing the hands is accompanied by a blessing.

The term "Ritual Slaughter" leads to many misunderstandings - among them, that the slaughter always has the nature of a sacrifice, and this is not the case. In this wiki article "the sacrificing cut" quoted from the Italian government paper had to be deleted, so although there were rabbis contributing there, they were not instructed to carefully proof read and correct common Christian misunderstandings. These, I think derive from life being contextualized for Christians by the central role the Eucharist or Holy Communion plays. This is a mystery according to Christian terminology, and you won't get a straight answer every time. Blind faith is a tenet of Christian belief. From this standpoint, it is not surprising that Christians misunderstand the Jewish religion, especially as one mitzvah (commandment - here, from rabbinic law) is that a Jew is forbidden to teach Torah to non Jews (who do not intend to convert). I supppose this is to preserve lehavdil a sharp dividing line.Sacrifices in Judaism are strictly banned until there is a Third Temple.

Other confusions are with the role of blood.

The Maastricht treaty uses the term "religious slaughter" to cover both Jewish and Muslim slaughter - would that be preferable.

Dr Temple Grandin uses "kosher slaughter" in her work when referring to Jewish slaughter.

In Sweden "kosher slaughter" is used kosherslakt, but this gives rise to another set of misunderstandings - that kosher always means slaughtering animals, as the word "kosher" has not entered into the Swedish language as it has into American English.

"What is kosher" said by a Swede means "What is shehitah?"

On the Swedish Radio weekly programme on religion Människor och tro (People and Faith) in a programme on the religious dietry laws, a Christian "expert" actually explained to the listening public that kosher is the method of slaughter used by Jews, wheras, in fact it means generally fit for use or not (kosher/posul) and fit to eat or not (kosher/treif (literally  torn) To go up one level, to the subject of usage and terminology in general, there are two schools - one in English, where useage determines terminology and dictionary writers try to follow this - another, as in France, (and Sweden) where an Academy makes pronouncements (also taking usage into account). Where one concept is not clear and gets confused with another concept, then users will automatically coin a variation to avoid confusion. To be specific about shehitah and ritual slaughter when the writers of the Maastricht Treaty wrote "Religious slaughter should be allowed" I am sure there were deliberations about what terminology to use. (It would be interesting to check French and German versions). RPSM 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (previously RobertPS —Preceding Sorry, had not signed in.

The European Union avoids the word "ritual slaughter" and instead uses "religious slaughter" (in the Maastricht treaty - that religious slaughter be allowed.

The only country in the Union not complying with this directive is Sweden (and Spain, if information in article is correct).

The politics of bans on slaughter are covered in a separate literature and are part of the History of anti-Semitism.

There is a crossover to public health and cruelty to animals as such.

They are covered in work cited above. RobertPS 12:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * nobody said the topic was a simple one. A full article would need to reasonably address all the points you mention, feel free to dive into it. dab (𒁳) 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * btw, your point that the notion that ritual slaughter "always has the nature of a sacrifice" is a misunderstanding seems itself based on a misunderstanding of animal sacrifice. The terms are in a sense exactly synonymous. "ritual slaughter" is any meat production that involves ritual, and "animal sacrifice" is any ritual that results in meat production, so to speak. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! I want to point out that Wikipedia's No original research policy prohibits relying on an editor's personal opinions about how terms like "ritual slaughter" are used. It's important to understand that there is no single universal definition applicable across religions. Both religions involved distinguish ritual slaughter for non-sacrificial purposes from animal sacrifices. Judaism, for example, has a set of technical ritual laws identifying what acts are considered sacrificial in character. Under these laws, only a Kohen can perform sacrificial acts. Shekhita was ruled to be a legally non-sacrificial act even when done as part of a sacrifice, and hence it did not have to be performed by a Kohen. Lay people (including women) could slaughter their own sacrifices in the days of the Temple in Jerusalem. See below.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

personal opinion has nothing to do with it, give us a break. Technical terminology of Judaism isn't in English. The technical distinction is shekhita vs. korban, not "ritual slaughter" vs. "animal sacrifice". The English terms are so used in a context of Judaism, but not necessarily universally. Now please try to be constructive and give us a concise summary of shekhita vs. korban in the "Judaism" section and stop sabotaging this article in general. dab (𒁳) 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ritual slaughter = Animal sacrifice claim
The claim that ritual slaughter meant animal sacrifice in antiquity is currently unsourced and flatly contradicted by reliable sources, depending on what one means by "antiquity". The Mishnah, for example, has an entire tractate, Hullin ("ordinary"), on rules for non-sacrificial situations which discusses requirements for the ritual slaughter of non-sacrificial meat in detail. These claims need to be sourced. Since there appears to be a controversy among points of view, they need to be attributed as well. --Shirahadasha 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * um, yes, the distinction is clearly made in Judaism. This is connected with the very specific situation of Judaism. Shirahadasha, I don't think we have interacted before. Do you usually plaster articles with tags instead of simply sitting down and fixing them? This isn't the Shechita article. It addresses ritual slaughter world wide. No distinction can be made between ritual slaughter and animal sacrifice. It is historically identical in Judaism as everywhere else and only came to be seen as something distinct in Judaism after AD 70. Could you kindly help us in discussing these circumstances instead of tying up my time conversing with you while I could be doing the job? There is no controversy whatsoever. Nothing you are saying is false, just Judeo-centric. It could very well be explained in the article, so could you please do that? No objections to a competent summary of the Jewish viewpoint, not from me anyway. --dab (𒁳) 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Two points: first I'm not sure a mention that they are distinct in Judaism would by itself be problematic. Second, do you have a source that backs up the claim that Shechita only became distinct in the second temple period? I'm not aware of that fact and couldn't find a reliable source that made the claim offhand. JoshuaZ 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

