Talk:Milk and meat in Jewish law: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:27, 27 August 2011

Judaism B‑class High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illustration by opposite?

The caption "Cheeseburgers are clogging our arteries" makes it very clear what the problem is. The image shows a practical application of a culinary instance of milk and meat found in one dish. Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just "cheeseburgers" that are are welcomed under the concept that is being written about in the article? The illustration seems gratuitous and a little inane. I'm wondering what justification can be found. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows a common example and is quite acceptable for the infobox. Chesdovi (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a joke - AND THE INTERNET IS MY SOAPBOX!!!11!.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it any different from the image in Lilac Chaser, which also shows the forbidden action? It looks like there is a difference of opinion on the matter of such. I think maybe you have an issue with the fact that it portrays food which has a negative connotation. Why else do you consider it a joke/disgraceful? Chesdovi (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is almost as awesome as this one. If these are the kind of images that accompany serious texts, Jewish law becomes all the better. Should we illustrate an article about the Ten Commandments with a photo of Moses? Should the page on BBQ have a large photo of a roast pig in the ground? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not Google. If there is no photo, there should be no photo. I can't believe I am taking this SRSLY. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained why it is an awesome image. Why is this image not fit to accompany a serious text? Why is the image on lolcats, and all the others, considered appropriate? Kosher animals features awesome animal images. I have yet to understand your point here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "stupid" image; it is an awesome image. Bus stop (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What could be more aweful than an image actually featuring a mixture of milk and meat on a page about the consumption of Milk with Meat in Jewish law?? Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you thought I said "aweful." I wrote "awesome." Bus stop (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? if Judo was used would it be acceptable? Why does a cheeseburger make an awesomesauce of this article? Is it because you associate it with deliciousness? Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish dietary concerns have a serious purpose, do they not? Or do Jewish people just avoid milk and meat combinations "for the fun of it?" Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the cheeseburger image "TAKENWAYTOSRSLY????"? Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What Fools these Mortals Be" - Shakespeare Amnd 3:2

Translation of source titles?

Why are some source titles translated to English? It seems to me none are avaialble in English under those titles. According to Wikipedia guidelines they should be given in original language, transliterated, and translation offered in brackets. At least thats been the practice elsewhere. 58.178.163.234 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Example

I'm not sure where this would go, but I feel that of particular interest to the matter would be an incedent occuring early in the Torah involving Abraham. At the time that Abraham was visited by the three angels to be told that they would have a child, the meal they served specifically included a calf, milk, and butter. This is particularly interesting in that these angel do not appear to be ordinary angels. In fact, the unspeakable name is used here. Nothing was mentioned here that would in any way infringe on the Biblical law, that is simply seething a calf in it's mother's milk, however it certainly violates conventional wisdom on the matter. The section in question is Genesis 18, specifically verse 8. I'm not certain how to fit this in, so I'll give some time in case anybody wants to try first. Kainosnous (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :The Jewish dietary concerns have a serious purpose, do they not? Or do Jewish people just avoid milk and meat combinations "for the fun of it?" [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 15:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 ::Why is the cheeseburger image "TAKENWAYTOSRSLY????"? [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] ([[User talk:Chesdovi|talk]]) 10:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
+"What Fools these Mortals Be" - Shakespeare Amnd 3:2
 == Translation of source titles? ==