Talk:Ten Commandments

US First Amendment in Lead

First off, it's ridiculous I'm being asked to do this when according to WP:BURDEN burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not the one who removes it. Wikipedia policy states it's up to the reverters to try and argue its validity. Nevertheless...under WP:Lead it states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world, of those a mere 224 million reside in the USA (and of the 13.4 million Jews, 5 million) - so even if every single Judeo-Christian American cared about the Commandments being posted in government buildings, that would be less than 11% of people who believe in the Commandments. You could make a better case for including the Heston movie in the lead. While the topic is definitely worth being included in the article (as is covered under the section "United States debate over display on public property"), the Ten Commandments is such a huge deal worldwide this one issue is way to minor. The "killing vs murder" debate is infinitely more significant and that doesn't belong in the lead either. Mentioning the debate over one country's posting of it in public buildings is giving it inappropriate weight. America isn't the centre of the universe, not even the Christian one. --208.38.59.162 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEDE says "The lead should... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The section on the U.S. amendment/10 Commandments issue is an important point and a prominent controversy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing, this isn't prominent. It's in one country (and not even the biggest country), the controversies involving what the commandments actually are, not including major crimes like rape and the "killing vs murder" are universal among believers. This is only an issue for 1/10th of them...at MOST. This is clearly being given undue weight, it not only makes the header but takes up 1/3 of it. Do you honestly believe that the debate about publishing religious texts in a country with freedom of religion is one of the 3 most important things about the Ten Commandments? You're missing the point of that section, that's meant for controversial topics and it's meant for controversies about the content. The posting of them in public spaces is the issue here, not about the actual commandments themselves. Besides, the article on moon landing doesn't mention the conspiracy theories in the header. Earth's lead doesn't mention that people ever thought the earth was flat. Look at the lead for Elvis Presley, do you see mention of people thinking he faked his death?? Feel free to check out articles like evolution and see how we don't mention the controversy of teaching it in US schools. It simply doesn't belong there, and the onus would be on you to prove that it does. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points", where it should be published is far from one of the most important points. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I happened to find this on the "Recent changes" link, but it seems like the paragraph could be changed to a broader discussion of things like the Doom book compared to, say, secularism in modern France. The US part wouldn't seem so jarringly out of place in that context. Wendin (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This does not belong in the lead at all, it should be removed not expanded. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I was just trying to be constructive. After noticing some odd wording and looking at the history of the page, I suggest you find a better dispute resolution process. Wendin (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the controvery in the U.S. is rather overblown and over represented. We haven't had a "posting the 10C" case in years. And even when we do, its really more about politics, some local Southern politicion will take a pole, see he needs a few more votes, then he'll try to post the 10C somewhere. Then the the ACLU will step in. Then the politician will run against the "ACLU and the New York intellecuals", which, in the U.S., is pretty much code talk for "Jews". I think the less said about this taudry little ploy, the less legicimacy we give it, the better. Steve kap (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee (GAN)

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

   (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

   (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

   (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

—Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria 19:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Ten Commandments appear three times, not twice, in the Bible

Contrary to the sentence "The Ten Commandments appear twice in the Hebrew Bible, in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy," the Ten Commandments actually occur in three places:

• Exodus 20
• Exodus 34; and
• Deuteronomy 5:4

I propose to modify the article to reflect that there are in fact three appearances. It should also be noted that while there is agreement between Exodus 20 and the recap in Deuteronomy 5, the version presented in Exodus 34 is substantially different.

Discussion?

