Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. noone hasd clearly rebutted the argument that this is synth and OR and the vast majority of the keep votes are by assertion

Mishk'vei ishah

Mishk'vei ishah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• (Nomination) Delete and move whatever is salvageable into
  LGBT topics and Judaism and this OR/Essay should be deleted. Avi (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Its just a merge of the material that was in
  XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Both those articles seem to have their own issues.
    -- Banjeboi 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete 1. The title is an obstruse Hebrew term and in itself not notable. 2. This is just an article about homosexualism and the bible. 3. More precisely, an essay. Surely we have better places to discuss this. Precisely as the nominator suggested. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, its about the specific thing mentioned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Not any other instances of homosexuality, nor homosexual acts. The alternative title would be the clunky The thing described in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Since the equivalent term mishkav zachar is used in english-language discussions of halakha (in Judaism), mishkvei ishah seems the best title to put it under (mishkav zachar - bedding a man - being just one interpretation among many of what mishkvei ishah means). And I have to say that the use of the term homosexualism does rather give away a bias. Newman Luke (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned a few reasons. You have addressed one, and even that not to my satisfaction.

My use of words may be indicative more of my level of English as a foreign language, than of any prejudice. Please keep Wikipedia:Assume good faith in mind. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually

TEFL people telling you to use homosexualism rather than homosexuality? They should be struck off. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Avi (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It does not matter at all where the material comes from, it is neither helped nor hurt by being taken from the two articles mentioned. The article has value because it is an exegesis of an important Biblical term. It is extensively sourced from secondary sources, and its use of primary sources seems to be in large part a linking back to Biblical texts in largely uncontroversial and non-POV manner. If there is a problem with any particular citation it should be addressed individually. While there are issues here and there (mostly already tagged), that is run of the mill for any Wikipedia article. Most importantly, I found the article informative, useful and balanced. I have done quite a bit of work in the field of history of homosexuality and there was a lot of material here that I had not previously come across. One caveat, I also have problems with the title, but that may be partly resolved by including a list of important translations, from KJ onwards. Haiduc (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - previously merged content into a much stronger,
  mergers. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete (and restore content to the original articles) per nominator. This is a violation of
  WP:NOR. IZAK (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This does not read like an encyclopedia entry. If there is valid content here (and there may well be), I would recommend moving it into existing topics on Homosexuality and the Bible, etc. The title of the article is too esoteric, and it is unlikely that anyone would search for a topic under that name. —Dfass (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Dfass. -- Nahum (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is no more esoteric than shatnez, tzaraath, or tallit, all of which discuss specific bible verses, and the meaning/consequences of them. I'd also like to point out that there's not really another reasonable alternative - there are disputes over whether it refers to homosexuals or to homosexual acts, so you can't even call it male-male sex act(s) forbidden by Leviticus, which is pretty clunky as it is. Furthermore, the use of 'etc.' in Dfass's comment is a good example of why it needs to be a distinct article - its discussed in too many places for it to be comprehensive anywhere other than in its own article; otherwise the coverage would always vary in depth and coverage of points of view, depending on which articles its in. There wouldn't be anything linking the coverage together, but there is when there's a proper article about it. Newman Luke (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is more esoteric. shatnez is a concept only existing within the framework of halakha. tzaraath as commonly understood by Torah-Jewry is unrelated to leprosy and desreves its own article. tallit is the name of a traditional Jewish garb, and deserves going by its Hebrew name. None of these arguments apply here, since the issue is part of a broader one of The Bible and homosexuality and no one calls it "Mishk'vei ishah" except as a euphemism in said Biblical context. I suggest you do a simple google search for shatnez, tzaraath & tallit vs. Mishk'vei ishah, discarding instances of direct quotes from the Biblical verses. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Biblical Commentary.-- Nahum (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people call it mishk'vei ishah. Unfortunately its one of those terms that, due to orthography issues, have multiple spelling variations, making it harder to search. Furthermore, as mentioned in the article, Judaism often refers to it as Mishkav Zachar. However, this latter term means "bedding a male", which is a specific

