Talk:Abomination (Judaism)

Original research and the use of unreliable sources

 * , The Econimust source supports this, Some Muslims, however, advocate for LGBT rights.
 * This, however, is based on unreliable source(an anti-Muslim hate blog), In the Quran, abominations include idolatry, divination, gambling, and intoxicants; eating blood, dead meat, pig, or an offering made to a false god; homosexuality; and blasphemy. While the Quran does not specify any punishment for committing any abomination, some Hadiths specify the death penalty for committing homosexuality.

-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Economist source supports that gay relations are uncompromisingly condemned; and carries the death penalty in 7 Muslim countries. Our article LGBT_in_Islam also supports the statements, and gives at least 3 examples of haddiths. Give me one day, and I'll provide better sourcing than at present. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , so you will bring sources that talk about Abomination (Judaism) (the topic of this article).? Read WP:OR, This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you please stop quoting basic policies to veteran editors, and especially the usage of color and stripe effects. It is rather annoying, really. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I made some improvements. As I see it, at least. Feel free to comment. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with SharabSalam here. You can't just quote the Qur'an directly in this article, without any supporting secondary sources. The fact that you do constitutes WP:Original research on your part that a certain Qur'anic verse is connected to the Jewish concept of abomination. With regards to the Economist article, can you provide the quote where it connects condemnation of homosexuality by some Muslims to abomination in Judaism?VR talk  06:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all it is Quran. And yes, I can quote Quran verses, since Wikipedia does not say that usage of primary sources is original research, as you mistakenly suggest. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said what can be sources from the Economist source. Anything else can't. On a sidenote, there is no reason to demand that sources connect to abomination in Judaism. Abomination is the same in the context of Judaism and Islam. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Reversion
I have undone a large number of edits which seemed to be original research, personal opinion or interpretation, bizarrely formatted, and just not really encyclopaedic. feel free to respond here and make a case for the edits i removed, but please don't redo them before starting a discussion. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You returned the site back to its previous state before my edits. You deleted all my edits. My edits were absolutely truthful. I have read the Bible in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek. I have also read a lot of the Latin Bible. I know what the original words mean in their Biblical contexts & usage. I know when the original word has been corrupted to mean something else. The English Bible has a lot of words of Latin origin that the English language has changed its meaning. "Abomination, Pastor, etc." are some of them. "Abomination" is of Latin origin and means: " Abhorrence (something abhorred)." That's also the first meaning of the Hebrew word "to-e-vah." "Pastors" means: "shepherds" in Latin and that is what the Greek and Aramaic text also says (Eph. 4:11). There, "shepherds" has the metaphorical meaning, & hence refers to " priests, kings, queens, etc." The "priest" was the "shepherd" & the "flock" was his "congregation" OR the "king" was the "shepherd" and the "flock" was his "people."
 * This website is malicious and has a lot of misinformation, bias and lies. It's making a case off of lie after lie. There is no reason or basis to believe that TO-E-VAH, SHE-QETS & SHIQ-QUTS are referring to three degrees of "abomination." Total BS and hate. I demonstrated that. It also relies on Bible translations that aren't translated correctly. Its references have errors. I wasn't finished with the ISLAM edits so it was left with a rebuttal after the original paragraph. I was editing piecemeal based on my time.
 * Since this page & publisher(s) have no problem repressing truth, then I may just post my own Wikipedia page (version). I have my words saved & I have no problem with it being reviewed. I know my words are truthful. Who would have known that my "EXPERT personal opinion, interpretation & translation" would be deemed a disqualifier of it being included? I know firsthand that my words & proofs were truthful. Guess what, this webpage publisher is giving his personal opinion which many will not agree with. His webpage is propaganda.    BiblicalSch0lar (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm very sorry  feel this way.  You raise a number of points, some of which i will try to respond to.


 * 1) Your expertise is really irrelevant.  I, too, have some Biblical expertise ~ i have a degree from SBTS, served in a few churches in varying capacities, studied Greek, Latin, Hebrew, theology. &c., &c.  Doesn't matter a whit.  My personal experience or expertise does not matter.  What matters is what i can verify in reliable sources.  First, the community has no proof that what i say about myself is true (i could say i have been caught up to a heaven and conversed with a god about the meaning of various ancient words and the community would have no way of evaluating either that or any degrees i claim to have been awarded), and second, the encyclopaedia is a collection of verifiable information ~ that is information that anyone can verify by going to the sources we use, those which lie behind our articles ~ such that we can be sure that we are not merely giving as fact an editor's opinions or ideas or interpretations.
 * 2) For this very reason this is not a "malicious [site with] a lot of misinformation, bias and lies"; it is a site which reports as accurately as we can make it on what other people/sites/books/sources have said about whatever the topic at hand is.
 * 3) As i said in mine, the formatting in the article as was, was not of the variety we use generally; that isn't necessarily a problem, but it is indicative of other problems in the text, which is why i looked more closely.
 * 4) It was when i looked that i found what appeared (and still appears, as i go back to look at it again) to be original research (OR), which we don't do or permit (see above), and opinion or speculation not backed by sources (ditto).
 * I am open to correction, as we all make mistakes ~ i more than many ~ and happy to be proven wrong. What i would suggest is that you lay out on this page what you think could or should be changed, and how, and the sources which back up those changes, and allow others (not necessarily me, or just me ~ this is a collaborative effort) to comment and agree or otherwise. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 15:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Title
On a separate note altogether, why is this called "Abomination (Judaism)" and not just "Abomination", since it contains sections on Christianity and Islam? Or, alternatively, why don't we move it to the undisambiguated title, which the short description seems to be referring to anyway? Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Original research (again)
In the process of this AfD, has suggested a couple of portions of the article are worthy of retention. However, they violate WP:SYNTH policy by addressing a subject related to the subject of the article without ever being tied to the article subject itself. Among these are this source which is meant to source a statement asserting modern Jewish practice has departed from the concept of abomination. However, the source makes no comment on this concept and instead focuses narrowly on the evolution of Jewish sacrificial views. If this article was about Korban (or more broadly Levitical law), it would fit right in. However, it doesn't. The same applies to the other sources Jahaza has reinserted. Per WP:ONUS, it is not the responsibility of editors to demonstrate how a source does not relate to an article—it's actually the inverse—but I am doing so at Jahaza's request. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)