FergusV9S (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What you are referring to is the "Ritual decalogue", which has its own article, and a whole section devoted to it in this article. It is not what people or reliable sources commonly refer to as "the Ten Commandments". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fergus, this has been discussed to bits. Many many discussions passim. Have you noticed the stark differences between Ex 34 and the other two? That's because according to traditional sources, Ex 34 is a group of ten commandments but not The Ten Commandments. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fergus, I've tried the same thing, but ran up against a brick wall. This article is not about what the Bible says, but about what people say about the Bible. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It follows what secondary sources say about the Bible, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Rinse, wash, repeat. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. —Telpardec  TALK  13:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You must understand, Fergus, that, while its true that the bible IDs Ex 34 as the ten commandments, and several sources ID Ex 34 as a version of the 10 commandments, the sad fact is that JFW and Jayjd and other don't like it! I mean, they really, really don't like it! Now, this "rule" that JWF cites, that any former version of X CANNOT be discussed in an article about X, that might sound like a lot of hogwash. One could easiy point to any number of counter examples, how the article about Ireland talks about land that onces was Ireland but is no more. But that, nor any rational arguement, is simply not the point! The point is THEY DON'T LIKE IT! And who could argue with that ? Steve kap (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up folks. I looked through this Talk page and didn't see any discussion of the matter, so I thought I was making a contribution bringing the issue up. Thank you for making me aware of the archives system. Point taken, and thank you for not tearing my head off for my ignorance even though I did something annoying. :)

I get the basics of Wikipedia, but some of the deeper conventions are obviously lost on me. I'll take that embarrassment and hopefully find time to get better informed. I thought I knew what I was doing, but obviously there's a bit more to it. Sorry about the dead horse. :) FergusV9S (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You just so happened to bring up and issue for which there is a long standing dispute, that’s all. You didn’t do anything wrong by bringing it up. And, despite what was represented, the dispute is far from settles. And your inputs to the dispute are as valid and as welcome and as valuable as any others. There is no time limit. Steve kap (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no point going over the same arguments though. There is no secondary source that refers to the "Ritual Decalogue" as "The Ten Commandments" without a modifier. We've been over this so many times, and you have yet to provide us with something novel. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see . Modifiers aren’t allowed. So if a source referred to the RC as an EARLY version of the 10C (which many do), than it has nothing to do with this article, because the modifier EARLY was used. I see.

So, I suppose, if I were to go to an article, say, about the English language, I’d see nothing about Old English. Because “Old” is a modifier, and therefore “Old English” has NOTHING to do with English, the subject of the article. But, wait! It seems like your rule isn’t followed by the folk at the English Language page. Perhaps you should enlighten them . Or maybe, just maybe, this “no modifier” rule is something you’ve made up, or misinterpreted, or taken out of context inappropriately. I suggest we explore the later possibility, as it seems more likely than the former. Steve kap (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going over this again, because you have not provided any insight that we haven't already discussed to the death. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don’t blame you a bit, JFW. I wouldn’t like to be called upon to defend a position that’s contradicted by so many examples. I’d be afraid it would make me look foolish . Still, it is the position that you put forth…

Is there anyone else that would like to take a stab at it? JFW seems to be indicating that the RD cannot be included, cannot be discussed, because it isn’t THE 10 Commandments, but rather a VERSION of the 10 commandments (the dreaded qualifier). Is that really a rule? If so, why does it only seem to apply to this page? I presented the English Language counter-example, but I could come up with dozens more if you don’t get the point. Steve kap (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(undent) The article currently mentions the RD, which is an improvement over a previous version that did not allude to the concept at all. At the moment, we explain in a separate section that the adherents of the Documentary Hypothesis have identified a group of 10 commandments that they believe might have been an earlier set, and that the "current"/"Ethical" decalogue was only introduced later. This is a reasonable reflection of the state of affairs - nobody anywhere says that the RD are "The Ten Commandments" without a very clear clarifier as its provenance. You can keep on harping on about that, prising apart each argument with all sorts of logical argument, but we need to stick to WP:NOR and present views as they are, not the way you think they ought to be.

