Talk:Jallikattu

repetition discussion

The sentence Jallikattu is a blood sport is used repeatedly and certain paragraphs with same content are repeated twice or thrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appandai26cs (talk • contribs) 12:59, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

Interested and familiar readers, please expand this article.--ganesh 23:43, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Controversy section flagged for expansion

In this edit I flagged the controversy section for expansion. My notes were fairly clear, I think, but I'll repeat 'em here:

There is insufficient context for why opponents are upset. Are there physical injuries that are inflicted directly to the bulls either on purpose or by accident (torn ears/tails/gouged eyes?). Are bulls hurt indirectly, like while fleeing? Some video suggests that bulls occasionally break limbs or are hit by vehicles. Are bulls sometimes fed alcohol? Chili powder in the eyes and genitals to agitate them? And then on the flip-side, what do the proponents argue are the benefits of the practice? Milk production for descendant cows seems to be one of the claims, (see comments above by Schandrasekar) but it's unclear how the process of Jallikattu directly impacts the production of descendant cow milk.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've found out that this is just a theory by farmers and pro Jallikattu activists. There is no scientific evidence to suggest whether they are right or wrong. It sounds logical but there is no proof. Maybe it could be mentioned in the article as a theory put forward by the proponents? But there is solid evidence that the indian bos indicus cattle produce A2 milk in the second link.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/jallikattu-even-if-there-is-a-revocation-tamil-people-should-ensure-sport-is-strictly-regulated-3210760.html http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Society%20Science%20Art/Status%20of%20milk%20protein,%20beta-casein%20variants%20among%20Indian%20milch%20animals%20(A1,%20A2).pdf --Schandrasekar (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There may be evidence and data in the book published by Karthikeya Sivasenapathy, but I don't have access to it as I live in Germany.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/skcrf-brings-out-book-on-kangayam-cattle-breed/article4021035.ece?textsize=large&test=1

--Schandrasekar (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The scientific evidence of how jallikattu helps in bio diversity is explained by BBC and thewire.in in the following links Agnelvishal (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

It's not explained very well in most of those sources, actually. How does a bunch of people jumping on a bull's hump directly cause increased biodiversity? Wouldn't less castration actually provide more genetic diversity? If the point of the selection process is to find the "best" bulls, aren't you actually decreasing biodiversity? Diversity would ostensibly mean more diversity. What congenital defects arise as a result of this breeding system? It's also unclear what metric is used for determining which bull to stud. How is the "winning" bull selected? Does the bull have to survive five minutes with people jumping on its back, or does it do this all day? If the crowd is malnourished and nobody has sufficient energy to grab the hump, does that artificially skew the results? If the crowd is wimpy, does a lesser bull wind up being the stud? How does that affect the A2 milk? There are a lot of unanswered questions, actually. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree - a lot of unanswered questions and speculations. On the question of biodiversity, in my limited research research of this, it appears that after the banning of Jallikattu, people were concerned that the breeds most used were not being bred and were possibly heading toward extinction. Just my take on the situation. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know what to make of that. (Not a criticism of you, DrC.) Why can't they continue to breed Bos indicus whether jallikattu is legal or not? How does a bunch of dudes grabbing a bull impact the animal's ability to procreate? It seems like two independent ideas intersecting, with no clear "this directly impacts that" statement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok - this is largely OR on my part, so please take it for that. The breeds used in Jallikattu are Bos indicus (hence the hump). These breeds are widely known for being much less productive (milk and meat) than Bos taurus breeds. So, when Jallikattu was banned, there was less of a need for these Bos indicus breeds and a change to raising Bos taurus breeds. It seems it was felt by some that this led to a decline in the Bos indicus numbers which would eventually lead to a decrease in biodiversity. As to hanging off a hump leading to increased procreation or milk production, I can speculate on this, but it is purely speculation. It appears that if a bull "wins" at Jallikattu, it is used for further breeding. If (a huge "IF") there is a genetic link between the behaviour the bull shows to win, and better procreation or milk production, then these genes would be passed on to his offspring. Please can I make clear I am not suggesting this actually happens, but I can see how it might happen. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This also has to do with money. Bulls that win in Jallikattu, i.e. are able to successfully throw of players and run a predetermined distance (100 or 200 meters normally), can be sold for higher prices at the local market. Jallikattu in a sense is a valuable economic activity for cattle breeders and farmers. Normally bulls are sold as cheap as Rs.10,000/- but bulls that win Jallikattu once or many times are sold for as much as Rs200,000/-. There is today in Tamil Nadu no other economic value in owning a bull, so if bulls lose in Jallikattu or if the event were not to take place farmers are forced to sell them to slaughterhouses. This information is from the Tamil debate show Neeya Naana aired on television in 10.01.2016. Again these are the opinions of cattle farmers and breeders who participated in the debate not scientific fact. The cattle farmers have argued that they have not had enough funds to do research and prove their theory. Hope this helps. --Schandrasekar (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits to the section were reverted by 'saving' to a previous version, despite the edit summary clearly stating that the 'sources' referred to do not match what the article text states. There is no mention of PETA being involved since 2004, One of the refs even fraudulently links to a Trump article instead. These obviously don't deserve to be included on the page. Trinidade (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am the editor who reverted you. The reason was because some of your edits were correct, others were not. It was easiest to start again. Please slow down if you are going to delete sourced material to allow other editors to provide consensus or not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, i've removed the cited web reference that does not have anything to do with Jalikattu. Also there is no material in the given ref that PETA had been protesting since 2004.Trinidade (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the reference was largely correct although the URL was not - I have replaced this. I have not looked at the source for the PETA content. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DrChrissy. Also note that bulls don't produce milk and bulls are in lesser need today because of ploughing through tractor and less dependence on cow dung as fertilizer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnelvishal (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue?

