Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 10

Drg's recent sentence
Hi - regarding this sentence "Leading scholars qualify these stories: 'Research has shown that the Biblical account was deliberately simplified and that traditions extending over half a millennium lie behind the Exodus... no historic facts can be cited in proof... the circumstances of the event at Sinai lie beyond historical analysis..." It's not so much that I object as that I don't understand what parts of it mean. What does it mean that the Biblical account was "deliberately simplified".. does it mean that there was a more complicated, pre-Biblical Exodus story? What about "traditions extending over half a millenium lie behind the Exodus".. does that mean that pre-Exodus Jewish practices in Egypt were ultimately what led to the Israelites being expelled by Pharaoh? "Leading scholars" is WP:WEASEL in my opinion, just say what their background is. The only thing that seems to make sense is the comment "the circumstances lie beyond historical analysis": this is very well-expressed, and it also relates directly to "the event at Sinai" rather than the Exodus as whole, so keep that. But it seems to omit that there is no archeological remnant yet discovered of the giving of the law at Sinai, which I thought was the whole point. Zargulon (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As is obvious, in addition to being completely unclear, it says nothing whatsoever about the Ten Commandments, which is this topic of this article. In addition it was sourced to a "Pictorial Biblical Encyclopedia" from 1964. I'm not joking! Drg55, this WP:NOR has been rejected already, and your WP:ICANTHEARYOU is becoming disruptive. Please stop doing this. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictorial Biblical Encyclopedia was one of my University text books, unfortunately the article is not signed, the writing is academic, it has long articles, for instance, covering the Hittites form of the Covenant in greater detail than here in Wikipedia. (Incidentally I don't think God would bother to write in Hittite forms so that suggests human intervention.  It also gives me a usable reference on the J source and 10C, which you thought was my own research, but was just obvious fact from references.)  I don't think the history of the ancient world has changed since 1964, and its a lot more recent than the reference ".. Julius Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis first published in 1878" which is in the "critical historical analysis" section first paragraph.


 * The encyclopaedia is http://www.amazon.com/Pictorial-Biblical-Encyclopedia-Gaalyahu-Cornfeld/dp/0025282301 (the latest edition is year 2000) Prof D.N Freedman, Prof CH. Rabin Dr. R. Giveon are among the dozens of references "The editor acknowledges his deep indebtedness to these contributors, who represent a cross-section of the younger school of biblical scholarship and archaeology in Israel.  In the preparation of this Encyclopedia extensive use was made of the major works of LEADING contemporary scholars in the field of biblical studies, history and archaeology..."


 * If you think scholarship has moved on the onus is on you, Jayjg, to prove the contrary. It hasn't found any evidence since then.  I don't think you really know too much about this subject.  What the reference is saying is that the occupation of Israel occurred over a period of hundreds of years which has been conflated into the Biblical account.  Myth, legend, call it what you want, the absence of historical supporting evidence including any archaeological remnants in a perfect environment for their preservation is a fact, not an opinion.  One might draw conclusions from this fact but I am just putting it there, hopefully in neutral language.


 * Jayjg you are becoming disruptive with your increasingly desperate hair splitting about terminology. It doesn't need to mention 10C in those exact words since it follows on from the Biblical references and is specifically about the events at Mt Sinai which are being discussed.


 * Zargulon you are more reasonable yes I am happy to work this around. Lets just find a simple formula for this and we can all move on.Drg55 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the one hand
 * I am inclined to believe that the encyclopedia you mention is a reliable source for the state of Sinaitic archeology when it was written.
 * A statement about "The event at Sinai" counts for me as being directly related to the ten commandments.
 * On the other hand
 * Statements about The Exodus in general are presumed (by me and I suppose Jayjg) to be outside the scope of this article.
 * The source is not ideal - a better one would be dedicated to archeology and would be more recent. Does the encylcopedia provide any clues about where it might be found?
 * I am not sure where this will 'fit' in the article. The fact that archaeology of the Sinai peninsula does not indicate a geographical site where the 10 commandments were given can have a range of interpretations depending on your prejudice, from "The entire bible was made up to cynically manipulate people" to "Locations referred to in the Bible may often not be identifiable and may not correspond to modern places with the same name e.g. Sinai peninsula". We should avoid these interpretative discussions which people may feel strongly about but which are just their own opinions. One possible solution could be to have a new section on "Archeology" or "Archeology of the 10C". This could contain the statement that the site of the lawgiving has been searched for in the Sinai peninsula but not found, and perhaps a short description of what is said to have happened afterward to the tablets/ark of the covenant which is also lost to archeology. This would all have to be sourced, and it would be nice to find a source which is more specific and goes into more detail. One might also argue that material about the tablets as physical objects should be in a separate article about the tablets/ark of the covenant. Zargulon (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Ten Commandments identify their origin as God, who directed the Exodus..." This is from the current lede.  With such a statement, I'd say discussion about the Exodus, when it took place, evidence for it or the lack, is directly relevent to the 10C. Is the delivery story myth? History? Did it really happen?  What could be more relevent. 130.76.96.149 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Steve, that is such a good point. And from even earlier in the lead, "The Ten Commandments .. is a text": we must have a discussion in this article about texting and whether or not it is better than just ringing people up or communicating by E-mail. Surely if God really existed then he would have faxed the 10C rather than making them a text. What could be more relevant? Zargulon (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if someone makes such a suggestion, about GOD emailing, texting, or faxing, you can direct your sarcasm at him.  I don’t think my arguments were anything of that nature.  You are free to disagree with my points, but would you please do so with reasoned argument?  And in a less disruptive manner?Steve kap (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if someone makes such a suggestion, that if any word is used in an article then it must be ok to change the subject of the article to that word, wouldn't you assume that person had abandoned "reasoned argument"? Zargulon (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I get your meaning, are you suggesting the “Exodus” is just “any word” that was somehow randomly picked from the article, for special scrutiny? Is that it? You don’t see the close connection between the Exodus and the delivery of the 10 Commandments?  It would help if you made your points more plainly, rather than have me guess. Let me know if that’s what you contend, I can address it.   Steve kap (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that, of many things that are equally connected to the 10C, you are focusing on the Exodus because it helps you to introduce a quote that supports your agenda. Your pretext was that 'The word is in the lede', rather than any actual argument that the Exodus is particularly closely connected to the 10C. That is ridiculous, isn't it? Although, admittedly, not as ridiculous as your subsequent appeal for 'reasoned argument' and your continual WP:IDHT? Zargulon (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as I've said many time before, the connection between the Exodus and the 10C, is that the Exodus narrative containts the delivery of the 10C story, written by the god that made the Exodus possible.  And, by some wild leep of logic, that me thinks that they are closey connected, one being a subset of the other.  Clear enough? Will repeating it help?  Did you hear that? Is "good faith understanding" just a rule for other people?


 * If there are other things that are equally connect to the 10C, and have been neglected, by all means, feal free to bring them forth. That doen't make the historicty of the story, whether or not it happened ,"ridiculous" as you claim. And if you think calls for reasoned argument are "ridiculous", well...seriously, I understand that you can disagree with someone, even become angry, but don’t you see that the same rules that apply to other people apply to you?    Steve kap (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Steve, I'm sorry if you have become angry, but you are bringing it on yourself with your agenda-driven and yet strangely self-contradicting comments. A moment ago you were demanding WP acknowledge that the Bible wasn't written by God, and now you claim that the Exodus narrative and delivery of the 10C story were written by the god that made the exodus possible. You invite me to introduce material on the zillions of things which are equally as peripherally connected to the 10C as the Exodus. Well yes, I'd really love to write essays about desert and stone and fire and engraving and ancient Egypt.. maybe I'd even enjoy dumping them in the 10C article.. but why would I break the same WP guideline which I am trying to open your eyes to? Zargulon (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure I follow your logic. You seem to be suggesting that if the” desert and stone and fire and engraving and ancient Egypt” isn’t relevant to the 10 commandments, than neither is the historicity of the  Exodus story. Is that it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, you say there are "zillions of things" as imporatant and as connected to the 10C. Well, I'd settle for just ONE. Can you name me ONE thing thats as relivent to the 10C and as important as IF THE DELIVERY STORY EVER HAPPENED? I can't immagine what would be as relievent and related to the 10C as that. Please name me one of your zillions.  Steve kap (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be able to distinguish between "relevant" and "directly connected", and you don't seem to be able to distinguish between "the delivery story", "the Exodus", and "whether the Exodus happened". I am sorry you cannot see that your concern with whether it "happened" is a raging, irrational obsession. This should be obvious to you from the fact that you do not have the same obsession with supernatural events from other religions and the fact that you keep conflating things which are completely different. Zargulon (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the text of the entry I used as a quote, it is from a larger article about Moses:


 * "Historicity: Israel's history did not start from scratch at the time of Moses. Research has shown that the biblical account was deliberately simplified and that traditions extending over half a millenium lie behind the Exodus - or were rapidly absorbed into the folklore of its people. (The problems of Israel's origins are discussed under Patriarchs* and Conquest*.) It is often difficult to separate the historic kernel that emerges from the traditions from the surrounding lolklore and the many magic elements which are interspersed with them (the plagues, the miracles, the crossing of the sea, etc.). These express the conviction that Yahweh was actually present and active in the rescue of His people. This is the gist of the tradition, though hard facts are not there to prove it. The prevalent feeling about the reliability of th tradition leads many scholars to believe that the events of the Exodus and Sinai demand a single outstanding personality as their focus. Though no historic facts can be cited in proof, they feel that the Hebrew people was completely transformed by Moses. Moreover, though the circumstances of the event at Sinai lie beyond historical analysis, the Hebrews' unique faith in a single God called in their tradition for an individtral founder of the new belief. Similar analogies of leadership are cited from the cases of the religions of Christianity and Islam."


 * As you can see the tone of this article is quite scholarly and reasonable. It is a good source.  It might be possible for me to chase up a more recent edition but I don't think this argument really has changed.  Simply put there is evidence that the Israelites actually evolved from local culture, there is also evidence of the invasion of Canaan after the Exodus actually occurred over quite a time period, there are quite a few locations mentioned in the Exodus narrative which obviously have all been searched and nothing has been found to support the story.  There are also evidences of hunter gatherers from 5,000 years ago found in the Sinai yet nothing from 600,000 men plus their children and large herds.  And as John Romer comments (seeing I am not allowed to say the obvious) this is an inhospitable environment where people would die in a week.  I actually believe in God, but not everything which is said about him.  There is a possibility of a spiritual event and its not my intention to invalidate people's beliefs, there is always the possibility of a core event underneath quite a lot of overlay, as with any legend.  But getting back to the archaeology, we know the ancients used to use descriptions rather liberally and if we understand the 10C as a morality tale then we would see the 600,000 as being code for the population of Israel at the time the story was being written as it would be understood as applying to all the people.  40 years really just means "a long time", it could be less or much more.  The ancients also transposed stories into different time periods (eg book of Daniel).   While we all might have ideas about what really happened, naturally we can't put that in the article, only facts and opinions from published sources.  My background is in science and I therefore am being rather tenacious about evidence.


 * I did read the article the Exodus and it covers matters very thoroughly and naturally no need to repeat all this here. Nevertheless in this context the "Revelation at Sinai" section quotes from the Bible verbatim and it is important to open up some of the possibilities rather than leaving a literal account.


