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 Spartaz Humbug! 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mishk'vei ishah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * (Nomination) Delete and move whatever is salvageable into LGBT topics and Judaism. This article appears to be a hodge-podge collection of various sources--many primary and of doubtful reliability--and seems to be more of an essay than an article. Anything worth saving should be moved to LGBT topics and Judaism and this OR/Essay should be deleted. Avi (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its just a merge of the material that was in Leviticus 18 and The Bible and homosexuality, so that its all in one place, instead of spread over multiple articles (rather than merely being summarised there). Newman Luke (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Newman Luke (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both those articles seem to have their own issues. The Bible and homosexuality is a mess and has been tagged for numerous issues while Leviticus 18 is tagged for merger into the Leviticus article. So citing that this material simply comes from those articles simply means they inherit the problems from them, that they are a mess and possibly worse and may be better to merge into the main articles. -- Banj e  b oi   21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Assume good faith in mind. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Avi (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - previously merged content into a much stronger, well-referenced artcile. Notable because it is the subject of much controversy.  Wikipedia is not just a place for nice things, but for controversial topics that may upset some.  For our core readers - students - this is a useful article. WP:AfD is not the place to discuss moves or mergers. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (and restore content to the original articles) per nominator. This is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. This article resulted from a ghastly "merging" of content from two fairly acceptable and conventional articles Leviticus 18 and The Bible and homosexuality that did NOT dwell on a particularly Judaic point of view, but of a more general one. Then all of a sudden from within those more or less conventional-sounding and seeming articles, there was then born this misbegotten "Mishk'vei ishah" mumbo-jumbo as a Hebraicly-named and "sounding" aberration that has absolutely no real connection to any clearly defined classical Judaic, Hebraic legacy or Christian intrepretation. It is one thing to describe and explain what a term has meant in Hebrew over the ages, it quiet another to abscond with a term and then use it as a tool to reflect modern day attitudes, debates and struggles over the meaning and scope of homosexuality, defending the move in WP:LAWYER style. Therefore, this article fails in its own goals, and its creator has not done it any favors by disembowling it from its original contexts of either the entire Biblical chapters, actually two verses: and, from which it stems or within the context of an entire article about the The Bible and homosexuality, but not to grab a sliver of a phrase out of context hackneyed to death with incomprehensible gobbledygook that is neither Christian nor Jewish, that verges quite seriously in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. IZAK (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  IZAK (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  IZAK (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete as per Dfass. -- Nahum (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 point of view - that it means all male-male sex, and not just a specific sex act(s); the article cannot take that title, because it violates 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)
 * It doesn't fit perfectly into "The Bible and homosexuality". Firstly see Article size. This is also of sufficient size for it to be in its own article. Secondly, there are multiple articles that also discuss it - Forbidden relationships in Judaism, LGBT issues and Judaism, Leviticus 18. The only way to avoid a content forking problem is to discuss it in one place. Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a detailed article on an important small facet of The Bible and homosexuality. --Alynna (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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: 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   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:NOR (even if outside scholars have made the same error multiple times) as well as violating the rules of logic and scholarship, (and no sane person denies that the Hebrew Bible is first and foremost the book of the Jewish people who had it for close to 2000 years before the New Testament was written) so that when the opinions of latter-day writers are IMPOSED on that fraction of words from a highly compex Judaic text you have a huge problem on your hands. Nobody cares what anti-Semites will think, and nobody is denying anyone's freedom of expression, but what is being asked for is that clarity and accuracy be maintained. This little extract creates more confusion than anything else. It makes it seem that Judaism itself didn't know what is was talking about or what it held. Hocus pocus is not the core of an encyclopedia, and that is just what this article is, hocus pocus it is pseudo-scholarship in the guise of something else. To the uninformed it may seem clever, but to the better informed it is just sheer nonsense in violation of 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 WP:Civility and WP:NPOV. They are reliable sources, and your prejudice against them cannot be allowed, according to wikipedia's sourcing policy, to exclude them. Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 matricide in cold blood in full public view. Have you forgotten that the Torah/Judaism itself FORBIDS following a mistaken majority "Do not follow the majority to do evil..." as well as prohibiting the following of a "meisit umeidiach" (a "meisit umeidiach" – a "meisit" – "an enticer," and a meidiach - “one who pushes away.”) as per  that says  "Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him..." not to mention the death sentence decreed by the Torah upon a false prophet . So what you say is truly ludicrous. In any case you keep on making a serious error by confusing numbers of Jews with the subject of Judaism, the two not being the same phenomena. (2) Newman says: "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." -- Now you claim what Orthodox Judaism does NOT claim anywhere. It is only in the severity of the sin (meaning should the punishment have been death or lashings) but not in the degree of the prohibition. You exhibit an astounding lack of precision and you jump to the worst conclusions. (3) Newman says: "You cannot legitimately describe the official point of view of the majority of Jews as "Jewishly seeming ideology...which is wrong"." -- I don't, but Jewish Law does because any group of Jews, no matter how large that ammends or twists the teachings of the Torah and its commandments is automatically not regarded as speaking for either Jews or Judaism. They are free to speak for themselves but they cannot adopt the mantle of official "Judaism" when they actively work against it as defined by the Written and Oral Torah. This is what happened to the Sadducees, Karaites, Sabbateans, Early Christians and now to much of Reform as they dump every last shred of Judaism and the teachings/precepts of the Torah as well as quite often openly denying the existence of God (Humanistic Judaism is proud of that, so be it, they can have their say, writing NPOV articles about their beliefs is fine, but they cannot claim they somehow represent Judaism in toto.) (4) Newman says: "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." -- Baloney.  Wikipedia demands accuracy, truthfulness and a report of the subject from its primary sources. If the Torah condemns homosexuality it is not violating any Wikipedia rules, unless you live in a 1984-style "PC" fantasy-land of your own. (5) Newman says: "See WP:Civility and WP:NPOV. They are reliable sources, and your prejudice against them cannot be allowed, according to wikipedia's sourcing policy, to exclude them." -- Good jokes, the pot calling the kettle black, but still not to the point. You cannot go about hurling invective and insults at Orthodox Judaism/Jews and get away with it by violating WP:LAWYER, WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:WAR. IZAK (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Tefillin should be made either or where exactly they should be placed. Nor does the Torah limit the numbers of wives a man may take, so what (it was banned by Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom in the 10th century and mainly for Ashkenazim) etc etc etc? Obviously you have never heard of the Oral Torah which encompasses more prohibtions as expounded by the rabbis "derabbanan" of the Talmudic and pre-Talmudic era, that in effect becomes as acute a prohibtion as that of the Torah's "deoraita", see D'Oraita and D'Rabbanan. Following the rulings of THOSE rabbis is a core part of historic Judaism and following the Torah's precepts, see (not the secular academics you never tire of citing -- they may be mentioned as much as you like, but they are NOT Halachic authorities in any way shape size or form, not my view, a universally held one among all great Talmidei Chachamim). (2) Newman says: "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." -- Now how illogical is that? The Torah never goes into every last detail, it leaves that for the Oral Torah, but you cannot claim that the Torah is now a "how-to-rationalize-Judaism-acceptance manual" for "permitting" gay sexual actvities like oral sex between men, males kissing and hugging or mutual male masturbation, when it's not. You take half the loaf, or in this case, two words, and create a misbegotten result with it. If this is an honest mistake then it's forgivable but if you are so determined to violate WP:NOR with your insistent "exegesis" you violate much more than that, such as WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTANARCHY. (3) Newman says: "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." -- 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 gay male strip shows acording to your reasoning and allowances, after all there is no anal sex involved and it's just a show being watched? I can cite plenty of sources, but tell us if what you say makes even a shred of SENSE first? Before we get to sources let's discuss logic and reason. No classical scholar can accept 95% of the so-called sources you cite in any case (they should be removed and replaced with 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)
 * Who exactly defines deviant. If you are trying to claim that all homosexuality is deviant. Go and read WP:NPOV and WP:Civility yet again. Your accusation of pro-gay is utterly without merit; its based on an utterly 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)
 * 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 Hebrew Bible specifically says and then supported with the additional rabbinical laws (not mere "opinions" as you demean them) and which you wish to twist into something "NEW-man" that was never there and never meant. It is obvious what you are attempting to do. (2) Newman says: "Go and read WP:NPOV and WP:Civility yet again." -- Wrong again. It is not against WP:NPOV to cite verbatim what a verse in the Bible says, how it was always studied and practiced in Judaism. If you want to come along and say that last week someone wrote ten articles claiming to use false "exegesis" to justify blow jobs as based on the Bible, then good luck with that silliness. (3) Newman says: "Your accusation of pro-gay is utterly without merit; its based on an utterly circular argument - that if they reach a pro-gay conclusion their research is pro-gay." -- Please let's call a spade a spade. If