this is the way I understand it: you don't add npov tags for things that are missing from articles. If you add a point, and you are reverted, feel free to add the tag. If you just mean to say that a detailed discussion of Jewish Shechita (which has its own article) is missing here, just add it. You can also call "npov" if you feel Judaism is misrepresented. You cannot tag the entire article just because you feel some particular point in Jewish theology isn't duly addressed. --dab (𒁳) 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The two most notable religions that practice ritual slaughter, Judaism and Islam, make precisely this distinction between ritual slaughter and animal sacrifice that you are claiming cannot be made. It seems to me that the viewpoints of the people who actually practice ritual slaughter have some relevance to the article. You are making an argument that these viewpoints are "wrong", but Wikipedia is not the place to make such an argument. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue may be what constitutes "antiquity". For fairly reasonable defintions of antiquity, Islam wasn't even around. Regardless of what occurs, the sentence should probably be reworked to specify a rough timeframe. JoshuaZ 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * indeed. these "precise two" traditions notably have their own articles. The point of this article cannot be to rehash the content treated there, but to give the historical context out of which these modern traditions grew. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic of animal sacrifice is different than ritual slaughter. The former deals with any manner of sacrifice (some food or not), the latter only for food. I believe this is clear from dictionaries and scholarly definitions (though I'm open to reading otherwise). Moreover, modern acts of ritual slaughter (i.e., butchering animals for food) are not called "sacrifices." Granted, this mainstream, English language, view may be rooted in Judaism -- but that's not an editorial bias, it's an accident of the history of the Western culture. Therefore: let's set up an explanatory note to direct readers to the animal sacrifice article, ok? thanks! HG | Talk 12:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * this isn't quite correct. Can you point out any animal sacrifice that doesn't involve food? If so, that would be a very exceptional case. RobertPS does a good job at sketching the terminological problems above. Please, if we are going to discuss this, let us be clear about what is a terminological problem and what is an actual content debate. "ritual slaughter" can be used synonymously with "shechita". In this usage, the title should be a redirect or a disambiguation page. But we also find "ritual slaughter" used in ethnological literature for traditions of Africa, New Guinea and other regions as well as for Ancient Greece and other cultures of antiquity. If we are going to develop an article on "ritual slaughter" separate from shechita, its scope will obviously be the wider one. As it happens, everywhere except in Judaism (where very particular reasons exist), the term is used virtually exchangable with "animal sacrifice". If this article is to serve any purpose at all, it will be to explain this situation. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ritual slaughter" in scholarly and legal literature refers primarily to Jewish and Islamic butchering of animals for food. So, for Ritual slaughter the article could deal mainly with issues common to both Jewish and Islamic practices. For instance, legal, economic, ethical and socio-cultural aspects. These can't be reduced synonymously to shechita due to the increasingly notable Islamic aspect. "Animal sacrifice" is a quite different subject, a subcategory of "Sacrifice" in ethnographic and religious studies (etc) sources. While animal sacrifice is a ritual, the act of "slaughter" is but one step and often one of the least interesting (i.e., studies, referenced). This step may be described as 'slaughter' but any ethnographic uses of 'ritual slaughter' I'd say are incidental and not common terms of art in contemporary ethnography. Furthermore, to answer your question, there certainly are standard animal sacrifices that don't involve food (a few are mentioned in the Animal sacrifice article. Also, the food aspect is unknown or non-notable (to participants or scholars) in many cases. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * did you bother to search for "ritual slaughter" on jstor.org? If we take the term to refer just to Jewish+Islamic practice, let's turn it back into a disambiguation page, since we have articles on these. Please, if you want to discuss Jewish and Islamic dietary laws, do it at the dedicated articles not here. If what you say is correct, this entire debate was for nothing and the only solution is turning this back into a disambiguation page (which was a good solution. I only expanded this because Shirahadasha kept pestering us with his merge tags. "ritual slaughter" as a separate article can only be of any merit if it discusses the "meat production" aspects of sacrifice in antiquity. This could well be treated under animal sacrifice (which is why that article was also included in disambiguation). It can also be discussed here. Can we please agree that we agree all along, content-wise, and that this is merely a question of how to arrange the various sub-topics.  dab (𒁳) 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. We're going a bit in circles. Over at Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter, I moved to the "Legal aspects of" title because you had worked to expand from the disambiguation here. Otherwise, I would think that we need only one article -- "Ritual slaughter" -- to deal with "legal" and any commercial, sociological, or other aspects that are common issues for Jewish and Islamic slaughter. We wouldn't need a disambiguation page: Animal sacrifice could be handled as a "See also" item or an explanatory note (and mentioned at times in the text). (By the way, I did search jstor for ritual slaughter, see my footnote in my comment above.) So really, I think it's up to you. If you're fine with combining the articles, I'm willing to implement it. Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

