Jump to content

Talk:Sacred prostitution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Same2UHuny! in topic Word Choice

Discussion at Talk:Devadasi

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Devadasi § RfC: Should article reference reports of sexual exploitation and prostitution in the modern day. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Stephanie

[edit]

stop pushing your theory 80.57.2.97 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Nevertheless..."

[edit]

"Nevertheless, zonah and qedeshah are not interchangeable terms: the former occurs 93 times in the Bible, whereas the latter is only used in three places, conveying different connotations." If you're taking a stance, state your stance! What do you mean? Not that it matters much, since you're quoting no author. Why do you want that bullshit detail to be there? If it's true, it's trivially true. And Strong's isn't a source! It's not even a good source for word frequency in the corpus, the way you're using it! And rules policing to reinstate unsourced content? Come on. Explain to me why you want the claim to be true. @Johnb123 Temerarius (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Temerarius: There is lengthy discussion above by multiple editors on this and other items leading to the inclusion of the text you dispute. Strong is widely cited in other publications which per WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes it an acceptable source. If you wish the text removed you need to give good reason, not just it's "bullshit", and gain consensus. --John B123 (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Who? The fact it's been turned over on the talk page doesn't make it significant. It's a nonclaim in response to an imagined claim. It's misleading to readers both with knowledge and without. Temerarius (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong's isn't a general source! It's Strong's. It's got issues. It's applicable for narrow purposes. It's to be used carefully, not indiscriminately. Temerarius (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're telling me that by the rules, you're... allowed to keep the material on. It's up to Wikipedia standards. Sure, if you argue so. But you're arguing "may" while I'm arguing "should." Temerarius (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't care if the article takes a stance, I care that it's transparent about the meaning of the stances it takes. Temerarius (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also refer to Strong's by the way, but narrowly. Temerarius (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The fact it's been turned over on the talk page doesn't make it significant. It's called consensus, that's the way Wikipedia works. --John B123 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Word Choice

[edit]

I'm new to this. The article uses the word " desecrated" in reference to prostitutes. Could a malicious person have replaces the word * dedicated*? when talking about Phonecians, I think it was.? Same2UHuny! (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply