Talk:Emor

30 April 2007 critique
I argue against the 30 April 2007 critique of Beetstra that the article has too many external links. These links support the article by providing avenues for further study. They are not a large share of the article. The article is not a "Mere collection[] of external links or Internet directories" within the meaning of the content policies, as the links are plainly ancillary to the article. Cutting back the links would decrease study options for the reader and reduce content. I therefore respectfully request that the links be maintained. Dauster 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Link Farm.
This article is hard to read because of the massive amount of external links. Not every passage requires a link. Those who want to read the passage can find an online book in which to look, or can take the book off the shelf. The number of links on this page does not conform to WP:NOTLINK and should be fixed. Thanks, 134.29.231.11 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-Jewish perspectives
This article lacks non-Jewish perspectives. The same text is re-interpreted by other religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i. Missing are also important secular perspectives and facts, such as when the text was written, by whom, and for what purpose. Not described are major disputes over whether the text is divinely inspired in some way, or if it's simply the writings of men concerning a fictional god. -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)