shehitah, shekhitah or shechita? Note on transliteration
I would suggest following the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1911 transliteration rules. These are taken up in one English US Style Guide, I forget which one. Proper Hebrew (as spoken by classicists and taught as Classical Hebrew in Universities) distinguishes between three gutteral h sounds: hey, that is really a light h (Israelis leave it out altogether - most sloppy: hheth - represented by an h with a dot under it (pedants double the h. Using h for both hey and heth is not so bad and prevents unconventional odd new transliteration (like hhadash). To distinquish between kaph and khaf the addition of h to k neatly mimics the addition of a dagesh (dot in the middle of the letter) k to kh. Reallly quph is q as a proper pronunciation of quph is farther back in the throat. Qatar has this sound in Arabic. German yiddish speakers had yiddish (German) as a mother tongue and grew up reading it with Hebrew letters assigning to these letters German phonemes merging heth and khaph. Using shehitah mimics the Hebrew letters, and looks the best standard for me. The letters hey and heth in Hebrew are identical except for a tiny gap. The point being that you can practically as an illiterate in Hebrew copy down what the letters are from a latin letter transliteration. Sorry to be a pedant. RPSM 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please look at this: Naming conventions (Hebrew) and maybe also discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I put this response here although chronologically it should be much further down the page. Thanks. The convention in the new reference is the same as I refer to, as of course you are aware. RPSM 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to dab : 100% is for regular consumption 0% sacrificed: terminology and useage. Your comment above I reproduce here:

''btw, your point that the notion that ritual slaughter "always has the nature of a sacrifice" is a misunderstanding seems itself based on a misunderstanding of animal sacrifice. The terms are in a sense exactly synonymous. "ritual slaughter" is any meat production that involves ritual, and "animal sacrifice" is any ritual that results in meat production, so to speak. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)''

No, a Holocaust was a sacrifice that was deliberately burnt - no meat was produced, only carbon remains.

The difference between qorban (sacrifice) and shehitah (slaughtering)

All meat slaughtered - whether for a sacrifice or not - must be slaughtered in the prescribed way. When the temple stood some was sacrificed, most was for ordinary consumption. Nowadays there are no Jewish sacrifices and any sacrifice of any kind is forbidden. 100% of the meat slaughtered by Jews today is for ordinary consumption, and nothing whatsoever is sacrificed.

Language

The definition of terms when done by indiviuals for their own purposes (e g a particular academic paper) or for their own private use creates an idiolect - a private language for use only by one individual, or perhaps a few selected friends or family, and anyone may call anything whatever they like - for example I know someone who called a knife a fork and they called a fork a knife - but they kept on complaining they were being misunderstood. If other academics adopt these terms, as the circle of users grows, then they get taken up into the language. Then agan someone may redefine a term or terms, and then you will have two schools of usage (What I mean by x when I use it is not the same as what others mean. When you use an idiolect, it becomes necessary to redefine your terms each time you use them. In an encylopedia, this convention cannot be adopted. The words must be already in the language that ordinary people speak and can be readily understood - especially when there are several articles on the same subject. When entering a traditional culture - throwing Japanese pots, or what the various parts of a rifle or a samovar are, - terms are established to refer to the essential basic items used by the coppersmiths, or potters. Within Judaism - that dates back to Temple times - the essential concepts - in order to facilitate any discussion about them - have already been established, and the terminology fixed by usage in Hebrew. RPSM 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

answer to dab's question
'''Can you point out any animal sacrifice that doesn't involve food? If so, that would be a very exceptional case.'''

Yes, a holocaust (Greek) or burnt offering. This happened, for example, when a priest - those males descended from Moses' brother, Aharon made a judgement in error. Anyone normally making a sin offering that was accompanied by atonement, prayer, good deeds, apoologies to all concerned, would bear the cost of an offering that would be consumed by the priests and their families and their servants. In part it had the character of a fine, or loss of income. The priests owned no agricultural land or animals - some were poor, and depended on the one-tenth of animals, grain, wine and produce brought to the temple as sacrifices. When the priests themselves made an error, they were not to gain benefit from it, and their sacrifice was entirely consumed by fire, a burnt offering. RPSM 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From the article: a clear line cannot be drawn between ritual slaughter and generic animal sacrifice. What is generic, and what is specific? It's the other way around: ritual slaughter (shehitah means just slaughter: nothing more, nothing less. The words ritual slaughter (schächten in German) are used to distinguish Jewish slaughter from non-Jewish slaughter in a European context.) Generic: slaughter (shehitah) Specific: qorban (sacrifice) - the animal has been slaughtered in the same way as usual by shehitah but then goes on to be butchered into sections and roasted or boiled (or consumed entirely by fire as a burnt offering). This was done up until the Romans destroyed the temple but only that one place is approved as a site for sacrifices, and they are forbidden today. Incidentally - korban (sacrifice) is the same word in Arabic used in Islam. The Temple had been destroyed once before, by the Babylonians, and Jews taken into captivity there. This was where a cult arose not based on Temple sacrifice at all, although the details were preserved in case of returning. The moral and ethical aspects of daily life came to the fore. When the temple was destroyed a second time, it was nothing new, and sacrifices were once again were replaced by prayer - mostly the festival and sabbath and daily sacrifices where the short instructions are read. There is no need for Jews to offer animals or grain, bread or wine today as it is strictly forbidden to do so. RPSM 19:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