you are out to use Wikipedia as a format to claim that Judaism somehow (incorrectly on your part) has ever allowed or now permits homosexuality that is your problem and it's clearly a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Your attempts to say that the Orthodox are a "minorty" and do not have a say is a disgusting cruel hoax. You cannot bring "absolute proofs" from Reform or secular scholars simply because they do not accept the Divinity of the Bible and in fact many of them are atheists. They are entitled to their views, write it up in a million articles, but don't claim that they have the tyranny of the "majority" when they deny the authortity and relevance of the Torah and its 613 mitzvot. So quit harping. Their view can be part of an article, but they cannot become putty in your hands to falsely produce a rabbit out of a hat and say, aha, you see Judaism permits blow jobs and kissing between men, which is false and delusional. (4) Newman says: "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." -- Um Newman, we are not talking about mere "looking at naked men" like in a mikva, it's an example of how serious the prohibitions against any forms of lechery are, be it male on female or male on male sexual penetration or hugging, kissing, oral sex, outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Nice that you mention tzniut "[sexual] modesty" though, how do you think all your work looks, to show that so many secular scholars, based on mistaken assumptions and drawing false conclusions from the most devout of classical Halachic authorities, who then concoct that forms of graphic gay sex is ok, does not violate the basics of Judaism's laws of tzniut? You are not making any sense in terms of what classical Judaism has to say, be it based on the Written Torah or the Oral Torah as stated in 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)
 * 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 Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. --Alynna (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:NOR and WP:NONSENSE on a grand scale. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:NOR and WP:NONSENSE. IZAK (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--this belongs in The Bible and homosexuality. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with that argument. (1) It assumes that sub articles should never exist, which is false. (2) It assumes that there are no other articles which would desire to discuss these verses in detail, which is also false - LGBT issues and Judaism, Leviticus 18, for example. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and merge.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment An article with this title would be perfectly encyclopaedic, in a Biblical or Talmudic encyclopaedia. I fully expect that when Encyclopaedia Talmudit reaches M it will include an entry for mishkevei isha (though it will probably be a redirect to mishkav zachur).  But in a general encyclopaedia it seems too obscure a term.  Unlike shaatnez or tzitit it is not used in general conversation even among observant Jews; it only ever comes up when studying these two particular verses, which isn't all that often, because Jews don't tend to give them more attention than any of the other 5843 verses in the Torah.  (Those Christians who are obsessed with these two verses usually discuss them in English, and therefore also don't use this term.)  So nobody is likely to look up the term, especially transliterated into English.  In a general encyclopaedia it really belongs in The Bible and homosexuality or something like that; but perhaps if it gets long it could be a sub-article of that article, with a title like Analysis of the term mishkevei isha or something.  -- Zsero (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the likeliness that anyone will look up this information under this name, we can rename it or make a set of redirects to it. Regarding the importance of the information, the importance is that some conservative people are obsessed with those two verses.  So it's useful to have some accurate information on them.  And regarding your last point, I imagine that's exactly what happened - it was broken out of The Bible and homosexuality because it's too long for a section. --Alynna (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * and because it was also discussed in great detail in multiple other articles, creating a major content forking problem, which could only be resolved by putting everything in one place. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete For this you call me out of semi-retirement. This is such a mess of OR, Nonsense, POV, as per dRosenbach, as per Izak, as per nom.. FEH. --Jayrav (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that you haven't edited since September, I'd like to know how you found this AfD. What brought you here? If you happened to read it, doesn't that show that people clearly will find the article. If someone asked you to come here, isn't that Meatpuppetry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talk • contribs)
 * Newman, if you'd keep track you'd see that this AfD was legitimately posted at both WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism  both by  who is also the nominator of this AfD. Kindly comply with WP:AGF, and your interrogation-style accusation also violates Etiquette. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Struck as inappropriate relisting by involved editor. AFDs run 7 days and there is ample discusssion anyways. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy Close and Merge: As per DRosenbach. ☭  Pick both man lol  ☭ 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV nightmare, plus per NOTAFORUMFORTALMUDICCONTROVERSY.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are three things I take issue with about your view:
 * (a) There is no such policy
 * (b) You haven't explained why you regard it is as a "POV nightmare", or even what that means
 * (c) Its not really about that Talmud. Its about the Bible.