Your entire existence on Wikipedia seems to be to state your position here, and to come to the aid of anyone else who wants to reopen this discussion. For years. You have not brought a single novel argument to the discussion. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I’d be happy discuss the article, and clearly my points. But first, a point of order: The rule that you’re supposed to address the article, and suggestions and comments concerning the article, and NOT the editor; as an administrator, could you tell me, does that rule apply to everyone equally? Or just some people and not others? Steve kap (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian and adminstrator I am perturbed by your persistent behaviour on this talk page. If you are troubled by persistent behaviour from me, feel free to raise it. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so it IS ok to discuss other editors on this page, I guess I’d been mistaken all this time. And you’re your inviting me to raise any issues I have with your behavior? Very well, if you insist.

Over the years, there have been a steady stream of editors, usually new, that have come up with the same observation, that the RD is under-represented on this page. And you’ve chased off everyone one (well, all but one). Apparently the cost of maintaining an untenable position is the same as the cost of freedom: eternal vigilance. I see this behavior has bullying. I don’t like bullies.

Also, you seem to feel free to just declare your opinions as established fact. Like when you declare a consensus. I see that as arrogant.

Lastly, you tend to enforce rules on others that you don’t hold to yourself. Like this “don’t comment on the editor” thing. Also, there was the “BRB” rule, that you said ‘mattered little’ as you ‘care about the article’. That’s being a hypocrite.

So, Bully, arrogant, hypocrite. I also think your reasoning tends to be spurious and self serving, but that’s a matter of opinion, I can live with that, and combat with my own, I would say better, reasoning.

Boy, feels good to get that off my chest? Thanks for permission! But, with all that said, would it not be more fruitful to discuss the ARTICLE? Because my and your suggestions and comments can stand on their own. It should make any difference, logically, what the source is. To assume otherwise would be to make the Ad Hom error, no? Let’s do get back to the article!! Steve kap (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed the article endlessly. The conclusion has always been the same: there is a body of opinion that suggests that there is an Ethical Decalogue in Exodus 34. This body of opinion is proportionally represented in the article. The new editors who come along and somehow feel that this is insufficient do not appear to understand Wikipedia's content policies with regards to NPOV (particularly WP:WEIGHT) and NOR. Most of the time these new editors go on their merry way, and you are the editor who continues the discussion after they've left, advancing the same tired arguments without providing a single new perspective, and hence longterm editors try to address these points. You call it whatever you call it. If you are unhappy with the treatment you have received, you are completely within your rights to go through the dispute resolution process. Until that time I will continue to point out that you sound very much like a broken record in these discussions. JFW | T@lk 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

rrr, no JWF, the "conclusion" was that you got your way, by way of an edit war, then you declared a concensis! Thats just what I'm talking about, you think that because you state something as fact, because you state that something is settled, that it really is settled. But thats history, thats as may be. I'd rather disuss the article. Can we please?

I think my comments on "versions", and demonstrating how other articles handle versions of topics is on target, and hasn't been addressed. Also, you correctly state that the DH see the RD as a version, and earlier version of the 10C. Whats missing is the acknowlegment that the DH is by far the mostly widely held view out there by the experts in this field. Vastly, vastly outnumbering the "traditionalist" who's views I'd say you are pushing. By your definition, these traditionalist hold that the first 5 books were written by Moses!! If any POV is minority, and has too much weight, it is that view. Steve kap (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, no question is ever "settled" at Wikipedia but we should respect overwhelming consensus (> 3:1) and not re-open questions with strong consensus in the absence of new arguments. As someone new to this discussion, I'm wondering if there was ever an RFC issued to determine consensus on this issue. (Sorry for my laziness in not looking through the archives to answer this question.) If there was an RFC, can you provide a link to it? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve kap. Firstly, could you have the common decency to refer to me as "Jfdwolff" or "JFW" rather than consistently mangling my name. This has been pointed out to you in the past.

Secondly, consensus doesn't mean that absolutely every agrees. Last time we had a full discussion about this (a defacto RFC), the vast majority of contributors were happy with the current arrangement of discussing the RD in a separate section but without the emphasis that you seem to be looking for.