An olah (Burnt offering) was entirely consumed and it was a pretty common offering. The daily tamid offerings and shabbat/holiday mussaf offerings were of this type. The Hebrew word "deshen" (satisfied or pleased, as in "may God be pleased with our prayer") literally means ashes, as in a burnt-offering that is entirely consumed. I do plan to get to this article once the merge issue is more settled. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

you are right: a holocaust is such an exceptional sacrifice: so named because, exceptionally, no meat was left for consumption. That rather drives home my point. Your explanations of Jewish terminology are all granted, but somehow I have the impression you still fail to recognize that this article is not about Judaism in particular. I am sorry, but I am really not interested in debating the finer points of shechita here. If I wanted to do that, I would be editing Shechita. Again, this is all very well, and points you are most welcome to make in the "Judaism" section, but you should avoid letting aspects of this special case leak into the general discussion too much. dab (𒁳) 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A vehicle with an Internal combustion engine is merely a special case of an automobile, and doubtless an argument could be made that it's a negligible special case so far as automobile theory is concerned. But it's the case most people who read Wikipedia encounter in their daily lives. Santeria and other religions practicing animal sacrifice are rare in the English-speaking world, Judaism and Islam's form of ritual slaughter more prevalent. The WP:Naming conventions guideline is very clear on the point: Article names are aids to navigation, so article names are expected to reflect common English usage, which is to be preferred over scholarly definitions if the two conflict. The guideline makes dictionaries, not jstor, the reliable sources for the relevant discussion. I'm not going that far. I'm not suggesting defining everything from the point of view of the contemporary common cases. I'm just suggesting that it is not proper to define the scope of an article in such a way as to exclude them, particular if one is explicitly relying on exclusively specialist argument, as I understand you to be doing. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

need to get the "origin" of the bans right.
''The initial ban on kosher slaughter in modern Europe originated in the late 19th century in 1897 in Switzerland. Later bans were enacted in Bavaria in 1930, in Norway, Germany and Sweden in the mid-1930s. [citation needed]'' This is bad - it is copied from the article Bans on ritual slaughter, now Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Dates are wrong, and lumping countries together in categories results in inaccuracies and wrong impressions. For an account of the schächten debates in Germany and Switzerland, and chronology,see: The Politics of Beef RobinJudd. http://modiya.nyu.edu/modiya/bitstream/1964/569/2/shekhita-germany.pdf    RPSM 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am corrected. The burnt offering was pretty common as Shirahadashah points out. Two burnt offerings were offered in the Jewish Temple every day, seven days a week: one lamb in the morning, and one in the afternoon. On Sabbaths, an extra two lambs were offered in an extra sacrifice well as the regular two morning and afternoon offerings, an additional musaph=additional) sacrifice making a total of three sacrifices consisting of  four lambs (on behalf of the whole of Israel), and on festivals, there were similar additional 'musaph' offerings in addition to the two daily burnt offerings. Twice a day is not exceptional, it is the basic tamid meaning always, continual, regular normal offering. It was the regular normal offering. RPSM 21:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Applied linguistics and the philosophy of language
What works in one language will not necessarily work in another. Colours are one section of a continuous spectrum divided up into colours. Whereas in English, two colours: blue and green are recognised as being two distinct colours; Welsh has only one word that covers both. This is because the idea of colours as a reality "out there" is only an illusion. They are artificial categories picked out by common (unconscious) consent from a continuum. Welsh speakers who do not speak English have to learn to recognise new categories from colour samples to understand where the dividing line goes. So words are not fixed - especially abstract concepts. A large part of what a word means is lodged in the individual's consciousness and understanding. And different people understand different things according to the surroundings they are used to - their environment. A Hopi Indian might understand by "ritual slaughter" the slaughter of golden eagles, if that is his main preoccupation.

