Talk:Co-signing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Using biblical references[edit]

Biblical references on non-biblical topics have no place in an encyclopedia. --Improv 20:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think one sentence saying where the Bible prohibits it is worth including, but I agree it's not worth having the actual quotes (especially when the rest of the article is this short). Hopfully the article will be expanded in other directions too, so that the biblical discussion isn't the focus of it. But what is wrong with having a single sentence about it for now? I think enough of the world claims to live by the Bible, that its prohibition of co-signing is a notable fact about the subject. Presumably, Christians who do co-sign and are familiar with the bible have some sort of alternate interpretation by which they can justify their actions, and maybe that should be mentioned to. If any christian apologetics find this, perhaps they can grace us with their $0.02. ~leifHELO 21:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(Shrug) I thought it was mildly interesting. I haven't read what we have to say about Usury but certainly the intersections of Biblical and secular law are historically interesting there. And I thought that if it was worth mentioning, then there was no point in wordsmithing the descriptions of what the Book of Proverbs says when it's easy enough to just quote what it does say. In the original English, of course. And it's just wisdom literature—Solomon advising against it—not an actual religious prohibition. Oh, well. "Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know what we had to say about Usury, but now I do. :-) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the bible references should be kept mainly because that the article (at time of writting) lacks any content and some noticable content is better then just 2 lines... squash 10:32, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
If we lack any valid content, adding content that does not belong is not the answer. I don't see the point of pervasive religious discussion of everything on Wikipedia. --Improv 12:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It does appear from its initial state as if the motive for creating this article was to make a religious point, which is inappropriate. It doesn't really matter a lot to me whether the Biblical material is in there or not. But I just love the language in the long passage, with which I was unfamiliar. You tell 'em, Solomon! Since squash put it back, I've trimmed it down; one quotation instead of two, and inline in the paragraph so it doesn't have as much visual impact.
The article would be much better if it led with few paragraphs of good, meaningful content about the modern legality of cosigning. IMHO the Biblical material does belong... as historical background,. It just needs to be in proportion so that the article is not about Solomon's opinion of cosigning. Perhaps it shouldn't go in there until we have some real material about the general topic of cosigning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I strongly object to the bible commentary. Would you suggest we include relevant portions from all religious or philosophical works that happen to mention cosigning? This is not a historical event -- historical background is not useful. The christian bible should not have special role in the encyclopedia. --Improv 13:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Suit yourself. I'm certainly not going to conduct a revert war over it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted my changes until we can get a consensus on this issue. In general, do you think we should include religious and philosophical commentary, whenever it exists, on every topic in the encyclopedia? Is there something special about this topic or commentary that suggests it's especially relevant? --Improv 14:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, no, I appreciate the courtesy of your revert, but it really isn't necessary. I was perfectly serious. If ungracious. Just put it back however you think it should be. It's there in this history and the article's on my watchlist. If anyone ever expands the article to the point where it can be put back in without throwing the article out of balance, I might put it back.
My perception is that the only reason the article is there is that it was created by someone with a religious burr under their saddle blanket who was trying to make some point or other. I'm not that person and I don't have strong feelings in the matter. My feeling is that the ideal encyclopedia should be long, rich, and delve into all aspects of a subject, philosophical, religious, or whatever. My feeling is also that there isn't a lot in the article, but but that the language of the Proverbs passage is interesting and it's mildly relevant. On the other hand, if the article as a whole (short little stub plus long Biblical passage) looks like excessive religiosity to you, I see your point. I was just grumbling a bit, that's all. Really. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P. S. I am a strong believer that Wikipedia itself and articles therein should be of as high a quality as possible. Sometimes that means pruning underbrush, weeding, and deleting things. That's always going to be mildly annoying to whomever put them in, and sometimes in the normal course of events it's my turn to be that person. Pride of authorship exists but Wikipedians should try to be as egoless as possible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P. P. S. I've put it back. Your way. Consider this to be (grudging) (grumble, grumble) consensus. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't you realize that the Bible is also a book of history, not just a religious book? JoJaEpp (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

VfD debate[edit]

For the vfd debate related to this article see Talk:Co-signing/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)