Wikipedia:Peer review/Unclean animals/archive1

Unclean animals

I want to get this up to FA status at some point, I've gone through and detailed the key religious text which relate to the concept. What I need from peer review is answers to a few questions:

What other content do you feel belongs in this article?
Are there any other major religions which have a concept of "unclean animals" that should be documented?
Are there any other scientific studies which should be included or discussed?

I also need assistance with any other cleanup/punctuation/grammar checking that you feel is necessary. ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent sole exception to this rule is a bee's honey which is deemed kosher. It's not clear to me from the article why bees aren't kosher. Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me either, but in my research that was the only exception that I found. Bees are considered non kosher, but beeswax, honey, and honeycomb are all considered kosher. ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why are bees non kosher? I think the article needs to explain why (or at least that) bees are unclean. Pburka 22:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It shall be done then, I'll see what I can dig up for reasonings. ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding bees, according to [1], " Of the "winged swarming things" (winged insects), a few are specifically permitted (Lev. 11:22), but the Sages are no longer certain which ones they are, so all have been forbidden." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Angr's post here and his addition to the article, It looks like we've solved this why bee's arent kosher issue. ALKIVAR™ 02:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some references to halal (in addition to haraam) would help explain more about the Islamic tradition. Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Halal is linked to as "Zabiha" what exactly are you looking for? As i understand it since Halal is only a list of acceptable stuff in this particular case the "clean animals"... so doesnt it belong on that article not this one? ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that. I'm not very familiar with the subject. But it does make we question if we really need two articles on this topic. Are Clean animals and Unclean animals two different topics, or aspects of the same topic? Pburka 22:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think each will end up being large enough to require their own article, but they are definately two aspects of the same topic. I'm hoping to get this one up to snuff first and then tackle Clean animals. ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is kosher food halal or vice-versa? Pburka 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand that is a subject of debate, some muslim clerics state animals slaughtered by anyone other than a muslim cannot be halal, others state any animal slaughtered by a Kafir (non-believer) or Mushrik (polytheist) are the only ones forbidden. So I cannot get a conclusive answer to this one, when I can find something more specific I will add it. ALKIVAR™ 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a spoilsport for saying it, since I actually like the way it looks. however, I'm pretty sure that those grey-boxed quotes are not sanctioned in WP:MoS (manual of style). I would have thought that adhereing to layout standards would be a criterion for FA status. --bodnotbod 17:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've looked through the MoS ... there is NOTHING absolutely nothing regarding block quotations, and or styles for them. So it is not a violation of any established policy. ALKIVAR™ 22:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for block quotations, while not very clearly stated, is presented briefly in the quotations section: Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Quotations. You don't need the italics and the box, while pretty and attention-getting, isn't standard either. Not complaining about the way you've done it, but I'm pretty sure that a simple block is what they'll be expecting! freshgavin TALK 03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Actually it strikes me that, since <blockquote> style is, presumably, set in the css of each skin that they could have made them a bit more exciting globally. The problem with putting your own styles in is that you're then in the position (if you wish to be diligent) of checking it looks OK in all skins. Grey on white looks fine to the vast majority of us, but if (as someone has) you have set your wikipedia to display green text on a black background (an extreme example, I realise) then it looks less good.

Althouth the MoS turns out to be weak on quotation style, a wider policy is that mark-up that will baffle the causal editor is kept to a minimum. At Wp:tables#When_tables_are_appropriate it says::

Many times, a list is best left as a list. Some articles include very long lists which might be difficult to edit if they were in table form. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

Tables shouldn't be used simply for layout, either. If the information you're editing isn't tabular in nature, it probably doesn't belong in a table. Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians, and isn't really what tables were designed to do.

When tables are inappropriate

Very long lists, or very simple lists

If a list is quite long, or is relatively simple, use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats. Long lists can be hard to maintain if they are inside a table, and simple lists do not need the row-and-column format that a table provides.

I wasn't getting at you Alkivar. I placed grey boxes on Rachel Whiteread and am trying to get feedback on the best way to achieve the effect I'm going for in a way that doesn't have the problems I'm talking about. Also, if you go up for peer review, it's best not to shout at the people giving you feedback as it may deter others from constructive criticism. And, again, I sympathise because I find the layout of most articles boring after a long day of editing and it's nice to say different layouts. But ease of editing comes first it seems. --bodnotbod 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you took that as angry shouting... I was more shocked that we didnt have any policy regarding it. I am quite happy to take the criticism, otherwise I would never have put this on peer review :) And as far as the tables go, its either 2 REAAAAAAAAALY long lists (which people always complain about on FAC), or 2 tablified lists with several columns to condense (Which FAC people seem to prefer); since the content in the tables wont be changing... I dont see a real problem with it. ALKIVAR™

10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alk. You need to mention and discuss Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger, it's the single most famous and influential study of the subject. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bish, thanks for mentioning her, I was completely unaware of her study. She is now added to the article. ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed the overlap between this article and Taboo food and drink? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, and I think they both stand seperately. Taboo food and drink concentrates much more on cultural taboos as opposed to "religiously denied" animals. For example Cows are culturally taboo in India, but they are not an "unclean animal" according to Hinduism. While similar the concept is different. ALKIVAR™ 23:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should mention the four land animals Leviticus names unclean because they have one and only of the the required traits. It is very interesting that science has yet to discover or create an exception... HereToHelp (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They already are included, re-read the first table. ALKIVAR™

03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section needs to be much longer, a couple of paragraphs or so.
I like it when people shrink the size of footnotes, but these are a bit too small. Could you increase them to 85%?
I think all the sections could be expanded, but I'd especially like to see more on Macht's study - I'm sure that could be expanded to at least a couple of paragraphs. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

The lead section will be rewritten as soon as I can come up with something catchy :)
The footnote size of 75% seems to be the common defacto standard see things like W. Mark Felt
I agree with the expansion, this PR request was so as to gain more insight on what could be expanded as I had run out of ideas.
Macht's study seems to be a point of contention among a few users, most of whom refer to it as psuedoscience. As such I was afraid to add too much more regarding it for fear of making it seem wikipedia endorses psuedoscience. On the talk page is still the original multiple paragraph addition regarding Macht's study (which is quite poorly written and confusing). I guess I could try to rescue a bit more out of that and then do some more research on it. ALKIVAR™ 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]