WP:NPOV. Equally, it cannot be anal sex in the bible, because that's also one point of view, and not therefore neutral. The only option is to say what it says, without interpreting it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talk • contribs

)

As for there being "no alternative," it fits perfectly into "The Bible and homosexuality" and does not require its own article. Unless you think Wikipedia needs a new article titled homosexuality and halakha, in which case you'd need to rewrite Mishk'vei ishah to fit that description. As it is, however, the article cannot stand. -- Nahum (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit perfectly into "The Bible and homosexuality". Firstly see

a content forking problem is to discuss it in one place. Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as a detailed article on an important small facet of
  talk) 12:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep there will be references in detail to this as for all topics of Jewish law. In fact, there's a good start in the article as it stands. . I completely fail to grasp the view that articles on Jewish law should not be written from a Jewish point of view, including other points of view on them of course, but that every topic treated there must be discussed only as a minor aspect of the broadest overall topic that corresponds, as if specifically Jewish (or other ) religious subjects were not worth detailed treatment in a comprehensive encyclopedia that is not limited by PAPER. We generally do write specialized articles about specific subjects when we can--we could for example collect everything about New York City into one article, or about the Bible. (Encyclopedias have been made that way, especially some French ones.) That we do otherwise is related the the medium we use, which is more amenable to fairly short presentations--but right or wrong, TOO DETAILED is not a deletion reason. I frankly consider this a sort of squeamishness about sexual issues, particularly sexual issues where some Jewish interpretations whether now or in the past that are opposed to the 21st century secular consensus. Previous arguments on related articles have used the concept that we should not discuss them because some anti-Semites might use them to attack the Jews--this of course is a total violation of NOT CENSORED -- and of common sense, because anti-Semites have historically used anything at all about Judaism, true or imaginary, to attack the Jews. Any problems about POV should be dealt with by adding material. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG: You seem to be protesting too much. No one opposes any kind of articles from any point of view as long as it's truly valid, but when a 3,300 year old classical HEBREW phrase, taken out of context from not just its verse: Leviticus 18:22 וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא. Transliterated: "ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei ishah to'eivah hi" full verse says: "and do not lie with a male like with a woman, it is an abomination/perversion" and Leviticus 20:13 וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה--תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם. Transliteration: "veish asher yishkav et zachar mishkevei ishah to'eivah asu, shneihem mot yumatu demeihem bam" full verse says: "and a man that will lie with a male the way of lying with a woman an abomination/perversion have they done, they shall be put to death, their blood/guilt is upon them", so here one can clearly see that to take "mishkevei ishah" out of the full and proper context of its OWN full verse, chapter, book, and original religion is irresponsible and violates
    WP:NONSENSE, just a pathetic word salad. Nonsense is also "something" but it isn't the criteria for Wikipedia articles. IZAK (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • IZAK you must know that's a really biased translation. Mishkvei and Tishkav have exactly the same triconsonantal root - Sh-K-V. ...tishkav mishkvei... can only be translated accurately as something like ...bed beddings... or ...lay layings...; any translation that uses completely different words for the two terms is utterly dishonest. There's absolutely no way it can be directly rendered with words inserted between them, and absolutely no way to claim that it directly says way of laying rather than just lyings. And its also abundently clear in the text that mishkvei is genitive - that it means of-a-woman not with a woman. Hence that it literally says ...with a male lay layings of a woman... and not ...lie with a male like with a woman.