Usage is one criterion which gives the normal public meaning of a word. If it a word is frequently used by most people to mean the same thing, then that is what most people will understand when the word is used. If you google Ritual Slaughter (1 090 000 hits - 710 shown) then the this phrase is used exclusively to mean Jewish or Muslim slaughter for the first few hundred entries. The Hopi Indians come somewhere near the end of the first 700 hits and there are over one million hits altogether. Regards,                  RPSM 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Should one not follow practice today of avoiding the term "ritual slaughter" altogether?
Should one not follow the practice today of avoiding the term ritual slaughter altogether because of the unfortunate associations it conjures up, and how it has been deliberately misinterpreted? There were several blood libels during the schächten debates in Germany (Robin Judd, Politics and Beef) Italians used the English language for their document - quoted in the references and decided on "ritual slaughter". This influenced the character of the document itself. By way of introduction, we have an attempt to justify the term ritual slaughter, before going further in the argument, and it was from this document that the term "sacrificing cut" came. Muslims do indeed make what they call a sacrifice on Eid al Fitr at the end of Ramadan, Jews do not make sacrifices nowadays. One Stockholm rabbi made the disambiguative pronouncement that no ceremony or ritual is involved at all, and this was repeated in the appeal to the Swedish Jordbruksdepartemet Ministry of Agriculture that EU documents talk about a rite, when, in fact, no ceremony takes place at all. To call an act a rite or ceremony by virtue of a blessing is odd, when the blessings for washing the hands after going to the toilet are longer than the blessing for shehitah, and pious Jews aim to say 100 blessings a day - on seeing someone who is handicapped, a rainbow, eating an apple, etc etc. The short blessing which lasts less than ten seconds is said whenever one is fulfilling a commandment such as putting on a prayer shawl and there is a blessing originally intended for putting on a hat and another one to put on shoes and neither of these things are ceremonies, rituals or rites. Buddhism has a similar injunction to infuse a state of awareness into daily life. Note that the EU uses "religious slaughter" throughout. Sweden has dropped schäktning that is from the German schachten and is derived from Yiddish to shekht. They go for Grandin's kosher slaughter and they define it in one document (a report commissioned by the DO Diskrimineringsombudsman - the Ethnic Discrimination Ombudsman) to cover both Jewish and Muslim slaughter which might ruffle Muslim feathers, and anyway Jewish slaughter and Muslim slaughter are not necessarily identical despite a big overlap. Here in Wikipedia we are dealing right now with a misinterpretation due to the unfortunate terminological situation of having "ritual slaughter" both as a specialised term and a large general category. The rule in terminology is this: when one thing is confused with another, then a new term should be coined to keep the two separate. So in two legislations from different countries translators and terminologists avoid borrowing a well-know term unless both terms are exactly equivalent. eg registered partnership for homosexuals and not marriage. Explanations by way of introduction are in order, but two distinct terms avoids confusion. Now that recognised authorities have changed the usage (viz. Grandin and the EU), should not Wikipedia keep up? Look at how schächten is used today in German - I believe by way of historical reference - and "religious slaughter" being, I believe, the EU usage. RPSM 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article titles are based on common usage. See WP:NAME. "The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." "Ritual slaughter" has over 50,000 hits in Google, and the term is used by parties from all the major sides. --John Nagle 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The terminological authority for the EU has ritual slaughter, religious slaughter both from the same document and then - slaughter according to religious rite. Domain   Agricultural activity, Religionen Definition slaughter carried out in accordance with specific religious practices Definition Ref. Farm Animal Welfare Council,Report on the Welfare of Livestock when Slaughtered by Religious Methods,HMSO,1985,p3 Term ritual slaughter Reliability 3 (Reliable) Term Ref. Farm Animal Welfare Council,Report on the Welfare of Livestock when Slaughtered by Religious Methods,HMSO,1985,p3;OJEC L 62/1993 Date 24/09/2003

Term religious slaughter Reliability 3 (Reliable) Term Ref. Farm Animal Welfare Council,Report on the Welfare of Livestock when Slaughtered by Religious Methods,HMSO,1985,p3 Date 24/09/2003

Term slaughter according to religious rite Reliability 3 (Reliable) Term Ref. OJEC L 62/1993 Date 24/09/2003 Source: COM IATE ID: 1245218 http://iate.europa.eu/iatediff/FindTermsByLilId.do?lilId=1245218&langId=en and the first two terms were sourced to the FAWC 1985 report, now not on the web, only available in hard copy. A terminological institution is not infallible, and in turn only relies on the sources available. In any case, it is essential to include the term ritual slaughter, as hitherto this has been the standard term that corresponds to schächten (that I think ought to be mentioned as well - especially for international readers. There are no meat sacrifices today among Jews - only bread, when it is baked, as a symbolic reminder or the bread offering (taking challah). Muslims have sacrifices on one specific festival. Sikh slaughter is specifically to show that no prayers or blessings are said to allow everyone to partake, and claims to be swifter than Muslim and Jewish slaughter. I really seriously belive that the term ritual slaughter was used to avoid the terms Jew and Jewish at a time when some Jews were saying they were of the Mosaic persuasion. The Swedish Stockholm community officially changed its name from the Mosaisk församling (Mosaic community) to the Jewish Community. We are not afraid today to say Jew and Jewish, whereas, of course this could be dangerous to survival in the 30s. (Negroes have alternated between coloured, black (pride) and now African Americans. In the UK people say Jamaican, Barbados, St Kitts, whatever Island they are from (I'm from ...) without trying to refer to their African roots, (British) - Carribean. There is a debate on "Who is an Englishman?" http://www.gladwell.com/1996/1996_04_29_a_black.htm The "American" part of African American is to indicate that I am as good a patriot as you, while people from South America are very much annoyed that American can be a nationality, when the Americas are a geographical region, and why isn't someone from Chile or Argentina just as much an American as a citizen of the United States of America, that seems to lack a specific name for a person (Yankee? gringo?) on the formal level. This is just some thoughts round terminology which changes over time. Especially where taboo items, skirting round issues and Political Correctness occur. From one the POV of one individual, something is offensive, as ritual slaughter is to many Jews, but others accept it in the langugage. A British Jewish journalist, Bernard Levin, http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1279720,00.html was most annoyed that the OED the Oxford English Dictionary had decided to delete the definition of "Jew" as "swindler, crook, stingy, userer". Political correctness would befuddle those reading older literature with colloquial, even racist themes. Linguistically, the word Jew had been used in this way - like it or not. Language is on the move all the time, and an encyclopedia needs to be ahead when determining categories and fixing terminology. Political Correctness today demands religious slaughter as a catch-all reference, and ritual slaughter as a term to find older literature. RPSM 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that religious slaughter has as many Google hits as ritual slaughter. Of course some of the hits have ritual and slaughter in two different sentences ... The terminological authority within the EU lists ritual slaughter, religious slaughter, and As everything in the EU has to be translated into many different languages, there is a special terminological department to decide on what the preferred terminology is. Of course one can mention ritual slaughter at the start of the article, and even include the terminological discussion that prefaces one of the references. But religous slaughter must be mentioned because it is under this heading that everything goes for people who follow EU usage. In a Swedish legal text, rite (from ritual) has been translated into ceremony which is way off beam, and this has caused legislators to say that they very much regret this misunderstanding - but it is a translation mistake. You can find this use of "ceremony" in the motion in the Swedish Riksdag in 2005, which I have translated, below: it is in the 7th paragraph,. It should not read *in connexion with religious ceremonies, but in connexion with religious slaughterRPSM 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name
Google gives about 1 000 000 hits for ritual slaughter and about 1 000 000 hits for religious slaughter. (but these include the words broken up in two separate sentences). There is kosher, or Jewish slaughter (shehitah), halal or Muslim slaughter (and the Arabic terms), and Sikh Jhakta slaughter. Religous slaughter covers all three. Ritual slaughter includes many practices that are forbidden in Judaism and Islam, and some people avoid it to avoid causing offence. In an article: Religiös slakt (Religious slaughter) there is an introductory note explaining the writer's preference for the term he uses as his title and throughout the article. I will try to find it and put it here. RPSM 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Motion presented to the Swedish Riksdag to permit Religious Slaughter 3 October 2005 ==

This is a proposal to enact legislation in the Swedish Riksdag.

''Förbudet mot slakt enligt koscher- och halal-regler är ett hinder för människor som vill leva i enlighet med sin tro. Andra länder har klarat att förena religionsfrihet med djurskydd. Det är dags att Sverige ändrar sin lag från 1930-talet om förbud mot judiska och muslimska slaktmetoder, säger jag i en riksdagsmotion.''

'''The ban on slaughter according to kosher and halal precepts presents an obstacle for those who want to live according to their faith. Other countries have managed to combine Freedom of Religion with Animal Welfare. It's about time that Sweden changes its law that dates from the 1930s, I said, in a motion to the Swedish Riksdag.''' ''Religiös slakt av Martin Andreasson (fp)''

'''Religious slaughter by Martin Andreasson (Folkpartiet. Liberal Party)'''

Förslag till riksdagsbeslut

Proposition for enactment.

''Riksdagen tillkännager för sin mening vad i motionen anförs om möjligheten till religiös slakt i Sverige. That the riksdag enacts what is proposed in the motion concerning permitting religious slaughter in Sweden.

Motivering

''Den svenska djurskyddslagstiftningen innehåller ett generellt förbud mot att slakta djur utan föregående bedövning. I 14 § anges djurskyddslagen att husdjur ska vara bedövat när blodet tappas av och att andra åtgärder vid slakten inte får vidtas innan djuret är dött. Detta innebär att vissa religiösa slaktmetoder inte är tillåtna i Sverige.''

Motivation

'''Swedish Animal Welfare Legislation contains a general ban on slaughtering animals without previous stunning. Section 14 of the Protection of Animals Act, requires that domestic animals be stunned before blood letting and that other precautions at slaughter may not be taken before the animal is dead. This means that certain types of religious slaughter are banned in Sweden.'''

''När det i denna motion talas om religiös slakt avses så kallad skäktning, det vill säga att djuret slaktas genom att en rakbladsvass kniv förs i ett obrutet drag genom matstrupen, luftstrupen och halspulsådrorna. Denna slaktmetod ingår i både de judiska föreskrifterna om koscher och de muslimska föreskrifterna om halal. Avgörande i båda religionerna är att djuret inte stressas under slakten och känner så lite smärta som möjligt.''

'When the term religious slaughter is mentioned in this motion,, what is being referred to is what is known as shächten'' where a razor sharp knife is wielded in an uninterrupted stroke across the trachea, the oesophagus and the carotid arteries. This method of slaughter is part of the precepts of Jewish shehittah and Muslim halal slaughter. What is vital in both religions is that the animal is not stressed during slaughter and feels as little pain as possible.'''

''År 1937 förbjöds skäktning i Sverige. Även om frågan gjordes till ett renodlat djurskyddsärende som behandlades inom ramen för slaktlagen kan man diskutera om detta var det enda motivet för reformen. Detta visas bland annat genom vad departementschefen anförde i propositionen (1937:188, min kursivering): ”Oavsett hur det förhåller sig med graden av lidande som vid skäktningen tillfogas djuret, föreligger även andra omständigheter som tala för ett skäktningsförbud. Man kan således inte bortse från att skäktningen gör ett mera motbjudande och råare intryck på åskådaren än bedövningsslakten. […] Vidare måste beaktas, att det otvivelaktigt för stora delar av vårt folk framstår såsom stötande att en sådan slakt är lagligen tillåten […].”''

'In 1937 schächten'' was banned in Sweden. Even though the question was made out to be purely a case of Animal Welfare being dealt with under the framework of the Slaughter Act, it is debatable whether this was the sole motive for the reform. This can be easily demonstrated by a number of items, one of them being the the text of a proposal (to enact legislation) by the Head of the Department (1937:188, ) "Regardless whatever the case may be concerning the degree of suffering inflicted on the animal, there are other circumstances  which support a schächten  ban. Thus, we cannot disregard the fact that schächten makes a more disgusting and brutal impression on the observer than does slaughter by stunning. (...) Not only that, we have to take into consideration that, undoubtedly, for large sections of our population, it appears offensive to them that this kind of slaughter  is legally permitted. [...]'''