 * As to the argument that everything must be about 10C, 10C is both a moral code, and a purported event. Therefore events are relevant, but we must keep it brief, super summarised as there is more on it elsewhere.  We could do a short section immediately after the revelation section, but maybe those who seem to be defending a faith based position would actually be happier with "No archaeology and other historical sources have so far been found to support this narrative."Drg55 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This quote says nothing whatsoever about the Ten Commandments - we've been over this at length already, so please stop wasting our time. Also, please stop filling the talk page here with attempts to disprove the historicity of the Exodus, discussions of your beliefs, or suppositions about the beliefs of others - see WP:NOTAFORUM. As has already been explained, this is not some battle between Biblical literalists and modern rationalists - we're all well aware of what modern science says about the Exodus, including that it says there's no evidence for it. We're also all well aware of source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism, and the historical-critical method of studying the Bible. Our only and sole concern here is Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOR. Finally, the revelation is a "purported event", whereas the Ten Commandments are a legal code (or set of laws); they are not the same topic. Now, instead of repeating the same arguments, or attempting to yet again "educate" us about history, science, archeology, or higher criticism, please find sources that are directly related to the topic, and prove it by showing where they mention the Ten Commandments. Do not make any further comments on this topic that do not quote such a source. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Drg, I find your suggestion that editors here are "defending a faith-based position" factually untrue (as well as slightly inappropriate) and I am rather convinced by Jayjg's arguments. Zargulon (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think WP:NOTAFORUM is the right track. Its not a forum for people with a religous agenda, our who want to protect a faith against critism.  I think any fair reader could see  the high bar that's raised for anything critical, or contraversial, or that would point out any contradiction, or that would violate a religous taboo; and the very low bar for anything that fits with a traditional understanding. Am I wrong? Do you see many second sources of bible verses? How long were the areguments to get traditional understanding in the article? Steve kap (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific changes, based on reliable sources discussing the Ten Commandments, that you wish to make to the article? Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, this was more of a general suggestion, that is, to treat and judge views more fairly, regaurdless if they support or undermine a traditional view. Steve kap (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg wrote: "we're all well aware of what modern science says about the Exodus, including that it says there's no evidence for it. We're also all well aware of source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism, and the historical-critical method of studying the Bible. Our only and sole concern here is Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOR. Finally, the revelation is a "purported event", whereas the Ten Commandments are a legal code (or set of laws); they are not the same topic." --If you are so aware of these techniques, then why haven't you put some more of this sort of thing in the article?  If the revelation is a "purported event" then why is there a section of the article on it?  Look, I'm guessing you are Jewish and this is such an article of faith with you that you don't want to sully it.  Its a good myth, you are lucky to have it, but today it has very serious consequences with zionists stealing people's land on the basis that God gave them a deed to it.  I support the state of Israel but not these extremists, and the other lot who think Mossiach is coming any day now.  I have had nothing but stupid criticisms all over one simple sentence.  Furthermore I suppose if I said "the sun came up today" you would call that original research.  It is just a generic fact, opinion and conclusions are something else.Drg55 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Drg, I have sympathy with the principle introducing archaeological information relevant to the 10C, but this recent edit is completely inappropriate. You have now accused Jayjg of making 'irrational' edits and you have made all sorts of tendentious presumptions about his religion and political stance. He has consistently demanded that you demonstrate rigorously from the sources that what you wish introduce is directly relevant to the 10C. It is perfectly reasonable for him to ask this. His criteria seem to be stricter than mine but I don't find them unreasonable. Rather than bringing in politics and personal remarks, and alienating more people, you might consider just trying doing what he asks. Zargulon (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Drg55, again, do not make suppositions about me, or comment in any other way about me. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is the last time I'll warn you about this. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

To do list (2)
Please &lt;S&gt;Strike&lt;/S&gt; the items that are completed or rejected. Anyone that wants to work on any of the items, simply add some sort of an "I'm working on this.[signature]" comment immediately below the enumerated item with 2 colons indent, and start a separate section for updates on progress report(s) where others may assist with suggestions. Telpardec (talk))

1. The Idolatry section has been tagged since February 2010. There are main articles associated with it, can it be summarized with 3 or 4 sentences?

2. Any new information on U.S. debate over display of 10C on public property?

3. According to the top of the talk page, this article is part of 5 projects? Any editors here from any of the projects have any concerns? Does someone know how to contact the projects?

4. Any other off shoots of the 10C article that need a main mention here or a See also? &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

5. The Revelation at Sinai section is missing the spoken commandments and needs clarification and better ordering. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Update list. —Telpardec TALK  04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)



Who Is Commanded? Who Is Protected?
The article currently implies that the Ten Commandments were meant to protect all humans e.g. from the article:


 * "Murdering a human being is a capital sin."
 * "One must not bring a false testimony in a court of law or other proceeding."

However, John Hartung [67] makes a good case that:


 * ...rules against murder, theft, and lying codified by the Ten Commandments were intended to apply only within a cooperating group for the purpose of enabling that group to compete successfully against other groups

Hartung makes a good case that the Ten Commandments were addressed to the Jews and that the proscriptions against murder, theft and lying were meant to protect only other members of the tribe (not outsiders.)

A related point, made in the Wikipedia article, is that only Jews were addressed (commanded) by the Ten Commandments (not gentiles):


 * "The traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that the observance of these commandments and the other mitzvot are required solely of the Jewish people, and that the laws incumbent on humanity in general are outlined in the seven Noahide Laws"

The wikipedia article presents the Ten Commandments as if they were (originally) meant to protect all humans, but apparently the Ten Commandments were not meant to protect all humans.

Under "Traditional division and interpretation" I propose changing this:

6 "Do not murder" Murdering a human being is a capital sin.[25][page needed]

to

6 "Do not murder"

Under "Significance of the Decalogue" I propose adding this at the end:

Just as these commandments were addressed only to the Jews, the commandment to not murder (6) was meant to protect only Jewish people, not gentiles [67]:


 * The law (Mishna) is explicit in this regard (Sanhedrin 79a):
 * If he intended killing an animal but slew a man, or a heathen and he killed an Israelite, he is not liable.

Similarly, the commandment to not steal (8) meant not to steal from other Jews. It was alright to steal from a gentile (Sanhedrin 57a):


 * With respect to robbery - if one stole or robbed or seized a beautiful woman, or committed similar offenses, if these were perpetrated by one goy against another, the theft must not be kept, and likewise the theft of an Israelite by a goy, but that of a goy by an 'Israelite may be retained

[67] Hartung, John (1995.) LOVE THY NEIGHBOR: The evolution of in-group morality. SKEPTIC 3:4 pp 86-99, 1995 and 4:1 pp 24-31, 1996. http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billburcham (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have sources, why not add to the article? To "murder", I can provide addition sources and 2nd sources getting to the same point.   I can provide chapter and page number, if that will help. Steve kap (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Billburcham, the opinions you gave, including those which you ascribed to your source, are ignorant and poisonous. I hope you overcome your obsessions, you will be happier in life. Zargulon (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your personal advice with me Zargulon, but what would be more useful here, would be your contribution to the content I offered. Your sentiment on Hartung's analysis and WP:PA on me have no grounding in any of the Wikipedia policies. SKEPTIC magazine is a reliable source is it not? Google Scholar has 45 citations for the Hartung paper including SJ Blackmore and Steven Pinker. These citations are from publications of the Oxford and Cambridge university presses, Wiley and others. Richard Dawkins cites the paper in "The God Delusion". The "Traditional division and interpretation" section of the Wikipedia article seems to be precisely the place to present the material. Since that section pertains to the Jewish interpretation. I can think of no better primary source than the Talmud. Hartung's analysis of the Talmud constitutes a secondary source and as such is in the sweet spot for citation on Wikipedia. I added no original research or inference. Can you offer any help based on Wikipedia guidelines? Billburcham (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John Hartung was an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the State University of New York when he wrote this article. What would make him any sort of reliable source on the topic of the Ten Commandments, the Mishna, the Talmud, or Jewish law? Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that John Hartung is mentioned on Kevin B. Macdonald as having given him "positive reviews", although it is unclear why he is important enough to be mentioned there. I also note that User:BillBurcham continually uses the slang word "goy" to describe gentiles which I find inappropriate, and the paucity of his contributions suggests WP:SOCK or WP:SPA may apply. Zargulon (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that Hartung is the 2nd source. He doesn't have to be notable, just relieable. The sources that he sights are notable indeed. Steve kap (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review my comment of 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC) immediately above. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he has to be notable, I don't think he is reliable. He seems to be just some random guy with an unsavory agenda, just like some others I could mention. Zargulon (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * His Professorship of Anesthesiology might to speak to his knowledge on this subject, true. But I think his PHD in anthropology does.  And remember, we aren’t asked to take his word for any of this, he sources are there for anyone to see and challenge.   Do you have any such challenges? Or is your only objection the person presenting the information.
 * I agree with the objection of using “goy”, if it is a slang term. And I’d also suggest including statements  that these views aren’t current, i.e., the common Jewish understanding today does NOT limit these moral requirements to the in group.   Steve kap (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A PhD in anthropology does not make one a "reliable source" for any of the topics he writes on (Ten Commandments, the Mishna, the Talmud, or Jewish law]). And it's not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to "check the sources" of unreliable sources, and then confirm that their work is accurate - on the contrary, policy forbids this. Please review [[WP:NOR and WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that "goy" can be a charged term, in spite of the fact that the ADL says that term, meaning "gentile", has "no derogatory connotation". But I am not the author of the offending quotation, Hartung is. If I had to guess why the term "goy" appears instead of the "Cuthean" which I see in the online transcription of Sanhedrin 57a from the 1961 Soncino Talmud, it would be either because Hartung's 1978 Soncino Talmud does in fact use the word "goy" in Sanhedrin 57a or because he (Hartung) replaced "Cuthean" with "goy" as a response to footnote 33 of the same tractate which states: "'Cuthean' (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen)."


 * That being said, I just realized I made a mistake and should not have proposed including the quotation where Hartung cites Sanhedrin 57a, since it does not appear in the original SKEPTIC article. It is from the page hosting Hartung's article but it is in the correspondence section added after the original article. That section hosts a back and forth dialog from a 1996 forum discussion. Interesting points are made but unlike the SKEPTIC article itself, the forum discussion does not meet our criteria for reliable source.


 * So, taking a step back, it seems to me that we have a reliable secondary source here telling us that at least during the time of the authoring of Talmud, Jewish understanding of the prohibition of murder and theft was that it did not provide equal mprotection to Jews and gentiles. The source cites and provides analyses of the Tanakh, the Holy Bible, and the Talmud to arrive at these conclusions. The source makes no claim about contemporary theology. In fact, if you read the abstract at the beginning of Hartung's paper you'll understand that the purpose of the paper is to examine the historical foundations of the Ten Commandments, not contemporary theology concerning them.


 * Now according to our present Wikipedia article, by the 13th century, when Sefer ha-Chinuch was written, at least "do not murder" had come to be interpreted as "Murdering a human being is a capital sin." with no qualification as to the human's affiliation. Perhaps as early as the twelfth century, there may be evidence of a shift in the direction of universal protection in the writings of Maimonides.


 * So based on all that, I'll modify my proposal as follows:


 * Under "Traditional division and interpretation" no changes are proposed. Let the contemporary formulations stand.


 * Under "Significance of the Decalogue" I propose adding this at the end:


 * Just as Jews and gentiles were governed by different commandments, the earliest understanding of the Ten Commandments themselves was that they did not provide equal protection to Jews and gentiles[67]. There is evidence in rabbinical literature that this original understanding has been a topic of debate.


