Talk:Cloven hoof

message: About the statement:
:and all non-extinct species of mammals with a cloven hoof have been domesticated in some form.
I don't believe that giraffes have been domesticated in any form. Eli Falk 
Should this be merged into Artiodactyl?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.203.41 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

message: I realize this is a new article, but the section on the devil doesn't read like encylopedia text.  Phrases like "There is a story that..." are particularly off-putting.  In any case, the Christian devil is certainly not the first mythological demon to exhibit goat features, cloven hooves included, so for completeness the article section should be devoted to the evolution of the symbolic attribute of cloven hooves and its use throughout many cultures' figures, and not limit itself to the Christian devil. Robert K S (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also terribly, terribly confusing to read:  "some believe the cloven hoof more mischiefing than the devil." Mischiefing?  I'd change the wording, but I don't know what the sentece means.  Does "separated from" mean he can change the appearance of the hoof, or that he can float around legless or what?  The mention of the Devil's Footprints in Devon in 1855 is vague and incorrect: Several other theories were offered (I read it on wikipedia, yo).  If time permits today, I'll fix this section up a tad, but the wording in the first paragraph is beyond my touch.  I f I were to work on that, I'd scrap it entirely, which I most likely do not have time to do.128.186.153.249 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate from, means that devil can (by some accounts) change the appearance of his hoof.  It is also the case that the hoof can travel without the devil and cause trouble.  I read several reference in writing this article, as you can imagine they do not all agree.  I attempted to write a balanced interpretation of all the beliefs. Jeepday (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devil section 

message: clef or cleft?  If clef is a typo, it has been there a long time. —Tamfang (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  interdigital what? 

message: I believe that there is a problem with the information regarding exclusions.  The way it reads would imply that the "pig" is an exclusion to the rules set fourth by Jewish law.  Absolutly not true!  You might even say this is in some way a direct contradiction.  Perhaps the original writer used the word (exclusion) erroneously.  If you are unsure of what a word means, you obviously should not use it; especially in an encyclopedia. Reutterm (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.140.227 (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclean animals 

message: Is the subject "excluded from the rule," or does the rule exclude the subject (giving opposite interpretations).  Something like "This rule prohibits" might be more definitive (if it is accurate to say so).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.212.194 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This rule excludes" is ambiguous 

message: Camels do have cloven hooves, why does the entry say it does not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.124.49 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Camel#Judaism and Camel#Genetics both have referenced entries saying that the camels do not qualify as cloven hooved. Jeepday (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camels do have cloven hooves