I'm concerned that a large portion of the rules section appears verbatim here in the image of the bull holding the list of rules. The article was published on 13 January 2017. It appears that the specific wording, like "No bull tamer will hit or hurt the bull in any manner." was added here on 19 January 2017. @Krg353: Since you added this content, I'm curious where you got it from. Your response would be appreciated, please. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have edited this page quite a bit. There have been several discussions about differences in what terms mean in different cultures. Do you think simply placing the rules in quotes with suitable attribution would overcome the problem? By the way, your ping has come up as a red link. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe the redlink exists b/c the user doesn't have a user page. I don't know if wrapping the rules in quotes and attributing would constitute fair use. I'm also a little skeptical that there are official "rules" since this is a rural thing practiced by tons of people, and I'm sure each area has its own variation. The "No contestant should hit or hurt the bull in any manner" rule seems like a convenient afterthought written in the wake of the controversy. Is it really a "rule" that the bull enters through the entry gate? That sounds more like just a procedural thing. Maybe the numbered list isn't the way to go and maybe it makes more sense to do something like this:

Bulls enter the competition area through a gate called the vadi vasal. Typically, participants must only hold onto the bull's hump, and in some variations they are disqualified if they hold onto the bull's neck, horns or tail. There may be several goals to the game depending on region. In some versions, contestants must either hold the bulls hump for 30 seconds or for 4.6 metres (15 ft). If the contestant is thrown by the bull or falls, they lose. Some variations only allow for one contestant. If two people grab the hump, then neither person wins.

Better? Worse? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I share your concerns about the "Rules" - how widespread they are and the afterthought possibility. I like your version above very much, but what source would you cite? DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The one that follows the existing list. This. I'll make the change. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Special case?

Nearly no author seems to write jallikattu with the 'j' in lower case. I just checked ngram. What is to be done here? King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@King Prithviraj II: Do we normally conform to widespread ignorance? That'd be pretty much my counter-argument. We don't capitalise bullfighting or rodeo or race car driving or boxing, or hockey. Why would Jallikattu be any different? It is not a person, a place or a trademark as far as we know. Also, there are reliable sources that prefer the lowercase, like The Hindu, Times of India, Firstpost, etc. Note also that even in matters of direct quotations, we retain editorial options to repair typos and remove "ums" and "hmms", as necessary. My point being, we are not required to blindly adhere to what other people do if it doesn't make sense. In this case, capitalising jallikattu makes little grammatical sense. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I was leaning towards following the proper grammar conventions, ie. 'j' in lower case, I just wanted to see what other users thought of this. Regards, King Prithviraj II (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jallikattu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170126115359/http://newstodaynet.com/chennai/awbi-withdraw-plea-against-tn-jallikattu-law to http://newstodaynet.com/chennai/awbi-withdraw-plea-against-tn-jallikattu-law

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Telugu definition?

@Ripapart: re: this edit, it's unclear why we would include a Telugu definition of jallikattu in a section where we're explaining the etymology of the Tamil word. I've removed it for now, but if you feel strongly about its inclusion, please explain further so we can figure out whether or not it belongs in that section and if it does, how it should intuitively be presented. It doesn't quite make sense to put it in the middle of the existing content. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The root of the words jalli and kattu have origin in telugu borrowed into tamil. Ripapart (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)