 * And of course, I propose adding the citation [67] to Hartung's paper. --Billburcham (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bill, I think you are completely wrong about the need to make any reference to Hartung's writings. This is a clear example of WP:FRINGE. Hartung seems to be a clever chap, but these views cannot be regarded as having a mainstream academic foothold, unless you want to include Kevin B. MacDonald and other odious characters. Of course his contributions to the Palestine Times make him an even more believable authority on Judaism. You show us a secondary source that includes these viewpoints as part of the legitimate discourse on the subject, and we can talk again. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't thing "fringe" is going to fit here.  What is the mainstream view of the sources that Hartung sites?  "Clever chap" is one way to discribe Harung, PHD in anthropogly is a better way.  JFW, your comments are completely ad hom.  Remember. we aren't asked to take Harungs word for any of this. He has sources.  Those same sources are sited by others, they say what they say.  Thats the trouble with an a hom, attacking the source, arguement, they don't go to the heart of the matter.  Don't shot the messanger.
 * It is simply a fact that predoment Jewish thinkers and writter at a given time applied the 10C, specificly "don't murder" to fellow Jews only. There is no requirement that it comes from a second source that makes your heart go petter patter.  The requirement is that the source is reliable.  Well, is it reliable? Did "Skeptics" have to print a retraction?  Does Hartung have a history of dishonesty, or acedemic fraud?   Did great thinker read this article and say, in publication "All these quotes are made up, and this article is a complete fabrication"?
 * Show that a published article by a PHD in the field is not reliable, JWF, then we can talk. Untill I'd suggest the same rule apply to everyone, even if one side cares deeply, deeply about the artical. Steve kap (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that the author has a PhD does not make him an authority. PhD holders worldwide have written some truly weird and obscure things. In this case I am very happy to use ad hominem arguments. In this particular case, it is a typical example of various quotes from various sources cobbled together to show Judaism in a bad light. A bit like Jew Watch, really. Similar lists can be produced for traditional Christian literature (ever read anything John Chrysostom wrote?), and Islam. Have a good look and be careful who you defend, Steve kap. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Billburcham, Steve kap, please read this carefully. I'll bold it, so you don't miss it this time. John Hartung was an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the State University of New York when he wrote his article. He is not any sort of reliable source on the topic of the Ten Commandments, the Mishna, the Talmud, or Jewish law. Therefore, we will not be citing him in this article. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bill, please don't pay much attention to Jayjg's haudy tone. He likes to speak as if has some particular authority on this page. But don't worry, even thu he use term like "..we will not be citting him this this article" he is just an editor, like you and me.  He don't make such calls.


 * Jayjg, please read this. Please, please, pretty please do.... you are not asked to take Hartung as an authority. You see, and I've pointed this out before, Hartung actually has citation.  Do you get that? I'll repeat it in case you missed it again. Hartung actually cites some folk. Notable folks at that.


 * It seems me having a PHD in an applicable field and was published, thats a prima facia case that he IS reliable. It seems to be for any other aritcle, or for anything other part of this article. Can you give a counter example? Do you have any evidience that this auther is NOT reliable?  Do you have a publish source that even disagrees with the facts that he presents?


 * JWF, I find your requirement to have a concuring opinion by Kevin B. MacDonald bizzare. Is this a requirment for every part of the article? When did this rule start?   JWF, Jayjg, I think if you could step outside your positions, you see, like any fair reader of this would, that your using special rules to keep out ideas that you don't like.


 * As an aside, I share your concern about showing Jews in a bad light, I'd suggest empahising the ancient, historical nature of the offensive position. Or, even not reffering to which group had these views.  To me, it not important.  I'd hazzard that at the time, all groups had a strong ingroup-outgroup double standard.70.246.132.224Steve kap (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC) (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's get the facts straight first, Steve:
 * In the approximately 1500 years before the Talmud was written, there is no evidence at all for the suggested ingroup/outgroup difference
 * Judaism has always forbidden murdering a gentile
 * Most streams of Judaism, if not all have, for their entire history, considered that commandment to apply to gentiles.
 * A editor appears, demands we write a paragraph that suggests all of the above is untrue, based on the writings of an amateur provocateur
 * Steve Kap supports him uncritically
 * Steve, are you actually here to make WP a better encylopedia or not? At some point you have to decide. Zargulon (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To respond to the point made to me (I think, how hard is it to write JFW rather than JWF?), I did not say at any point that I wanted a concurring opinion by MacDonald. Quite on the contrary, I wanted to demonstrate that Hartung is WP:FRINGE by showing the kind of company he keeps. There is now a clear opposition against citing this mad scientist as a source, so I suggest you step away now. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * JWF, I see, I misunderstood. So, you want us the "Association fallacy" to prove your point?  How very brave an honest of you.  Are you at all concered that, by using a logical fallacy, your reasoning might be called into question (note the word "fallacy" in your reasoning) ? Is there any evedence that Hartung is a "Mad Scientist"?  Was his PHD in making Zombies, as mad scientist are want to do? Or, is his PHD in fack in ANTROPHOLOGY (a note to Jaydg, when one receives a PHD in a 2nd subject, the 1st PHD doesn't get taken away).   18:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)


 * Zargulon, way to bring on the weak sauce:


 * "In the approximately 1500 years before the Talmud was written, there is no evidence at all for the suggested ingroup/outgroup difference"
 * That is to say that the Talmud explicetly expresses an ingroup/outgroup difference. Which is the very point you're agueing against. 'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty' comes straight from the Talmud. Do you have a 2nd source that contends that it says something difference? Is not anthropology  the correct field to objectively bring this to us, and put it in perspective?


 * And yes, I am here to improve Wikipedia articles. I believe that fighting against what some minorities believe is an automatic veto on anything that they don't like is part of that, part of making Wikipedia articles better; even if this irritates members of that minority.  Steve kap (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Steve, just to be clear, though I have already pointed out that earning a PhD in anthropology (and then working in an unrelated field, anesthesiology) does not make someone a "reliable source" for any of the topics Hartung writes on: (Ten Commandments, the Mishna, the Talmud, or Jewish law). And it's not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to "check the sources" of unreliable sources, and then confirm that their work is accurate - on the contrary, policy forbids this. Please review WP:NOR and WP:RS. I made this exact same point on 21:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC), I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Steve, that is not what I am "argueing against". Please read what I actually wrote or go back to school and learn to read. What does 'way to bring on the weak sauce' mean.. is it some sort of pretentious street patter that you heard some kid use in Starbucks yesterday? Also please address Jayjg's comments, he has made them enough times already. Zargulon (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, I'm sorry, you seem to say that PHD in Athropology isn't qualified to read and report what he rread in the Talmod. Is that what your saying? And, as a person trained to study cultures, there writtings, there mores, there laws, is obviously SO unreliable, that you couldn't be trouble to HIT THE HPPERLINK AND READ THE CITED PASSAGE FOR YOURSELF, as that would be too too much trouble.
 * Jayjg, the fact that you "pointed it out" that an Antrhopoligist isn't reliable isn't really enough. You might be asked to state, WHY you don't think his is reliable. Fair enough? It seems to me that an anthropologist can READ, (which is all thats required in this case), but, more over, he is trained to read documents in the context of the culture that wrote them, and make sense of them in that way. Is this not true?  I know, I know, you wrote your opinion in bold, you stated it as fact, and you repeated it.  You might tthink that would be enough. But, sadly, some of us require evidence and sound reasoning.  Do you have any tto offer? Steve kap (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're asserting that an anestheseologist with a PhD in anthropology is a WP:RS on Ten Commandments, the Mishna, the Talmud, or Jewish law, you'll have to prove it yourself. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
Let's go back a bit. has said his bit, and has not interacted with this discussion. Instead we have telling us that saying outrageous things is okay as long as you hold a PhD in an academic field that is remotely related to the subject under discussion. I have still not seen evidence that anyone apart from fringe groups actually regard Hartung as a reliable source, so I am not changing my views. There seems to be consensus against including Hartung's views. JFW &#124; T@lk  09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * JWF, what are you saying is outrageous? BTW, the idea of ingroup loyalty, outgroup hostility is quite mainstream in the fields of anothropogly, biology, socialogy.  Banal in fact.
 * And again, I must repeat, he does have sources! They can be easlily verified by any who care to!! Does anyone dispute the accuracey of the sources? Is the Talmud not some sort of notable record of Jewish thinking, at least at one time? It's as if you think that if you shot the messagenger, you woun't have to deal with the implications of the message!! Remarkable.  Steve kap (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't care if he's got sources. I was asking for proof that his views are regarded as authoritative by others in this field (not just by you). You have been unable to demonstrate this. Lots of people quote bits of Talmud out of context; this is a classic ploy that has been used for centuries. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Before you declare consensus JFW, I'd like the opportunity to respond to the questions about the reliability of our source. JFW you have called the source WP:FRINGE. Jayjg has repeatedtly described Hartung as an "Associate Professor of Anesthesiology" (implying that he has no pertinent credentials). Zargulon introduced guilt by association citing a Wikipedia article that says Hartung gave a favorable review to Kevin B. MacDonald's first book. JFW picked up on the guilt by association thread and upped the ante by stating that Hartung's contributions to the "Palestine Times" newspaper somehow disqualifies him.
 * WP:RS says "source" has three related meanings: the work itself (in this case, the "Love Thy Neighbor" paper), the creator of the work (John Hartung), and the publisher (SKEPTIC). The three of you (JFW, Zargulon, Jayjg) seem preoccupied with the creator of the work while completely ignoring the work itself and the publisher, but I'll get to those in a moment. Let's start with Hartung's reliability. In context. John Hartung holds a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Harvard University. If you are wondering whether an anthropologist might have something pertinent to say about Iron Age through Medieval historical writings and cultural practices I suggest you consult Wikipedia on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology which states:
 * Anthropology's basic concerns are "What defines human life and society?", "How are social relations among humans organized?", "Who are the ancestors of modern Homo sapiens?", "What are humans' physical traits?", "How do humans behave?", "Why are there variations among different groups of humans?", "How has the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens influenced its social organization and culture?" and so forth.
 * Indeed, according to my research, Hartung is an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology. But he is also an anthropologist Jayjg. Looking at his CV it is apparent that about half of his (considerable) academic output over the past 30 years or so has been in the field of Anthropology. According to his CV http://strugglesforexistence.com/pdf/HartungCV.pdf, Hartung taught in the Anthropology and Biology departments of Harvard University for five years 1976-1981. He served on the executive council of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Behavior_and_Evolution_Society from 1989-95.
 * John Hartung recently gave an invited view at the Foundation for the Future's, Humanity 3000 Seminar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kistler_Prize#Foundation_For_the_Future
 * The mission of the Foundation For the Future is to increase and diffuse knowledge concerning the long-term future of humanity. It conducts a broad range of programs and activities to promote an understanding of the factors that may have an impact on human life in the long term.
 * He has given ten or more invited lectures in Anthropology. These are the institutions:
 * Amherst College: 3
 * Harvard University: 1
 * SUNY: 2
 * University of California, Davis: 1
 * University of Michigan: 1
 * University de Palma de Mallorca: 1
 * Vanderbilt University: 1
 * He has published about four book chapters in the field. Book publishers include Prentice Hall and Oxford University Press.
 * He has had published about 25 letter and commentaries in the field in regional and international papers and publications:
 * Aljazeera Magazine (article and video)
 * Harvard Magazine: letters 2
 * Newsday: letters: 12
 * New York Times: letters: 3
 * New York Times Magazine: letters: 1
 * Palestine Times: letters: 1, commentary: 5, articles: 1
 * Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: letters: 1
 * He has produced about ten peer-reviewed articles in Anthropology and related disciplines including one article in Nature. His peer-reviewed articles have appeared in these publications:
 * Behavioral and Brain Science: article: 1, invited comment: 6
 * Current Anthropology letters: 4 articles: 3 invited comment: 4
 * Human Ecology: articles 1
 * Journal of Theoretical Biology: articles: 2, letters: 1
 * Nature: articles: 1, letters: 4
 * Social Biology: articles 1
 * Anthropolgists are in general reliable sources when it comes to ancient cultures and writings. And John Hartung is a reliable source in the field of Anthropology.
 * Moving on to the publisher. The source is strengthened by its publication in SKEPTIC magazine. According to its website http://www.skeptic.com/ SKEPTIC has been published for 19 years and has a current circulation of 50,000 copies worldwide. The contributions page says:
 * Skeptic is primarily a science magazine, and as such we are not looking for commentaries and philosophical diatribes about and against religion. We are only interested in religion when testable claims are made, such as that prayer effects health and healing, or that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that the Shroud of Turin is a 1st-century artifact, that the anthropic fine-tuned nature of the cosmos proves it was intelligently designed, and the like.
 * Their stated review policy is this:
 * Major articles are either invited or submitted and refereed by the editor, members of the editorial advisory board, or an appropriate expert in the field.
 * Perusing the editorial board of SKEPTIC for historians and anthropologists I see:
 * Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-Winning Historian
 * Napoleon Chagnon, Professor of Anthropology, U.C. Santa Barbara
 * Clayton J. Drees, Associate Professor of History, Virginia Wesleyan College
 * Gerald Larue, Professor Emeritus of Biblical History and Archaeology, University of Southern California
 * Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
 * Carol Tavris, Social Psychologist
 * The only missing piece of the reliable source question is the "work itself". I feel like the cited paper speaks for itself in that regard. And since no one has really attacked any of the actual substance of the work itself, notwithstanding Zargulon's appraisal of it as "ignorant and poisonous", I do not feel compelled to enlarge what is already an over-large comment. If, after learning about our source, anyone wants to shift gears and actually debate the reliability of the content we can certainly do that.
 * Lastly, in between researching Hartung and SKEPTIC I have had time to think more about how best to summarize the pertinent findings from the paper in question for the present Wikipedia article. I'd like to reformulate my paragraph yet again to make it more accurate by removing the re-statement of stuff presented earlier in the article. So I removed the "Just as Jews and Gentiles…" phrase, leaving this:
 * The earliest understanding of the Ten Commandments themselves was that they did not provide equal protection to Jews and gentiles[67]. There is evidence in rabbinical literature that this original understanding has been a topic of debate.
 * I look forward to hearing the group's opinion and hope that we can drive to a consensus on this important piece of history. Billburcham (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With regard to the sources, others are better placed to comment than I.. but BillBurcham makes perhaps the most prevalent mistake in ethics - conflating protections of purported victims of transgressions with obligations on people not to transgress. A commandment which states "thou shalt not murder" does not, in itself, "provide" anyone with "protection" against murder, as BillBurcham implies; in a society of transgressors, the commandment "thou shalt not kill" would promote, rather than protect against, murder. The suggestion that the commandment does not provide equal protection to Jews and Gentiles simply does not make sense, and for it to mean anything at all seems to rely on a host of presumptions most of which are nothing more than BillBurcham's opinions, and some of which are no more than J. Hartung's opinions. Zargulon (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose I am in good company with my confused notion of laws providing protection Zargulon (cf the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution). The Ten Commandments is clearly part of a system of laws, judiciary (earthly and divine) and enforcement (earthly and divine), which serve (and have served) to protect various interests, and people, to varying degrees. The Ten Commandments are not merely abstract ethical statements as your comment would have us believe. Billburcham (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite misrepresenting my criticism and drawing a false analogy with the US Constitution, BillBurcham has at least started to make some of the clear the arbitrary presumptions which allow him to leap from the commandments to his initial statement. While this is to be welcomed, and I hope he continues on this path, I fear there are simply too many. Zargulon (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for a mainstream source that cites Hartung as a bona fide voice. Just repeating his CV here is of no benefit. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As am I. We need evidence that he is a reliable source for any of the topics Hartung writes on in his article (Ten Commandments, the Mishna, the Talmud, or Jewish law). Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I've done all I can to support this source ("Love Thy Neighbor…") as WP:RS for this article. It's clear that we do not have consensus. Bear in mind that of the many claims made in "Love Thy Neighbor…" I picked what I felt to be a very well-supported (in the paper and in the traditional texts) and uncontroversial claim, and I did not propose introduction of the more controversial claims regarding evolutionary social science. The latter, in my opinion ranged too far afield. While I suspect that the suggested article addition may be supportable directly by Talmudic sources already discussed (above), I want to delve into some of the other sources already cited in the Wikipedia article, in particular some of the more contemporary ones, to see what they say on the subject. (Wikipedian exits stage left to the public library) Billburcham (talk)