''Med andra ord fanns det inte bara djurskyddshänsyn bakom förbudet utan också en vilja att ta avstånd från judarnas traditionella religiösa slaktmetod. Att förbudet infördes vid denna tid bör ses i ljuset av den internationella utvecklingen. Schweiz förbjöd skäktning redan 1893, Norge följde efter 1930, Tyskland i och med nazisternas maktövertagande 1933 och Sverige alltså 1937. I alla områden som var underkuvade av nazisterna under andra världskriget var skäktning förbjuden. Förbudet hävdes efter krigsslutet i alla länder utom Norge, Schweiz och Sverige. Även Island har i dag ett generellt förbud mot skäktning.''

'''In other words it was not only consideration for Animal Welfare that lay behind the ban, but also a desire to reject Jewish traditional religious slaughter. The fact that the ban was introduced at this particular time in ought to be veiwed in the light of developments on the international scene at the time. Switzerland had banned schächten by 1893, Norway followed suit in 1930, Germany with the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 and  Sweden did so in 1937. In all the areas subjugated by the Nazis during the Second World War they banned shehitah. The ban was lifted at the end of the war in each and every country except Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. Today, Iceland also has a general ban on schächten.'''

''Den svenska hållningen till religiös slakt präglas av dubbelmoral. Utgångspunkten för all lagstiftning borde vara att den bygger på principer som är generella och skulle kunna förverkligas i alla länder. Den svenska linjen förutsätter däremot att andra länder inte följer vårt exempel.''

'''The Swedish attitude to religious slaughter is hypocritical. The starting point for any legislation ought to be that it is based on are universal principles, which can be actuated in  each and every country. The Swedish line is, however, that other countries should not follow our example.'''

''Å ena sidan har vi totalförbud mot religiös slakt, å andra sidan accepterar vi att enskilda människor löser detta dilemma genom att importera kött från djur slaktade enligt kosher- och halalföreskrifter i andra länder. Den som håller kosher eller strikt håller sig till halalföreskrifterna kan rentav i särskilda fall serveras sådan kost inom offentlig verksamhet, t.ex. under värnpliktstjänstgöring.''

'On the one hand we have a total ban on religious slaughter, on the other we accept that individuals solve this dilemma by importing meat from animals that have been slaughtered according to kosher and halal'' precepts in other countries. Those who keep kosher or strictly follow the precepts ofhalal can, even in certain cases, be served this this kind of food under the aegis of the government e.g. when doing military service in the Armed Forces.'''

''I EU:s slaktdirektiv är grundprincipen att djur skall bedövas före avblodning. Där ges dock möjlighet att slakta djur genom avblodning utan föregående bedövning i samband med religiösa ceremonier, en möjlighet som Sverige alltså inte tillämpar. Även länder som tillåter religiös slakt har vanligtvis olika regler för att säkerställa djurskyddshänsyn, till exempel krav på bedövning omedelbart efter snittläggning, närvaro av veterinär och fixering av djuret.''

'''In the EU directive on slaugher the basic principle is that animals must be stunned before blood letting. However, there is a provision that allows animals to be slaughtered without prior stunning in connexion with religious ceremonies, [this should read religious rites - translator's note] an provision that Sweden does not apply. Even countries permitting religious slaughter usually have various rules and regulations that guarantee Animal Welfare, for example, a requirement that the animal is stunned immediately after the cut is made, the presence of a vetenarian and the stabilization of the animal.'''

''Djurskyddsmyndigheten redovisade i april 2005 en rapport där man på nytt utvärderar olika frågor kring religiös slakt. Bland annat görs en översikt av lagstiftningen i olika länder. Särskilt intresse ägnas Nya Zeeland, där det förekommer reversibel elektrisk bedövning av nötkreatur i samband med halalslakt. Djurskyddsmyndighetens slutsats är att hanteringen av djuren i samband med elektrisk bedövning kan göras på ett djurskyddsmässigt acceptabelt sätt, under förutsättning att djuren hanteras lugnt och fixeringsboxen är väl utformad, så att djuren är fixerade under en mycket kort tid. Bedövningseffekten vid elektrisk bedövning av den aktuella typen är dokumenterat god.''

'''In April 2005, the Animal Welfare Agency presented a report where once again various questions concerning religious slaughter were evaluated. One of these was a table comparing the legislation applicable in various countries. New Zealand was singled out, where reversible electric stunning of bovines in connexion with halal slaughter is used. The conclusion the Animal Welfare Agency came to was that the handling of the animal in connexion with electrical stunning could be done in such a way that Animal Welfare requirements are met, provided that the animal is handled in a calm manner, that the stabilization box is well designed, so that the animal is held for only a very brief period. The anaesthetisation effect of the electical stunning used in here has been documented  effective and satisfactory.'''

''Även om själva bedövningsmetoden bedöms vara effektiv och tillförlitlig pekar dock Djurskyddsmyndigheten på att den ändå inte kan införas i Sverige, eftersom svensk lag och EU:s slaktdirektiv inte tillåter de metoder som slakten förutsätter. Bland annat gäller detta användningen av immobilisering (elektrisk stimulering i syfte att hämma muskelryckningar i slaktkroppen), som strider mot svenska regler om att inga andra åtgärder (utöver avblodning) får vidtas med slaktkroppen förrän djuret är dött.''

Even though the actual stunning method has been evaluated as being effective and reliable, the Animal Welfare Agency points out that it still cannot be introduced into Sweden, because Swedish Law and the EU's Slaughter Directive do not allow the methods this type of slaughter presupposes: one of these being use of immobilization (electrical stimuli to inhibit muscle convulsions in the slaughtered cadaver), and this breaches Swedish regulations that stipulate no other precautions (apart from blood letting) may be initiated before the animal is dead.

''Djurskyddshänsynen måste alltid väga tungt. Det gäller också vid religiös slakt. Samtidigt är det ett faktum att den svenska lagstiftningen har utformats helt utan hänsyn till de särskilda aspekter som olika religioner anlägger på slaktmetoder. En skenbart neutral lagstiftning blir i praktiken ett hinder för människor att kunna leva i enlighet med sin tro.''

'''Regard for Animal Welfare must always be a priority. And indeed this is the case with religious slaughter as well. At the same time it is a fact that Swedish legislation has been drafted without any concern for the special aspects that certain religions require when slaughtering. What superficially appears to be impartial legislation, becomes, when put into practice an obstacle for individuals to be able to live according to the requirements of their faith.'''

''Den svenska lagstiftningen måste alltså förändras, eftersom den inte är någon hållbar lösning på avvägningen mellan djurskyddshänsyn och religionsfrihet. Inte minst mot bakgrund av de möjligheter som Djurskyddsmyndigheten pekar på bör arbetet fortsätta med att skapa ett regelverk som ger möjlighet till religiös slakt och samtidigt skapar tillräckliga garantier för djurskyddshänsyn. Det får ankomma på regeringen att avgöra närmare åtgärder.''

'''The Swedish legislation must be altered, because, in the long run, it is not a valid solution when weighing Animal Welfare against the Freedom of Religion. Not least with regard to the background of the options that the Animal Protection Authority has pointed out, work should continue to construct a legal framework that will allow religious slaughter, and, at the same time, create sufficient guarantees regarding Animal Welfare. I leave it to the government to decide on more specific measures.'''

''Stockholm den 3 oktober 2005

Martin Andreasson (fp)''

'''Stockholm den 3 October 2005

Martin Andreasson (Folkpartiet Liberal Party)'''

The original Swedish is at: http://www.martinandreasson.nu/news.asp?ID=287

RPSM 03:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Translation revised RPSM (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on motion
Although I think Wikipedia can certainly source statutes, treaties, court decisions and the like directly since such primary materials have inherent notability and relevance (although we can't do much more than paraphrase them), I'm not so sure about matters like motions and proposed bills by legislators. It seems to me a one-sentence summary - "Martin Areasson of the Swedish Folkpartiet Liberal Party introduced a motion to permit traditional religious slaughter in Sweden on 3 October 2005, which did not pass" - is all the clearly notable content here. The United States has large numbers of non-notable bills. People in Congress and State legislatures introduce bills all the time which no-one else pays any attention to. For this reason, I'm not sure that Wikipedia should quote or provide details about the arguments associated with introduced bills without some additional evidence -- a legislative debate indicating other legislators thought the bill worth comment, or an outside source like a newspaper or academic source indicating that it was notable and received independent attention. My intention is to be even-handing about ensuring that all sides of the issue are covered using reliable sources and that Wikipedia is not used as a soapbox for arguments which lack independent evidence of notability. I note that there is no article on this individual. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the motion represents research by speech writers digging up information. The quote from the debate in the 1930s is lifted from the article Religious slaughter given as a reference by the Italian government paper in the wiki references, and the bit at the end refers to a train of events by the Swedish Authorities to put into motion a questionaire to many countries producing a table of whether they ban ritual slaughter, or require post stunning, the presence of a veterinarian, etc. - there were visits to view shehitah in the US and the singling out of New Zeeland and that that method would be acceptable. Swedish and EU legislation prevent this going ahead, so this is a useful analysis of status quo. RPSM (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism
Doesn't Sikhism have rules on the slaughter of animals in the same or a similar way to the ways that Judaism and Islam have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.38.153 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Search for "religious slaughter" provides more hits than
RPSM (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

you want to use quote marks. Google has been around for ten years, you should consider investing a few minutes to learn coping with its syntax. --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The current term today for Jewish shechita (shehitah) and halal slaughter (Dhab) appears to be "Religious Slaughter"
One of the problems that immediately arises using the term Ritual Slaughter is the fantasy (that must be immediately and routinely disabused) that Ritual Slaughter involves a ritual or ceremony. The word "ritual" refers to what is known as Ceremonial Law. RPSM (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

XXXXX

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadhimai_festival ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.201.233.126 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Conscious after decapitation
Could someone please add this aspect: Source Wikipedia 'decapitation' ... Modern scientific measurements exist on rats decapitated under EEG.[9][10][11] Accordingly, after decapitation, activity drops exponentially. After about 3 to 4 seconds, the levels drop below 50% of an active brain, which is taken as a sure sign that conscious awareness no longer exists. ... All authors conclude that there is a conscious perception of pain in the first few seconds after a decapitation. CrisssCrosss (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Opposite Informations
The text mention that ritual slaughter is banned in Belgium. The map doesn't show. ? CrisssCrosss (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)