Thirdly, the "experts in the field" also include traditionalist theologians, who are not typically represented in the pages of the mainstream journals because they can't be bothered to submit stuff that will get rejected anyway for being uncool. If you were to ask any person in the street, the majority would not recognise the RD as "The Ten Commandments". The same person, when shown the evidence, may concede that according to the DH there may have possibly been another set of commandments that could theoretically have preceded what we now know as the Ten Commandments. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, perhaps the proponents of the DH would have even more publications, but some of them didn’t bother, because they felt themselves TOO cool to even present their work! In any case, all that is speculation. The vast majority of people that study the origin of the text AND get published hold to some form of the DH. And, of those that address the issue, the majority see the RD as a version of the 10C. And we are suppose reflect the consensus understanding of such experts.

As to “the man on the street”, I understand the importance of his views in defining what is the 10C. But you seem to be taking it a bit further. You seem to be saying that his opinion, or, even worse, his lack of knowledge, of versions of the 10C should influence what is presented as versions of the 10C! That seems remarkable. If the man on the street was unfamiliar with Old English, would you exclude it from an article about English? Would you water down talk of Old English to suite his tastes? Steve kap (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do “Traditionalist” views deserve disproportional weight to redress anti “Uncool” discrimination?

The argument was made that, although “Traditionalist” (could you please define how your using this term, JFW?) are virtually unpublished in the academic journals, none-the less deserve the disproportional weight that there view get in this article, because said Traditionalist aren’t published due to being seen as “un-cool”. This was given as the reason that the DH view, which is the ubiquitous view in academia, is not presented as the MPOV, contrary to WP policy. The specific view in question is whether the RD should be presented as a version on the 10C. I object to this line of reasoning, and am prepared to discuss. My points will be

1) This is an example of Special Pleading, a logic error.

2) There is no evidence on “uncool” discrimination.

3)A more likely reason for lack of publication is available, namely, that the Traditionalist view just aren’t accepted, for normal academic reasons. Much like 'Thor traditionist' not getting published in articles about thunder.

I invite comment.

To pre-empt the usual, this is in pursuit of the suggestion that the RD be presented as a version of the 10C. And I don’t think this argument has been explored. If it has, please let me know where. Steve kap (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. If you wish to have a philosophical discussion with JFW regarding traditionalist views, academic journals, or whatever else it is you're talking about, please take it to e-mail. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly my comments are about the article. Steve kap (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

They are? What specific change to the article's text are you suggesting? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That the RD be presented as a version of the 10C, as I've plainly stated. Steve kap (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The article already has a whole section on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, a small mention at the end, which would be be fine for a minorty POV. But, as I've argued, the DH which holds this view, is a Majority POV, among those that publish. Really, Jay, you could have read all this. I don't feel its my responsiblity to recap the discussion for you. 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, you don't have to say what changes you want. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks for your contribution, Jay. Very enlightening. So, because of the lack of support to JFW’s position, can I conclude that editors in general agree with me? That special consideration should NOT be afforded to the “Traditionalist” (JFW could you please define how you are using this term) views, in access of their publication record (or lack thereof)? Even if said lack of publication is due to some sort of (as to now unproven) “anti un-cool” bias? If we can agree on this, I shall go on to try to demonstrate that the Majority POV (among the published) is the DH (all in pursuit of (look Jay! look!!!) presenting the RD as a version of the 10C). Steve kap (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so you do want to propose changes to the article's text after all? Could you please make up your mind? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

rrr, Yes, Jay, it has to do with how the RD is presented. As I've pointed out to you specificly several times. Glad you're up to speed. So, no support for the JFW position? We are going to hold the "Traditionalist" (would that we could get a definition) to the same 'you have to publish' standard as everyone else? If thats the case, lets move on. Steve kap (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve, exactly what change to the article text are you proposing? Please be explicit about the proposed textual modification or addition. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I’d prefer to talk about specifics after some general questions have been settled. Like, the one that is the title of this section. If you’re not going to participate, could you please not disrupt those that might want to? Steve kap (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Talk pages aren't the place for settling "general questions", they are the place for proposing specific changes to article text. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)