 * And I’m still waiting for you to support the allegation that he is a “mad scientist”.  Or are you in the habit of making up groundless accusations?
 * And when can I see some mainstream sources that dispute his QUOTES FOR THE TALMUD? Is your object to what the Talmud says, or who brings it to you? And when can a hear your explanation WHY an anthropologist is not qualified to read and comment on this text? Simply saying that your waiting is of no benefit.Steve kap (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "mad scientist" is not an allegation, it is a value judgement based on opinion. Doesn't need a source.
 * As I explained, the quotes from the Talmud are out of context. An anthropologist is not more qualified than anyone else in this regard. He follows the same methodology as Carol Valentine and other modern-day anti-Talmudists. "Find something that looks bad (even if it is not the final decision of a purely legalistic argument) and offer it up as somehow representative of the Jewish view of gentiles." You are discrediting yourself by defending this nefarious approach and its proponents. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your judgment that an anthropologist isn't so qualified, seems to me that's excatly what an anthropologist does. Am I wrong? If so, how so?  I share your conserns that such an argument/discussion would be used to make one ethinic group/ religous group look bad.  I think that your wrong in the assumption that that is the intend of the ref'ed article .  It has more to to with ingroup loyality/ outgroup hostitily.  It just so happens that the example was from the Jewish culture, it would have been any culture.  But you concern about stiring up Jewish/ gentile hostility, you have a point. Wound't want to do that.  Steve kap (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not an anthropologist, he's an anesthesiologist, and the study of the Bible, the Mishna, the Talmud, and Jewish law are all academic disciplines that require specialized knowledge, training, and publication before one is considered a reliable source. The first three are extremely complicated texts, the last is a complicated body of texts and legal rulings. None of them are "cultures". If you're going to assert he's a reliable source, you're going to have to provide better proof than your belief that he "follows the same methodology as Carol Valentine and other modern-day anti-Talmudists". Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjd, I’m not sure I understand.   You seem to be arguing that if H. is an anesthesiologist, he can’t be an anthropologist.  But I think we’ve established that he is both, yes?  When he received his credentials in anesthesiology, do you think they took his PHD in anthropology away? I have pointed this out before, did you miss it? Or  am I missing something?
 * I don’t think a anthropologist needs degree in Jewish studies to study Jewish writing, any more than he’d need a degree in witchdoctoring to study witchdoctors.   And wouldn’t he have a more objective view than someone steeped in the tradition?  (As to Valentine, I don’t know what you’re talking about, I made no such claim, I think you confused me with someone else).
 * JWF, I’m glad that you acknowledge that your “mad scientist” comment was just your personal opinion, not backed by any evidence or sound reasoning. As such, is it fair to say that we should set it aside completely, when it comes to determining the reliability of this published author/anthropologist/anesthesiologist? Steve kap (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, you understand, and I have made no such argument. He's an anesthesiologist with a degree in anthropology. Biblical studies, Talmudic studies, and Jewish law are all academic disciplines that are not anesthesiology or anthropology. The studies of these texts and areas all have their own experts, requirements, university departments, academic journals, etc. Having a degree in anthropology does not make one a reliable source for these disciplines, any more than having a PhD in English, Biology, Physics, History, or any other other discipline would. Unless you provide evidence that having a degree in Anthropology makes one a WP:RS on the Bible, the Talmud or Jewish law, I won't be responding to further trolling. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjd, if you are making "no such claim", why do you repeat, over an over, that this man is an anethesialogist? If not to IMPLY that he has no background that would be relivent to this discussion (which he does). Could you explain that please? As to how anthropologist could posibley READ THE TALMUD, and put it in the context of its culture, well,  I ref you to the definition of anthropologist. Look it up.  He meets each of the 6 criteria of reliable source as a scholory source.  As to "trolling" I understand its easier to call someone names rather that take part in a reasoned arguement.  But not nearly as meaningful. Steve kap (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat that he is an anesthesiologist because that is his profession; it is what he does for a living, and therefore where his professional expertise lies. Regarding the rest, please review my comment of 20:31, 18 September 2011. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

]
 * Oh, I see, I see! So, when you ref to Hartug only as an anesthesioligist, thats YOUR was of espressing that he IS an antrhopologist (thu, strangely, you never seem to state this), but, because his CURRENT proffesion is that of anesthesiolgist, he somehow is no longer qualified to,, what, read the Talmud! Is that what you would have us believe?  For future ref, if such is your argument, you need only say so. I know, I know, to argue against his qualification honestly, you'd have to 1st acknowlge waht his qualifications are, and that might hurt the force of your argument. But, you'd be able to avoid the apperance of dishonesty.


 * Now, as to the claim that you indeeded (so you say) to make, I'm reminded that Fermate was not a profesional mathematatician. Should we not regaurd him as a profesional?  Can you cite any other example of a PHD holder being rejected as a source (2nd source, mind you) on the groud that he wasn't a CURRENT profesional in the field? Or, and I'm just guessing here, is this just a canard.  Is the real issue just that you don't like what the Talmud says in this respect? 04:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

Abitrary break 2
The comparison with Carol Valentine (who is of course an Elizabeth Dilling adept) and Hartung was mine, not yours or Jay's. As it happens, Hartung in his article mistakes a purely legalistic argument about unintended manslaughter for a value judgement. These canards about the Talmud are about as old as the work itself, and are easily disproven by anyone who can be bothered to engage in an actual argument with haters. At the moment, it is completely irrelevant to this article. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, so you think Hargund was way of base, any luck getting that view published? Or, is this like your "mad scientist" comment, purely your opinion, not based on published sources, and should be given no weight? Steve kap (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, show me a mainstream source that treats Hartung's perspective as authoritative, and we'll grant him some credibility. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, more generally, states that a degree in anthropology makes one a WP:RS on the Bible, the Talmud or Jewish law. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, please look up the definition of "anthropology" and I think you can answer your own question.

JWF, "one can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes". Thats how we decide whats "mainstream here", thats from the WP RS page. Do you recall seeing the citation list earlier in the "talk"? I'm sure I do.

Now, where are your published papers saying the Talmud was misquoted in this case? Or was that your ungrounded, unpublished personal opinion that, as such, should be given no weight? Steve kap (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok! So I think we've gotton down to it now. Hartungs paper HAS been accepted in the mainstream of academia, by WP definition, based on his citiations. JFW's judgement that Hartung is a "mad scientist" is really based on, what was that again JFW's? Was it simply based on nothing? Nobody has presented ANY reason an Anthropologist isn't qualified to..... what was it he would need to do? Read the Talmud?  And Jay's repeated ref to Hargung as repeated ref to him has other than an anthropologist is purely a canord. Thats about it, isn't it? 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

Request for comment
Help is needed from other editors with a content dispute between two editors with apparently opposite views of how the first sentence in the Ten Commandments article should read. The dispute is mainly about whether a singular or plural verb should be used with a plural subject. Ignoring the alternate Greek terminology which does not control English grammar, the two opposing sentences in pertinent part are:
 * 1) The ten commandments,..., are texts in the Hebrew Bible ...
 * 2) The Ten Commandments,..., is a text in the Hebrew Bible ...

Complete side-by-side text of both views may be seen in this difference page. Previous view of both with edit reasons may be seen in this difference page.

Thanks for your help. 172.129.202.168 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The second version is grammatically correct, and "Ten Commandments" should be capitalized - see this website or this one for more detail. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two texts referred to as the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. To imply that there is one would be misleading. Though I'm not sure "The Ten Commandments [...] are texts in the Hebrew Bible ..." is the best way to express this. I'll think about it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Ten Commandments .. is a pair of texts" if you insist.. although this is not the subject of the request for comment. Zargulon (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking maybe The Ten Commandments [...] denotes (or refers to) two texts in the Hebrew Bible... Is the main issue capitalization? Where is the prior discussion? Anyway, I've only ever seen it capitalized. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think 'denotes/refers to' is pointlessly wordy, but I would tolerate it. The RFCer gave us a choice between two alternatives.. if you suggest something different to either you run the risk that he will just start another RFC. But that is your decision. Zargulon (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So this didn't spring from a prior discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What didn't? If you take a look at the edit summaries in the article history you will see where this originally arose. Zargulon (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy, am I going to agree with Zargulon? I guess I have to... I think "The Ten Commandments" is kind of a proper noun, and should be capitalized and singular. There has been some disagreement if there are different versions of "the" ten commandments (I think that there are, or have been).  But I think we all agreed that "The Ten Commandments" are the ones that are popularly reconized as such.  Other lists, like the Ex 34, are at least "ten (or so) commandments", and we can debate if they ever were "The Ten Commandments" (I hold they were) or if they are now a version of "The Ten Commandments". Steve kap (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's official, the first time in WP history. Zargulon (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The main issue is the subject-verb agreement. Commandments are plural. This is not a case of compound subjects with mixed plural/singular in which the subject nearest the verb governs number, but a comma-delimited parenthetical. With a parenthetical, you can read the sentence without the parenthesis without losing meaning, as the excerpt above with the ellipsis shows. The subject of the article and the first sentence is about the biblical ten commandments. The word decalogue is a misnomer. It is supposed to be from the Greek translation of the passage in Ex.34:28, which is deka logous (plural) meaning "ten words" (plural), but decalogue means "ten word" (singular) – a faulty term, which IMO should never have been used. Regardless, the subject of the sentence is plural and demands a plural verb. Also, as Anthony pointed out above, there are two texts (plural), not one.


 * "Δεκαλογος" is a valid word in Greek for referring to the Ten Commandments, and it is singular. If you wanted to use the Greek for "ten words", that would be "δεκα λογοι" (your "δεκα λογους" being the accusative case), but the etymology of the English "decalogue" is "δεκαλογος" not "δεκα λογοι". The etymology of the Greek δεκαλογος is not a corruption of "δεκα λογους", that is absurd. The suffix -λογος can have any meaning relating to speaking ("λεγω") or writing, and for the literal-minded "δεκαλογος" is probably best interpreted as "the ten-fold speech". Zargulon (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, it is incorrect to capitalize "ten commandments" anywhere except the article title, (and possible the opening line, but it doesn't seem right there either). In the Bible, in Ex:34:28 we see: "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments ." Plainly it is not capitalized there, nor in the other two places where that descriptive phrase appears in the Bible. It is not capitalized in any of these versions that I have checked: Geneva, Bishops, DouayRheims, KJV, Webster, ERV, ASV, RSV, NRSV(1995), WEB, AKJV, KJ2000, UKJV, EJ2000. The NIV and NASB use title case, in error, in my opinion. On stone monuments and plaques, the words "the Ten Commandments" appear above the full or partial quotes of the verses from Ex.20, as a title for the product, and in that case is capitalized. The words do not appear at the actual beginning of Exodus chapter 20 in the Bible as a title, however, but merely as a descriptive phrase, making known how many commandments were spoken/written. See also my latest edit. Thanks everyone. 172.131.153.174 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are looking in the wrong place. The Biblical texts that lowercase "ten commandments" are not referring to "The Biblical text called the Ten Commandments", they are merely translating aseret hadvarim which by the way is not always translated as "commandments". This article, however, is about the Biblical text called the Ten Commandments, which merely includes the concept of aseret hadvarim. Zargulon (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplication?
The following paragraph from the article's "Revelation at Sinai" section appears to be unnecessary duplication of stuff from the Ritual Decalogue article and the Critical historical section. Removed here, in case there is any unique material that can be merged into the other article. 172.131.153.174 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC) 172.131.153.174 (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with the Ritual Decalogue article is it has at the top the obsolete "evolutionary" thesis of Goethe from the ritual to the ethical, this being highly constructed interpretation greatly removed from more factual material, an idea which is historical should be lower in the article and I think it tends to throw the reader from what is otherwise a very good article. I accept that there was some duplication in my entry which was also unnecessarily wordy, but surely a brief summary can be put in the main article, kept to the main points of the story.  Too much highly relevant information is compressed into what is effectively a footnote.Drg55 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the material is still out of place in the revelation section, and it orphaned a sentence. The material looks like it is better suited in the other article or critical historical section here, if anywhere. I agree there are problems with the Ritual Decalogue article, but can't speak further about that here. Perhaps some of the other editors here can suggest other alternatives. 172.131.153.174 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I rather agree. Moreover I think that there are some wider structural problems with this article.
 * The "Revelation at Sinai" section does not currently have a clear focus, and in fact the phrase "revelation at Sinai" is ambiguous. I think it should be called "Background" or something and it should be devoted to filling in the other parts of the Bible story leading up to the giving of the tablets, and perhaps what is said to have happened to them afterwards. It needn't go into interpretation, religious or otherwise.
 * We have separate sections for each religion's interpretations and a further separate section for interpretative differences between religions, each with many subsections. As they are at the moment this doesn't read particularly well and seems to be too broken up by whitespace and "mainarticle" references to other pages. I also think some of the interpretative difference sections are a little weird, e.g. the Sabbath interpretative difference only makes reference to Christianity. Maybe it would just be better to have a single section for each commandment rather than up to ten sections for each religion and for interpretative differences. Any solution which cuts down on "section creep" would be fine by me.
 * The material which refers to J and E sources needs to be elaborated so people know what the heck J and E sources means, and it refers to scholars by last names as though all should be familiar with them. I think in general this section assumes too much background knowledge and could use a little more introduction.Zargulon (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Zargulon, when you say "the material which refers to J and E sources..." do you mean what I wrote?  I was trying to keep it from being a dissertation on the documentary hypothesis.  Actually the Ritual Decalogue article is really good and most of it would be better off in this article, but we are still swimming up a waterfall trying to get anything that encourages critical thinking in this article.   There is an excellent table in the Ritual Decalogue article showing that the Exodus 34 version is a summary of the Book of Judgements and one might conclude that as the TC are written by a priest and almost identical to the Deuteronomy version, that this was later added in.  All I am saying is can't we import most of this data to the main article because it is really relevant.Drg55 (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't keep track of when it appeared, I guess it would include what you wrote. The main problem with that section is that is no-one understands from reading what the point of that work is. There needs to be an introduction to the motivation for the work in general just like there is in the lede. The terms bible criticism and higher criticism etc are easily misinterpreted to suggest that people are acting with the purpose of undermining religion, which is simply not true. 86.182.26.253 (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zargulon's comments about the J and E stuff, re:background. Also, it doesn't belong in the "Revelation at Sinai" section, which should be limited to the biblical narrative. Similar J&E and RD material was in that section in the past, and kept growing and eventually separated into what became the "Critical historical analysis" section, and there is a separate Ritual Decalogue article. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with renaming the section. Revelation at Sinai is the standard term used to describe the event of the 's appearing and the giving of the law. I agree with Zargulon's comment about a need to fill in the rest of the Bible narrative in that Section. Steve Kap made a similar comment back in mid July about the fact that there was no mention of the speaking of the commandments. The narrative presently begins with the 40 days and the tables of stone. I've added it to the To Do list above. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Todays edits
An IP editor (presumably the one who has contributed recently) made edits to the lead with the following summary: "The intro/lead needs subject summary according to MOS. The ten commandments are the subject. Restoring the summary of the ten commandments themselves. Add proper template. More rewording. 'said in the Bible' redundant, 1st sentence ID'd source." I reverted his changes because: I will happily countenance his more minor changes which do not make the lead worse and which abide by consensus. Zargulon (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead already had a subject summary and it was better than the one he replaced it with.
 * He introduced a mistaken Greek etymology for the English word "decalogue"
 * He ignored the consensus regarding his own RFC about whether the Ten Commandments is captialized/singular or lowercase/plural
 * Your version of the lede is considerably better than earlier versions, and significantly better than the IP's version. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Numbering scheme of two texts
&mdash;Telpardec (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2 tables comparing the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the commandments, and showing the different numbering schemes have been combined and condensed into a single table.
 * The WP:COPYVIO NRSV has been removed and public domain Authorized Version used, which has the additional advantage of making known the distinction between singular and plural with the 2nd person pronouns. (The commandments are addressed to each individual as an individual.)
 * Per WP:ACCESS each verse is limited to a single row in the table. The previous method with more than 1 verse grouped in a row caused problems with Screen reader users hearing out of order verses when right column verses were 1 screen line shorter than the left. Also, the numbering scheme table with vertical rowspans was useless for informing visually impaired people of the differences.
 * Interpretations, commentary and special footnotes have been eliminated. There are separate sections of the article that make (or can make) known the variations in translation and interpretation.
 * A single table avoids unnecessary repetition of the commandments.
 * There is still some question how closely the 3 numbering schemes are followed by the listed groups, at least in the United States where public display versions usually include Exodus 20:2 as part of the first commandment, rather than a prologue to verse 3. (Some displays avoid problems by not numbering them.)
 * In the old numbering table, the 1st and 3rd columns were the same except the headers identifying the groups. Column A in the new table by Ex.20:2 includes both "pre" (for preface or prologue) and "1" for first, to avoid adding a 4th column for a minor variation.


 * [Copy of Zargulon's lower comment to above moved here for answer by Telpardec (talk)] <BR>"I don't agree with condensing the two tables, the resultant table has too many types of information, although I might be open to more abbreviation in the existing tables."


 * The numbering table had duplication of verses and 5 columns, and the new table has verses and 5 columns. There is no difference in that respect. The new table has the same kind of information as the 2nd table, except it has 2 comparison copies of the verses. I see no merit in your argument. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Restore revised table. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved this section to bottom for additional discussion concerning Accuracy. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy
Telpardec has insisted on reconfiguring and merging the long-standing tables saying what different religions count as the first-tenth commandment. Whether or not this was a good idea, in doing so he has changed the information in the table. The current and previous tables can't both be right, and I think the onus is on him to fact-check it. Zargulon (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Zargulon, the "onus" is on you to point out what "fact" if any you think is wrong. I'm not a mind reader. I agreed with your change from using A,B,C to something more descriptive. I disagree with your changing the section title. The table includes the numbering scheme and the two texts side by side as in the former tables. The heading needs to reflect the contents of the section. The opening sentence mentioning the two texts with links to the Hebrew version of the texts needs to stay. (I'm not saying it can't be reworded, as long as the essential information is retained.)
 * Zargulon requested: Please show where the source refers to a "preface".
 * What source? The Bible text? The first verse of Exodus 20 is prefatory narration. The second verse is a prologue to the commandments, since it contains no imperative command.
 * I reverted your blind revert because it reintroduced multiple errors that had been corrected. If you have a problem with part of the article, work the problem. If you have a problem with me personally, I have a talk page. Thanks for your patience. &mdash;Telpardec (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with you personally, I don't know why you would think that. My edit wasn't a "blind revert", I even accepted your change regarding reference punctuation; please make more accurate talk page statements. Your edit summary incorrectly stated that I introduced "arithmetic errors" and "grammar errors", but your talk page comment did not indicate where you thought these were. You seem to have completely missed the RFC on this talk page where the consensus was that "Ten Commandments" was a name of a text and therefore singular, just like "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a film" is gramatically correct. Furthermore when you changed "text" to "texts" across the article in defiance of this, you did so inconsistently. You are also inconsistent with your application of your WP:OR concept of a "preface", applying it to the Philonic but not to the Augustinian column of the table, and you are inconsistent with your comment that a non-imperative statement should not be classified as part of a commandment, since in the Talmudic column of your table, verses 1-2 are so classified. As for the section title, I have suggested something new which might be acceptable to both of us. Zargulon (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I now understand your point about the numbering. I have changed the "16 verses" for sake of argument. The reason it has been "roughly 15" verses is because of the uncertainty, reflected in your table as well as its predecessor, about whether the first two verses were part of a Commandment. I am personally happy with them being part of a Commandment since in this context "Commandment" does not imply an imperative statement. It seems though that you take the opposite position so I think you have to decide what you want. Zargulon (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Numbering aside, I have two problems with language and accuracy I hope you can address. "Groups that generally follow this scheme include Hellenistic Jews," - can someone provide a source to support this?  From what I have read, we actually know very little about what most Hellenistic Jews actually believed to practiced.  Philo and Josephus were both members of a literate elite and not representative of Hellenistic Jews.  I am not arguing that we exclude their views, only that two members of the elite are not enough to support the claim that Hellenistic Jews in general shared this scheme.


 * The Talmudic division, from the third century Jewish Talmud, makes verses 1-2 as number 1, and combines verses 3-6 as number 2. Really? My understanding is, that the Rabbis of the Talmud did not number the verses of the Torah the way that the KJ Bible and perhaps other Christian Bibles do.  Today, many English translations used by Jews have adopted the chapter and verse scheme of Christians, but did the rabbis of the Talmud?  If Jews back then did not number the verses, then we cannot say that the Talmud "combines verses."  They simply divide up the words differently from Christians. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, the text needs to be tweaked a bit to reflect this. Zargulon (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the lead
Claim: "widely considered fundamental to Judaism and Christianity"

Fact: "Ten Commandments" doesn't even appear in the articles on Judaism and Christianity. How can it then be "fundamental" to either religion?

Proposed solution: "part of the 613 mitzvot of Judaism and the Old Covenant of Christianity and commonly cited as the cornerstone of Judeo-Christian ethics."

75.15.195.18 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for taking this to the talk page. For future reference, please don't revert a revert ahead of discussion; more about this is at WP:BRD and WP:3RR. About citing other Wikipedia pages, Wikipedia is not a source. Maybe those other articles should say something about the Ten Commandments. Now, I thought I had read stuff in the present article describing the relation between the 10C and other elements of both religions, to the effect that the 10C state broad principles underlying many of those religions' other, more-detailed ideas about ethics and worship. Looking over the article, though, I see some stuff about this—for example, Roman Catholicism views the 10C as "essential for spiritual good health" and "the basis for social justice", and "Jewish tradition does, however, recognize them as the theological basis for the rest of the commandments". The lead should normally summarize the main points from body of the article rather than talk about something not covered in the body. So, it's debatable whether the fundamentalness of the 10C is currently covered well enough to be a main point. Of course, this doesn't mean the first sentence should therefore talk about the 613 mitzvot and the Old Covenant of Christianity. The 613 mitzvot are not even mentioned in the body. There's a bit about about New Covenant Theology, but I think that's adequately covered under "Different groups…", and far enough from the main forms of Christianity that putting it right in the definition of the 10C would be biased (see WP:WEIGHT). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that the Ten Commandments are not fundamental to either Judaism or Christianity. It's a subtopic, part of the Bible for both religions, but not fundamental to either. If you object to the term "613 mitzvot" as too complicated, you could dumb it down to something like "the Jewish commandments", but you should include a link to 613 mitzvot because that in fact is fundamental to Judaism. Likewise there should be a link to Christian views on the old covenant because that is fundamental to Christianity. The Ten Commandments are only tangentially fundamental to Judaism and Christianity, as part of the mitzvot in Judaism and part of the Old Covenant in Christianity. And there should be a link to Judeo-Christian because the Ten Commandments are fundamental to that topic. 75.15.195.18 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thought, maybe something like: "the Ten Commandments are fundamental to the notion of a common Judeo-Christian ethic but are simply a part of the commandments of Judaism or the Old Covenant of Christianity respectively." 75.15.195.18 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just added a new section, explaining the importance of the 10C in Judaism and most forms of Christianity. It addresses my objection above to the word "fundamental" in the lead. I hope it addresses yours. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a Reliable sources for the claim that "the Ten Commandments are fundamental to Judaism and Christianity" or is this just Original Research? 75.14.216.36 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are reliable sources for the claim. Please read the new section. The little superscript numbers in brackets take you to links to the sources. I've got a couple more sources to link to from a definition in the lead. (BTW, finding these sources was easy. That the 10C are fundamental to J&C is not very controversial.) --Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems dubious. The Torah is fundamental to Judaism and Jesus is fundamental to Christianity. If the Ten Commandments didn't exist, both of these religions would still exist and be largely unaffected. The claim that the Ten Commandments are fundamental seems dubious. 75.15.192.149 (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you making a case for original research, or is that what the quoted sources say? I haven't come across any sources that say authoritatively whether J&C would exist without the 10C or how they would be affected, though some of the quoted sources say that the 10C are "essential", which suggests that J&C could not exist without them and still be J&C. The article cites secondary sources that explicitly state that the 10C are fundamental, and explore this aspect of them in some detail, which is summarized in the new section. Some use the very word "fundamental"; others use synonyms ("foundational", "essential", "chief", etc.). Might we just be quibbling over the meaning of "fundamental"? Calling the 10C fundamental to Christianity doesn't imply that Jesus isn't also fundamental, or even more fundamental. The previous wording leaves this open: "widely considered fundamental", not "the single most fundamental element of both religions". The section on importance mentions additional and sometimes competing elements of the religions, some of which are comparably fundamental, such as the obligation to take care of the weak, and Protestantism's innovative view of the gospel countering the law. This suggests that the 10C are not the whole story (which of course they aren't). These facts don't conflict with summarizing that section with the word "fundamental"; they flesh out in more detail what that fundamental role is. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore the word "fundamental" in the definition now. The cited sources and the body of the article support it. Thanks for triggering the writing of a section about an important topic that that previously was covered only very sketchily (importance of the 10C). The article is better for it. Please do not revert to your definition again without discussing it first. (See WP:EDITWARRING.) If you find new reliable sources that show that the 10C actually aren't fundamental, say, relative to the other 603 mitzvot, do please add them to the article. That may well trigger a revision of the lead to reflect the new information in the body (please see WP:LEAD). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Modern Judaism is quite clear that the 10Cs are no more important than the 600 or so other of God's commandments. They are therefore not fundamental. (Even though, as the terms of the Covenant, one would think they would be.)
 * For Xanity, it depends on the sect. For many, Jesus' commandments override the 10Cs. Therefore they are not fundamental to Xanity (as a whole) either. — kwami (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources cited in the article say otherwise, pretty emphatically. Regarding the variation in Christian sects, the current wording in the lead is "most forms of Christianity". The section on importance goes into more detail. That section doesn't currently tell about the dissenting sects; it should. (We do have a little section in the article about NCT.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution
I removed the following from the intro:

The Ten Commandments have been at the center of a recurring debate over the legality of displaying religious texts on public property in the United States of America, whose constitution, in its First Amendment, forbids the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.

As someone living outside the USA (as 95% of the world does, and 70% of Christians/Jews do) it seemes a bit naff to refer in the intro to debates in one part of the world, at one time in history, regarding a topic that has enormous world-wide interest. I'm not saying to get rid of it all together, just that it's probably not 'intro-worthy'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.87.4 (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The intro should summarize the article. The article contains a lengthy section on the display of the Ten Commandments in the U.S. Therefore, the lead section should also mention it. Please review WP:LEDE. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you could write a new section in the body of the article, about other secular controversies or influences of the 10C, that would be great! Then it would make sense to change the lead. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could it be changed to be less US centric? Something like 'have caused debates world wide"?  It seems that a 2000+ year old document, not written in the USA and not even seen on that continent until 1700+ years after it was written really doesn't have that much to do with the US constitution.  Just saying...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.87.4 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly the article should be less U.S.-centric. Do you know of any good sources that tell about political debates regarding the 10C outside the U.S.? Take a look at WP:V to see what we're looking for. --Ben Kovitz (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

déjà vu
Existing sentence:

'While Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments and the book of the covenant, the children of Israel compelled Aaron to build a golden calf, and he "built an altar before it" (Ex.32:1–5) and the people "worshipped" the calf.'

Addition to Revelation at Sinai section, deleted by Jayjg with request for discussion in talk:

'The people said "Here are your Gods O Israel who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" this is rather curious as there is only one Golden Calf, however the exact same phrase is used at 1 Kings 12:28 where King Jeroboam made two Golden Calves. The 1 Kings story is the background to the rule of Josiah, 1 Kings 13:2, when according to some theories, the final form of these stories was established. '

Clearly the Revelation at Sinai section is intended by some to be a statement of belief. Any differentiation of information is not permitted, it must be taken as is. In that case it would be better renamed as a "Summary of Beliefs", I could have put this data in the dating section of "Critical Historical Analysis" but that ends up being so far down the article most people wouldn't get to it.

The statement in Exodus 32:4 "These are your Gods O Israel who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" is identical with 1 Kings 12:28, apart from the "Who wrote the Bible?" reference, it is also commented on by The New Oxford Annotated Bible (which is a Bible with footnotes) along with the anomaly of the plural form when only one Golden Calf had been made, but it was two in the 1 Kings version. The only difference is the phrase starts of with "These" in Exodus and "Here" in Kings.

Thus a reasonable person could conclude that the 1 Kings version is the first usage and the Exodus reference is inserted as a reminder of the significance of the 1 Kings story which is all about (mythology) of King Josiah. And thus we conclude authorship (or compilation) in Josiah's reign or the post exilic period (probably more likely).