 * Newman Luke (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be more specific -- an inherently POV approach that consists of original research and coatracking on matters that are not encycpoledically established (the real meaning of the old testament et al). This essay fails WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH at the very least.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and give someone the chance to start it over without the problems. There is the potential for an article here, but this article as it exists is a mess. I rather doubt there is any real chance that it would be improvable, becausse of the questions of sourcing, citations, what needs citations, and all that. On that basis, I tend to think that just erasing the whole mess and starting over with a blank slate. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into related articles unless completely rewritten. In principle, I don't see a problem with an article on a subject this narrow, but there are serious problems with the article as it stands.
 * It gives undue weight to modern academics and not enough weight to religious institutions and traditional views. There are 60 separate references, and only a single-digit number look like they're non-academic secondary sources.  While this makes sense for most articles on Wikipedia, an article on a religious topic should primarily discuss the opinions of religious groups, since those will best explain the subject matter as most people actually view it.  Currently, you could read the entire article and be unsure how more than one or two religious groups interpret the phrase, which is a major failing for an article on a religious topic.
 * The article seems to be something like half weasel words. For instance: "how this should be understood is heavily disputed", "Opinions range from ... to ...", "Some liberal theologians", "Several conservative theologians", "A number of Christian Fundamentalists", "The word ... is a matter of contention", "some therefore see", "It is widely argued".  Some specific views are attributed to particular academics, and a couple of traditional Jewish sources, but large chunks of the article have to be either rewritten to explain who says what exactly, or else removed.
 * The article is structured confusingly. The lead is very vague and doesn't adequately summarize the article.  Much of the rest is a laundry list of opposing views, some referenced and some not, interspersed with flurries of citations (a full quarter of which are tagged as requiring clarification).  Some views are given more detail than needed, while others (particularly traditional non-academic views) are mentioned only vaguely and in passing.
 * The article is basically about a grand total of two verses in the Bible, but never actually gives a translation of either, with or without context. This seems like a pretty extraordinary omission: the phrase needs to be put in its Biblical context.
 * I don't think most of the current content is salvageable. Redirecting the article to Homosexuality and the Bible or such would make more sense than keeping the article in its current form, but if it's rewritten to address all of those problems then it would be fine to keep it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as this appears to have unresolvable problems with synthesis.  B figura  (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:SYNTH Crafty (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:SYNTH, COATRACK, POV. Very problematic where so much referencing is to the bible -> WP:OR --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.


 * Merge whatever's usable to The Bible and homosexuality and then Delete.
 * Between WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:POV, I don't think that what's here is salvageable.
 * As the current article jumps between various Christian and Jewish opinions, I don't think that merging it solely to LGBT topics and Judaism or Christianity and homosexuality makes sense.
 * To respond to an objection above by the article creator: I don't believe that "sub articles should never exist", but rather, that unsalvageable or non-notable articles shouldn't exist. And another note to the article creator: badgering !voters doesn't help your case. At all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now The issues raised here should be addressed first through the normal editorial process via the article's talk page, not AfD. There has not been enough time given to that process to make a judgement that the article is unsalvageable.  --agr (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Izak. The article is not needed, we have a homosexuality and the Torah article already, and we have the Leviticus article. Yossiea (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. in agreement with Yossiea and IZAK considering that the content is potentially viable but better placed in other articles. --yonkeltron (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irredeemable WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete too many problems as expressed by many editors, and especially violating WP:SYNTH. Shlomke (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete problems beyond repair. Jon513 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete.The intro is incorrect and the article which would appear to be about Jewish law on the subject hardly addresses the Jewish viewpoint. It appears to be a hodge-podge of related references wihtout any clear thread. --Redaktor (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In part per DGG, in part as the article has what appears to be about 5-10 quality 3rd party references (uncontested) on the topic, and because 5-secs on Gbooks and Gsholar returns 3-4 works where the topic is discussed in-depth -- implying that this article is a clear pass for WP:GNG. .  A search for "Leviticus 18:22" returns a truckload of scholary references, supporting that the topic passes inclusion criteria.  I cannot comment if the articles has issues, only that a stand-alone is fully warranted.  In this context OR, SYNTH, ESSAY and other deletion rationales are irrelevant, as AfD is not for clean-up.   Power.corrupts (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It needs some work, and I would support moving it to mishkav zachar. But I think it's notable enough to have a seperate article for it. Kolindigo (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with mishkav zachar as the more commonly used term. Joe407 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As much as the religious text comes up as a reason for people hating homosexuals, it is notable article. List of mentions of homosexuality in religious books might be a better name for this, and more room to grow.   D r e a m Focus  02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.