      • Newman, as you well know, translation is an art and not a perfect science. Even the Greeks who tried to translate the Torah into the Septuagint about 2200 years ago didn't get it right. Wikipedia is not a language lab to experiment with all sorts of word forms. Wikipedia CAN say, this is the Orthodox viuew, the Reform view, the Conservative view, the Christian view, but it CANNOT make up its own views as you are trying to do, camouflaging it vociferously under the cloak of twenty modern-day essays from jonny-come-lately academics spouting their pro-gay agenda. They don't care about the Bible, they only care about legitimizing gay sex. That is a social trend. While Orthodoxy cannot abide by that, Reform and Conservative do. So be it. Wikipedia can only report that by describing and explaining, but what you are doing is taking it many steps further by trying to make Wikipedia into the "matrix" of a pro-gay "Jewishly seeming ideology" which is wrong and will fail. If you succeed, which is unlikely, Wikipedia's articles about Judaism will become the laughing stock of the world. It is nearly impossible to translate everything pedantically especially if it leads you to the opposite conclusion of what the verse/s intend in the first place. While you are obviously intent on implying that the Torah did not know what it was saying and that you therefore feel it must be driving at legitimating some forms of homosexual behaviors between men, on the other hand, it is very obvious that the Torah is not doing what you say it's doing with all your word-play. There is no such thing in English as "layings of a woman" and in addition you have totally overlooked the fact the principle of dibra Torah belashon nekiah that the Torah speaks in "clean language" meaning this that it does not use explicit X-rated words even when it's very clearly describing and forbidding an X-rated act, i.e. in this case all homosexual sex between males. All your backward flips cannot save you from the rational, logical clear-cut meaning of these two verses, and not make it into a disembodied phrase taken out of context. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for "into the matrix...", you must realise that Reform and Conservative Judaism together with Liberal Judaism constitute the majority of Judaism - there are more people in these denominations than in Orthodox. If they all "legitimiz[e] gay sex", then that's the majority Jewish view, regardless of what Orthodox Judaism thinks. As it happens Orthodox Judaism also officially views the prohibition as one against anal sex, rather than all homosexuality in general, but that's beside the point. You cannot legitimately describe the official point of view of the majority of Jews as "Jewishly seeming ideology...which is wrong". As for "jonny-come-lately academics spouting their pro-gay agenda", thats a massively biased prejudiced attitude to take, and really you should be ashamed for expressing it. See
          wikipedia's sourcing policy, to exclude them. Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Newman says, IZAK responds: (1) "you must realise that Reform and Conservative Judaism together with Liberal Judaism constitute the majority of Judaism - there are more people in these denominations than in Orthodox. If they all "legitimiz[e] gay sex", then that's the majority Jewish view, regardless of what Orthodox Judaism thinks." -- This is truly an appalling statement. So now Orthodox Judaism has no say? The mother religion subjected to
            WP:WAR. IZAK (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
    • Additionally its abundently clear, even from your own translation, that that refers to specific sex act(s), and not to any sex acts that have no equivalent between a man and woman. Its also abundently clear that it does not actually detail what sex acts lay layings refers to - it doesn't clearly identify whether it includes mutual fellatio, for example. And its also abundently clear that it definitely does not refer to romantic feelings, which aren't even mentioned; there's nothing there condemning a homosexual relationship that involves kissing but not sex.
      • Newman, you are "intellectualizing" homosexual actvities. Kissing and hugging and oral sex are not mentioned in the verse/s, but it does not mean that because the Torah does not specifically refer to it that it's "permissible" or "accepted" or "admirable" or "desirable" behavior according to classical Judaism (not just "Orthodox" Judaism). On the contrary, as Maimonides and many others point out that many additional prohibitions even between men and women, such as hugging and kissing, even talking with others when it's obviously sexually oriented is outright forbidden and a sin according to the Torah, be it by the rabbis going back to the earliest era of the Oral Law or as self-understood from the Torah itself which requires the Jewish People to be an "am kadosh" ("holy nation") and "kedoshim tiheyu" ("be holy/sanctify yourselves") which as Rashi expounds means "distance yourself from immorality" ("arayot") and he does NOT say "hey guys, french kiss anyone you like, hug anyone erotically and do
        blow jobs all you like," because that is NOT what classical Judaism was ever about and NOT what the Torah intends or gives any dispensations for. While our flesh may be weak and we as humans make plenty of errors, but the Torah does not allow any of it upfront as you say it does, or make acceptable and permissible as you imply and declare so voluminously. None of this is my "original thought" by the way, and you know that. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I am very glad you agree that "Kissing and hugging and oral sex are not mentioned in the verse/s" . The obvious conclusion which you still appear to refuse to admit to yourself, is that the bible does not explicitly condemn "kissing and hugging and oral sex" between two men, and therefore it does not literally condemn homosexuality in general, nor all male-male sex. Such claims are mere opinions - notable though they may be - they are not what the bible actually says, just interpretations of it; they cannot be presented as what the bible says but only as what so and so thinks the bible is implying - see