It seems to me a lack of balance to put in references but not allow all the information, and say that has no relevance to 10 C. Is this about social control or a good encyclopedia? Drg55 (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Ten Commandments, not about the larger subject of the Revelation at Sinai (Ma'amad Har Sinai) which needs a separate article. The mention of Jerobeam's golden calves is at best a diversion. What exactly is added by mentioning this? The fact that there has always been an undercurrent of idolatry amongst the Jews? JFW &#124; T@lk  08:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Déjà vu indeed, Drg55. This appears to be your modus operandi:
 * You introduce material that's not actually about the Ten Commandments, but about something else (e.g. the Exodus, the Revelation at Sinai, whatever).
 * Various editors remove it, because it's not actually about the Ten Commandments.
 * You protest, insisting the material itself is true, but ignoring the fact that it's not actually about the Ten Commandments, and adding various inappropriate WP:BADFAITH comments (e.g. "Is this about social control or a good encyclopedia?").
 * The next step is generally for you to edit-war over the material, without actually addressing the fact that it's still not about the Ten Commandments, eventually resorting to trying to slip it into the article unnoticed using deceptive edit summaries. Is that where you're heading with this material too? Or will you finally take to heart the point that has been made many times, that this article is about the Ten Commandments, not all those other topics you want to write about? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary JFW, the Ten Commandments is both a moral code and a purported series of events, it would not have its power if it were not allegedly written by God on stone tablets to Moses. As you point out the Jews have a "history of idolatory", this is really a theme in the text than direct "history".  As I have demonstrated the phrase: "These are your Gods O Israel who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" was clearly edited in to give a reference to Josiah.  Anyhow the nature of it is the divergence from God by the people and then deliverance of the 10 C.
 * I believe in the facts, not the story, Jayjg doesn't want the facts to get in the way of a good story. There are no archaeological remnants  to support this story at least on the scale it is described.  History belongs to the victors and is colored thereby.  Just as today it is questioned if Richard the third was anything like the caricature presented by Shakespeare, so might we be sceptical about the propagandists for Josiah (who himself was a hideous monster slaughtering all who didn't share his religious views).  Anyhow whoever wrote the Revelation at Sinai section put it in for the obvious reason that that is the larger context of the 10 Commandments.
 * On the positive side there are two versions of this event, from J and E which certainly gives it some sort of antiquity. These vary and the scholars postulate a type of religious war between the camps.  The article Golden Calf is excellent and covers this in the "criticism and interpretation" section.  Also note the "Summary of the Biblical Narative" section - a similar change by me was vandalised by Jayjg, I think if you want to keep it to the literal interpretation of the Bible, then call a spade a spade.  In the Golden Calf article it says:


 * "Another understanding of the golden calf narrative is that the calf was meant to be the pedestal of Yahweh. In Near Eastern art, gods were often depicted standing on an animal, rather than seated on a throne.[5] This reading suggests that the golden calf was merely an alternative to the ark of the covenant or the cherubim upon which Yahweh was enthroned."


 * Of course this changes the story markedly in so far as idolatory goes. I've got a bit more to contribute on the war between religious camps but I leave that until this gets settled.


 * My proposal, rename "Revelation at Sinai" along the lines of "Summary of the Biblical Narrative" as in the Golden Calf Article. Add in a new subsection of critical historical analysis to deal with the 1 Kings and tussle between religious camps of Israel and Judah.Drg55 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But the events of the Golden Calf happened 40 days are the giving of the Ten Commandments. It was a different event as part of the larger occasion of revelation at Sinai. It doesn't take 40 days to give ten commandments. The reference to Josiah is not in any way "clearly edited" - this is stuff that is only subscribed to by the proponents of the documentary hypothesis.
 * As to the choice of the calf, the traditional commentators have their own perspectives, none of which need discussion here. (The Heavenly Chariot has four faces, one of which was bovine in appearance.) JFW &#124; T@lk  04:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Drg55:
 * To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented. This article is about the Ten Commandments, not the Revelation at Sinai.
 * Comment on content, not on the contributor.
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As much of what I want to add is already in other articles, I have listed these at the top in order to draw them together. There might be some others that need to be added.  I'll redo my edit in a few days, I'm puzzled why JFW thinks the bovine face of the heavenly chariot doesn't warrant a mention as this is very interesting possible source of the Golden Calf, perhaps you might put it in that article?Drg55 (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:MOS - articles don't have these kinds of article lists at their top. Also, Wikipedia already has a whole article on the Golden calf, where that material might be appropriate; this article, however, it about the Ten Commandments. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, just as predicted, you now tried to slip the material into the article using a deceptive edit summary. No, the sources still don't refer to the Ten Commandments, so WP:SYNTH still doesn't allow it here. I did keep the one sentence you added that was actually about the Ten Commandments. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You surprise me Jayjg, you actually did a good job on this and I'm quite happy with the outcome. Of course the Golden Calf is the pretext to the smashing of 10 C.  Thanks for your assistance.Drg55 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing slave to manservant, or his maidservant in 4th and 10th Commandments
I noticed the change of the 4th and 10th Commandments from slave to manservant, or his maidservant on 5:15 23 September 2011. This would spare the Bible some criticism that it condones slavery, just not overworking or coveting your neighborbors slave. Which is the more common translation, slave or manservant, or his maidservant, and should we change it back if it is the former? CowardX10 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Slave" is more accurate, and is use in recent translations, such as the NRSV. In Exodus, the TC's are followed in verse 21 with instructions on how to deal with slaves, who are defined as people who have been purchased (in some cases only for a set time of 6 yrs, which sounds like indentured servitude except that there are instructions for breaking up families, and also what to do with sex slaves). — kwami (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

significant inaccuracy
"In Judaism, the Ten Commandments provide God's universal and timeless standard of right and wrong, unlike the other 603 commandments in the Torah, which describe various duties and ceremonies such as the kashrut dietary laws and now-obsolete rituals to be performed by priests in the Holy Temple.[20] They form the basis of Jewish law.[21]"

The first statement is both false and misleading, in that: 1) The special significance given to the "Ten Commandments" in Judaism is not one of greater legal weight. The special significance is from total group revelation.  _ALL_ of the people heard and saw G-d "speaking" them, according to the text.  (Quotes around "speaking" to avoid anthromorphisation.)  2) That the entire Law is timeless, not to be amended, and universally binding on Jews is the subject of much of the Tanach. 3) No such division between the "Ten Commandments" and the other 603 is found anywhere within normative Jewish law. 4) That no commandment is less important than another (with the exception of saving a life, which takes almost-universal precedence) is stressed repeatedly throughout the Tanach and Talmud. 5) Something being inapplicable to a particular situation is not the same as it being obsolete. My inability to drive a car whilst in the bathtub does not mean that driving a car is obsolete.  When the Torah was given, neither the Temple nor Mishkan had been built yet.  Does this mean that the commandments were obsolete when given?  6) The sentence structure implies that kashrut is an unimportant ceremony. This is false on both counts (neither "unimportant" nor "ceremony"). Furthermore, the juxtaposition with now-obsolete is contextually misleading. 7) Using Dosick's words as the source for this statement is a gross perversion. The section referenced unequivocably states the opposite of what was said here.

The second statement is merely misleading, in that: 1) While the "Ten Commandments", particularly the first, may span the set of law, this does not mean that they are the _basis_ of law. 2) The basis of Jewish law is two-fold: 1) that there is one and only one G-d, who is intimately involved in the world, and who spoke to all of us at Sinai (ie, the First Statement), and 2) the revealed Law, Oral and Written. The first base can be viewed as experientially establishing the Existence and certain qualities of the One Who can (and does) command us, while the second would be those commandments. The rest of halacha follows. 3) This statement appears in a caption to an illustration in the source referenced (Solomon 1996), not as part of the main text. The text there is not even discussing something related to the basis of halacha.  This is not a valid use of sources. 4) An introductory text, designed for an audience who has no prior knowledge of the subject and who has unknowable differences in semantics, is usually not considered to be a reliable source for a reference work. I am not making any comment in any way on the book, its contents, or its author. I have not read the book in its entirety. I am stating that it is an unsuitable source for something outside its scope.

Later sections (particularly "Significance of the Decalogue") contradict these statements too.

I do not know what would be an appropriate correction.

Elfwiki (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The appropriate solution is to find the correct sources. Benjamin Blech's Understanding Judaism ISBN 0-87668-650-1 would be a good candidate, but I lack the time to make a major edit. Perhaps you could have a look. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Revelation at Sinai
I'm a bit concerned about the title of this section, because its written as if this event, this revelation, really happened. True, the first sentence is hedges, with "according to the bible", so reasonable people could infer that we're talking mythology here. But, the title, that does a lot to tone, and the title really belies that fact that modern archeology overwhelmingly rejects the historicty of this story. Can anyone suggest some improvements. I've noticed how the YWWY article, for example, deals more forthrightly with the historicty question. And I think we might be bending over backwards a bit to accomdate religous feelings in comparison. Steve kap (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence is sufficient. There is no need to say every second sentence that the section in question follows BPOV (Biblical point-of-view). There isn't. At all. There is no need to bend over backwards to accommodate atheist feelings in comparison. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't accommodating "atheist feelings", which are well-accommodated. Rather, the issue here is with accommodating radically anti-religious feelings. I don't think the latter is in keeping with NPOV. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as a suggestion, I noticed the "Golden Calf" artical labeled a similair section "Biblical Narative". Maybe that would be more appropriate.  Because there is no question that this is the biblical narative.  There IS a question as to if the Revelation at Sinai ever happened.  And "IS a question" is putting it rather mildly. Steve kap (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, it wasn’t ATHEIST that came up with anthropological evidence that the Exodus story, and therefore the “Revelation” story, never happened, it was ANTHROPOLOGISTS!! Their private faiths, from what I gather, are not known to us.  Steve kap (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the section is describing the Biblical narrative; there's no need to keep thumping the reader over the head with repetitive words repeatedly repeating that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, true, its clear once you read the section. But the title of the section is outside of this, it precedes this.  If you don't get the point, think if an article about the moon, one section was called "The Moon made of Cheese".  Then, the first section explained that is was once a common myth that the moon was made of cheese.  A person who didn't read into the article would be mislede.  So, I'm not asking that the disclaimer '...biblical narrative.." be repeated.  I'm asking that it PRECEDES any biblical narrative or biblical claim.  Clear enough? Fair enough? Steve kap (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence was a comment about me, not article content, so I didn't read further. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Feel free to try again, this time commenting only on content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ohhh, I’m so very, very, very sorry. You took  "Well, true, it’s  clear  once you read the section." as a personal comment on you.


 * I would point out, however, that it wasn’t addressed to you. So it wasn’t an comment on you. Nor was it an comment on anyone. No, rather, it was acknowledging your point, that once one reads the article, one knows that it’s about a biblical narrative.  So, it was a comment on the state of the article, agreeing, in fact, with your point.  Get it?   I then go on to say,,, well, what I said.   Does that makes sense?  Are you clear on that point?


 * With that cleared up (I would hope), could you please, as you said “try again”, this time responding to what I actually wrote?


