Talk:Kil'ayim (prohibition)

Deletion of WP:RS

The only ref RS in the stub were deleted in an unmarked edit this morning:

1. Walter C. Kaiser Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament - Page 161 1991 "37 Thus, for Leviticus 19:19 (on breeding and fertilization), it is clear that the informing theology and undergirding morality was to be found in the creative purpose (Gen 1:11 - 12). But was this prohibition against cross-breeding and
2. Talmud Bavli: Tractate Chullin, vol.3 Hersh Goldwurm, Nosson Scherman - 2004 "Another application is to the prohibition against crossbreeding, which the Gemara will discuss shortly (Rashi on 70b). 8. Leviticus 19:19.

We all of us forget edit summaries sometimes, but given that the earlier edit summary for a move to an English title noted that it was per sources, the deletion of the sources prior to a revert of the page move may not be ideal Wikipedia etiquette. Would the editor who deleted the sources care to explain? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Page title WP:UE

Google Books and Google Scholar appear (as per edit summary earlier and WP:RS deleted above) to support an English language title such as "prohibition against crossbreeding" above. Comments? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

First you discuss a move. Then when there's consensus for the move, you carry it out. You don't do it unilaterally, and frankly, someone who has shown such a vast ignorance of the way Jewish law works shouldn't be meddling in articles like this one anyway. Stop being disruptive. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Lisa,

Welcome to the article, and the Talk page. Actually please see WP:Move, a full RM is not initially required in all cases, for instance where this is the case:

English-language titles On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. However, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English language sources, it can be considered to be an English language word or phrase (example: Coup d'état).

Then also see Google Scholar. Or see the only 2 sources in article which you deleted, where the English Talmud has "prohibition against crossbreeding". However now you've turned up, and you want a discussion great, no problem. You can RM.

I don't see how myself adding the Talmud "meddling", or why you deleting the Talmud is not "disruptive", but whatever ... I really don't want to fight. I won't restore the Talmud. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The references you added have very little to do with the topic, they just mention it in passing. Most of the Halachic sources that discuss Kil'ayim are cited in the template in the upper right side of the article.

The common usage English term for this is Kil'ayim. If you want to change it to Kilayim (without the apostrophe) then that can be open for discussion, but to change it to "prohibition against crossbreeding" would mean that most of the people looking for information on the topic would only find it through a redirect. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiMaster3

As above Google Scholar fails to find almost anything for Kil'ayim. Have you checked this?

Also, I'm sorry but are you basing your argument on the fact that the Schottenstein Talmud has kil'ayim romanized in the English text? (I'm not sure that it does, but it may well do). If so the Schottenstein Talmud (or whatever source you are referring to) does not in itself make any difference, since WP:UE clearly states that where an English term exists (for example in the JPS Tanakh, Danby Mishnah, Epstein's Soncino Talmud) then the English term should be used in en.wikipedia. Even if Schottenstein-type Talmuds outnumbered English-English Talmuds 20-to-1, WP policy would still be to use English, since an English term exists. As for these halakhic texts relating to this article in the box Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11 (JPS Tanakh) have the term in English, Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kilayim (Soncino has it in English), Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Kilayim (Moses Hyamson, Bodleian Library has it in English). As for the use in Shulchan Aruch which English translation of Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah, 295-304 are you referring to? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The translation of the Shulchan Aruch that I've been using [1] does not use the term Kil'ayim specifically, that is just where the topic is discussed. Google scholar does have a lot of results for Kilayim (without the apostrophe). I am referring to the term that people usually use in common speech when discussing it. If you look on the websites of Chabad or Aish, the term used is Kilayim. --PiMaster3 ^talk 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiMaster3,

Thanks, but please check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES. I'm sure there are all kinds of websites out there. We can probably find a Greek Orthodox one that describes this in Greek, a Muslim one in Arabic, or a Catholic one in Latin, but none of these sites is WP:RS.

Going by what we've just said, all the Primary Sources (JPS Tanakh, Soncino etc are Primary per WP:PSTS) have English terms, "mixture of species" "crossbreeding" etc. and not a romanization of a foreign word. Likewise Google Books and Google Scholar show support for English terms over (outnumbering, though outnumbering isn't required) in Secondary and Tertiary sources against this proposed romanization for the foreign language. Particularly when excluding false positives that refer to the Hebrew Tractate Kilayim with a capital K, as opposed to kilayim. So where is the WP:RS evidence supporting the use of a romanization of a foreign word in English published texts rather than the English term?

Again, there's a difference between a Chabad website and MOS:COMMONALITY required for an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on In Ictu's poor presentation (cherry picking?) of sources supporting his attempted move of B'rov am hadrat melech (see the move request on the discussion page), I recommend that his presentation of sources here be taken with a grain of salt until someone else has had the time to check the sources independently with Google Book Search. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here too? Lisa, that's over a dozen pastes of the same charge. By all means anyone check Talk:B'rov am hadrat melech and themselves do a Google Books search. If anyone gets anything else than 1x vs 2,770x, then please record it on the page. Good luck In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move and keep article as is per Lisa and PiMaster3. The problem is that In ictu has come along with motions for sweeping changes like this all over the place that has just engendered WP:DISRUPT and near WP:WAR more than anything else. More WP:CONSENSUS is required otherwise such suggested changes just amount to being railroaded into In ictu's WP:POV. So let's all ease up and make improvements to the articles' WP:CONTENT rather than quibble over headings that can easily be accommodated by WP:REDIRECTS! See Category:Hebrew words and phrases for thousands of instances where transliterated Hebrew language words are legitimately used in WP articles. IZAK (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Restoring deletion of Walter Kaiser and Nosson Scherman

Hi PiMaster3, do you have any objection the deleted WP:RS being restored to the article? 1.Walter C. Kaiser Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament - Page 161 1991 "37 Thus, for Leviticus 19:19 (on breeding and fertilization), it is clear that the informing theology and undergirding morality was to be found in the creative purpose (Gen 1:11 - 12). But was this prohibition against crossbreeding and 2.Talmud Bavli: Tractate Chullin, vol.3 Hersh Goldwurm, Nosson Scherman - 2004 "Another application is to the prohibition against crossbreeding, which the Gemara will discuss shortly (Rashi on 70b). 8. Leviticus 19:19. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)