          WP:ATTRIBUTION.Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Newman says, IZAK responds: (1) "I am very glad you agree that "Kissing and hugging and oral sex are not mentioned in the verse/s" ." -- Yes, so what? The Torah does not describe how
            WP:ATTRIBUTION." -- Rationalize all you want. There is no such animal as creating false conclusions that Jewish Law allows what your opinions, and latter-day opinion-makers say. IZAK (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
    • Furthermore, with regard to Judaism knowing what it is talking about. Have you actually ever considered that it is your perception of what Judaism is talking about which is flawed? Rashi, the Talmud, Josephus, Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, all officially regard that passage as referring specifically to Anal Sex. Quite why you think that your personal viewpoint (which contradicts the official exegesis of all these groups) is the official view of all Judaism throughout history, except modern groups, is utterly beyond me; not least because you haven't cited a single reliable source in favour of your claims. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So now what are saying, that Rashi and the Talmud and Orthodox Judaism permit or endorse deviant sexual behaviors in any way shape size or form? You cite articles written by latter-day professors with their own open pro-gay agenda that is not part of classical Judaism (Reform can allow it because they deny all the tenets of classical Judaism) but they have zero credibility when the reality of Judaism is the exact opposite. Would Rashi and the Talmud or any Orthodox rabbis or synagogue today or anytime allow
        WP:RS) because they do not accept the notions underlying the Torah and what its purpose is viewed as being for the last 3300 years. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Who exactly defines deviant. If you are trying to claim that all homosexuality is deviant. Go and read
          circular argument - that if they reach a pro-gay conclusion their research is pro-gay. As for Rashi and the Talmud in relation to strip shows, I would think they'd disallow them, but that would be on the basis of tzniut, not for any pro- or anti-gay reasons. I certainly don't think they'd regard strip-shows as prohibited by the rule against mishk'vei ishah; there's absolutely nothing in the Talmud or Rashi concluding from this anything against male-male sex, other than anal sex - men merely looking at naked men wouldn't even be in the same ball park.Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Newman says: (1) Who exactly defines deviant. If you are trying to claim that all homosexuality is deviant." -- This is not about opinions this is about what the
            Shulkhan Arukh and all working in unison which is what Orthodox Judaism is about. One of your fatal errors (you have a few when it comes to the subject of Judaism and Jewish Law) is that you assume that anyone can be a posek ("decisor" of Jewish Law) when only very few can do what you imagine you are abae to do with your outlandish opinions. IZAK (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
    • The article is about those two verses, specifically about what is being referred to in them. The title is just a convenience. An alternate title would be
      talk) 13:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Alynna, the article focuses on just two words and makes a mountain out of a molehill. It does not give the context. There should be full reference to verses and not just a chopping out of two words from them, building hyopthetical castles in the sky with skewered exegesis that has no connection to the normative body of classical Judaic scholarship as it has been studied, practiced and transmitted for over 3,300 years. This pathetic specimen of an article is violating
        WP:NONSENSE on a grand scale. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Several Jewish articles focus on just one or two words. Its not Original Research because its clearly and very obviously cited. Its clearly not Nonsense, also because its clearly and very obviously cited. 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talk • contribs)
          • The two words alone are not nonsense, but to detach them from their verse and create an entire article based on your notions of "exegesis" is 100% a violation of
            WP:NONSENSE. IZAK (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Delete--this belongs in The Bible and homosexuality. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with that argument. (1) It assumes that sub articles should never exist,

LGBT issues and Judaism, Leviticus 18, for example. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy close and merge. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp|username}}.

Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply