Talk:Zav
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Hi there!
I removed the comments previously made on this page as they are now no longer relevant. The article, over time, has been revamped in such a fashion that the discussion on the page is in fact now invalid and might confuse the heck out of some people too.
I hope that this is OK. Thank you!
Ushi5 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Leviticus 16 'And if the flow of seed' refers to seminal fluid yet the article, paragraph 1 'In Jewish ritual law, a zav (Hebrew: זב; lit. "one who[se body] flows") is a man who has had abnormal seminal discharge':
- - That's a whole lot of Leviticus the author is skipping to explicitly refer to 'seminal discharge' ? 151.229.124.134 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, I'd be inclined to just delete that pageless 1919 source. The way the original editor cut and pasted it into 6 different related articles in 2007 suggests that it wouldn't meet tests. At the very least you'd need the article name if not the p number. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give me a link to the edit? Then I could better judge this question. Debresser (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- In this article ref Peake's commentary on the Bible [page needed] . I get the feeling we'd find the text didn't match up, and even if it did, it'll be the 1919 version not the 1962 version (which also is wildly out of date). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Found it [1]. I find this speculative, possibly a fringe opinion. So the problem is that if we remove the source, we should also remove the claim that is supported by it. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, speculative, and based on 19th century speculation. The same goes for the other 5 articles the same 2007 user pasted similar content with the same pageless 1919 ref/footnote. If I could backtrack and find the other 5 I'd delete them. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Found it [1]. I find this speculative, possibly a fringe opinion. So the problem is that if we remove the source, we should also remove the claim that is supported by it. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- In this article ref Peake's commentary on the Bible [page needed] . I get the feeling we'd find the text didn't match up, and even if it did, it'll be the 1919 version not the 1962 version (which also is wildly out of date). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)