 * This does get a bit tiresome. Did your early understanding really reflect a "good faith" understanding of my comment? I assume it does, although to assume otherwise might be more charitable. Steve kap (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make a comment that is only about article content, so we don't have to wade through lengthy preambles. We are all volunteers, and our time is limited. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * rrrr, I did just that Jayjg, and then someone, namely YOU, accused me making a personal comment, when clearly none was made.  Surely I'm allowed a few sentences in defence.  But lets put Jayjd's poor reading skills, or his lack of good faith, or his attempt at derailment aside.  Jayjd, if you want continue on this vain, put the comment either here or in my talk page (where I'll give it all the attention it should get). For everyone else, I'll repeat the last relevent comment below, and the discussion on the ARTICLE can continue.  Fair enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)
 * Even if you claim your previous comment wasn't about me, your most recent one "Jayjd's poor reading skills etc." quite clearly was. I was also quite clear that your comments needed to be solely about article content. I'm not wasting any more time here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My dear friend. You do realize, of course, you must really, that NONE of your LAST 3 post had ANYTHING to do with the article!!  Do you see the irony in that? Talk about wasting people’s time. And how did it start? What gave you such offence?  I’ll waste no more of it responding to this whining. I’d be glad to delete the entire section starting with your misguided complaint, 28 Nov and ending here, if you agree as well. Steve kap (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, back the the discussion about THE ARTICLE. As I was saying, its clear, once ONE reads into  the article, that its about a biblical narative.  But the title of the section is OUTSIDE of this, it PRECEDUES this (the bold type is for the benfit of some reader who are want to skim) .  If you don't get the point, (as I mentioned before be rather rudely interrupted),think if an article about the moon, one section was called "The Moon made of Cheese".  Then, the first section explained that is was once a common myth that the moon was made of cheese.  A person who didn't read into the article would be mislede.  So, I'm not asking that the disclaimer '...biblical narrative.." be repeated.  I'm asking that it PRECEDES any biblical narrative or biblical claim.  Clear enough? Fair enough?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So, can I take it that other editors get my point? That, by having a title like "The Revelation at Sinai" we are improperly implying that there WAS actually a Revelation at Sinai, rather than making it clear that this so-called revelation is only part of a certain culture's mythology? If so, I will be glad to correct. Steve kap (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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)

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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 &#124; 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 &#124; T@lk  23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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)

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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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)

First, the opinion of "the man on the street" is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia. Second, the Decalogue in Exodus 34 is the one that was presented to the Israelites as the Law and that made into the Ark of the Covenant. The Decalogue in Exodus 20 was smashed and was not presented to anyone. Any secondary source that contradicts the primary source is unreliable and cannot be used in this article. The best would be to merge the Ritual Decalogue article into this one, since the RD constitutes the real Ten Commandments that subsequently became the Holy of Holies of the biblical Israelites. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is only very circumstantial evidence that Ex 34 represents "The Ten Commandments". This was first enunciated in the 19th century. You cannot prove what was written on either the second or the first set of stone tablets. This is a nice whacky theory that seems to be a darling of the DH crowd. It conveniently undermines the importance of some thoughts that are central to Judaism, which of course is a central tenet of the DH. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What do mean? And what is "DH"? The Bible says that the set of stone tablets described in Exodus 34 was the set that was presented to the Israelites and then put in the Ark of the Covenant and served as the foundation of Israelite "nationhood" and religion. To speak of evidence is somewhat pointless when discussing biblical stories that are assigned to before 850 BCE. This is about the biblical narrative as a work of literature and theology, there is no historical reality to it anyways since the Exodus never happened. The point of the argument is that discarding the contents of the Bible to promote a position that is entirely founded on the Bible is intellectually empty. To exclude Exodus 34 from the Ten Commandments article is unencyclopedic as it seems to promote only certain interpretations of the Bible and therefore violates NPOV policies. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's try again. We are not excluding Ex 34 from this article. The theory that Exodus 34 contains the "actual" Ten Commandments was first voiced in the 19th century. Before that time, there is a wealth of secondary sources to suggest that Ex 20 was regarded as The Ten Commandments, and there is no evidence to suggest that anyone lent any special weight to the list in Ex 34. As to whether anything in the Bible is historical, this again is a matter of opinion, and it would be against NPOV to state one opinion without the other.
 * DH is of course the documentary hypothesis. This piece of intellectual acrobatics provides the most farfetched explanations for the content of the Bible, in fact anything to make sure that it could not be a Divinely inspired work. On the thinly veiled antisemitic motives behind the DH, there is a substantial literature. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Exodus 34 narrative
Yes, but the words were spoken to the people at Sinai and written in Exodus 20 as anyone can see. And the 2nd set of tables were put out of sight in the ark Moses made and later put in the ark of the covenant Bezaleel made. (Exodus 37:1-9) The men of Bethshemesh looked in the ark in 1Samuel 6:19, and when the ark was moved into Solomon's temple it was said: "There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb". (1Kings 8:9) They obviously were not intended for public display, and are yet hidden even unto this day. —Telpardec TALK  04:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cush said: "The Decalogue in Exodus 20 was smashed and was not presented to anyone."


 * Cush said: "Any secondary source that contradicts the primary source is unreliable and cannot be used in this article."
 * The primary source in Exodus 34:1 says: "And the said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."
 * The primary in Deuteronomy agrees: 10:1 At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. 10:2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. 10:3 And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. 10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. 10:5 And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me.

Plainly then the "words" on the tables of stone, first and second set, were the words spoken to the people in the day of assembly, not the words of Ex.34:10-26 spoken to Moses only, for he was told "no man shall come up with thee" in Exodus 34:3. Any secondary source that says that the second set were not the "words that were in the first tables" contradicts the primary source and is "unreliable and cannot be used", right? —Telpardec TALK  04:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus 34 Narrative began as noted above with the instruction to make replacement tables, and the following morning Moses went up alone to the top of the mount. (Ex.34:1-4) In the next paragraph, the appeared and passed before him as the text says, Moses bowed his head and prayed the things said there. (Ex.34:5-9) Then in the third paragraph the made a covenant to do marvels, and gave a twice repeated warning to Israel not to "covenant with the inhabitants of the land" (v.12,15) and he spoke against various forms of idolatry. (Ex.34:10-17) The fourth paragraph is a reiteration of the ordinances from Ex.23 concerning the sabbaths, the three main feasts, and things related to sacrifices. (Ex.34:18-26) And the last verse of that fourth paragraph says: And of course he wrote those words in Exodus 34:10-27 as is evident. And that was all that was said in that place about the events of that day, the first of forty. Moses then did a fast-forward to the end of the forty days where the "wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments", which, according to the first verse in the chapter were the words that were in the first tables, that Moses broke.
 * "And the said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Exodus 34:27)
 * "And he was there with the forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:28)

Now, anyone with the reading comprehension of a 7-year old child should have no difficulty understanding these things, so how do so many people get side tracked into thinking that Ex.34:10-26 was the decalogue? Looking at the current version of the Ritual Decalogue article, the following (with original emphasis) jumped out at me:

Note the subtle deception with the word "covenant" in bold in two places, with a triple-dot ellipsis hiding the middle sentence between the two parts. The first mentioned "covenant" there refers back to the preceding text (as noted above) where the made a covenant to do marvels. The second mentioned "covenant" refers to the 's covenant of the ten commandments, which were spoken to the people in the day of assembly. And that covenant, that writing in stone, was done forty days later. Things that are different are not the same.

IMO the proposal to merge the Ritual Decalogue article with this one is without merit and utterly void. —Telpardec TALK  04:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to JFW, you ref to the DH as "wacky" "farfetched", and"intellectual acrobatics" in your opinion, but seems you failed to mention a slighlty more relevant point. That is, that the DH is the prevailing opinion of the experts in the field. It seems to me the WP policy places great weight on the opinion of expert. Even if individual editors don't like them. True? Steve kap (talk) 22:33, 11 February 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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jay. I did read NOTAFORUM.  And, to no great suprise, it does not prohibit people talking about the article, and arguing facts an opinions that would have barring on the content of the article.  So, in the same way JFW is free to present "traditionalist" as unpublished experts that we should take seriously, it would seem that I am free to point out, with civility, how ridiculous such a proposition is.   Also, I noticed that NOTAFORUM did NOT specfiy how specific any suggestion needs to be for it to be discussed.  Did your really and truly think otherwise?  I feel I'm only bound by WP policy, not stuff that you just make up.  Fair enough?  And can I suggest that you drop this role you've adopted for yourself,  as discussion policeman?  You seem to be not at all good at it. Steve kap (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Current "Revialtion" Section
I find it curious that the section stops at Ex 34.1,, then jumps to Dout. What about Ex 34.1,2,3....28? One would think that a phrase like "..these, the ten commandments" and the commandments that it clearly ref to, would rate inclusion in an article about... the 10 Commandments! Ofcourse, I know the answer, the selective editing is to sure up the traditional views, to white wash any incosistancies in the holy, devinely inspired text. I don't think such selective editing serves WP well. Steve kap (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That point is perfectly fairly addressed in the section headed "The Ritual Decalogue", which DOES say that Ex 34.28 uses "ten commandments" to describe a different list. It doesn't have to be repeated everywhere else in the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See also the above. Thanks. —Telpardec TALK  21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have pointed out, I'm reffereing to recent changes made to this section. Whatever the conclusion of past discussion (was there a conclusion?), I don't think that one side should be alowolled, for ever more, to make the changes that it wants, and from that side to be immune from discussion on those changes.  Steve kap (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Terpardec, I noticed in your edit comments that you state that there is only one definitive 10 commenandments narrative. But these seems to fly in the face of current source critism that widely holds that what appears in the bible is the weaving of more than one narrative.  We are to be lead by excperts on issues like this, are we not?  Steve kap (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Steve, you mis-stated what the edit comment said. It was not referring to the 10C, but the larger narrative of the revelation at Sinai, but more especially to the summary narrative of the section itself as making known definite things. That section is a "weaving" together of several highlights in a concise encyclopedic summary style without over much detail. Please re-read the section. Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that would be fine, if the section started out with something like " The traditional story can be found by weaving togther various sections of the bible. It is usually done like so..".  As it stands now, it would lead a read to believe that the story presented was from ONE narrative of the bible!  When an editor "weaves" together different narratives, fron non-cotiunous, various section of the a work, the result is a NEW narratie, the product of the editor!  Granted, in this case, the result is the (a?) traditional understanding.  But still, it is disecptive to present this as a narritive OF the bible.  Excperts widely agree that the RD, the ED are different versions of a similair story, in some ways the same narrative, in some ways different. Steve kap (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sir Myles, people can have different opinions on what is perfectly fair. I don't think that the majority opinion of experts being relegated to a few paragraphs at the end is fair.  Nor do I think the presentation of a particular tradition, with texted cherry picked from the bible to support that position, with other texts omitted that weren't in lock step with the traditional understanding, nor do I think thats a ferfectly fair representation of the text.  I think to present the tradition is fine.  But to present the text in such a manner is misleading.  It should be presented as a whole, using our experts, those who study and pratice source crtisism, to explain the incositentlies.  That way we will represent both the tradition AND our best understanding of the text. Steve kap (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, since the only objection is that we've talked about this before, I take it there would be no objection if I took this section back to the state it was directly after the ending of disucssion?Steve kap (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about re-inserting:

"This section of Exodus has text that historians call the "Ritual Decalogue" or the "Small Covenant Code".[6][7][8]"
 * The wording was the result of some intense debate, and there has been no debate about removing it. So, unless if we are to respect the results of old arguements, if we are not to "play Mom against Pop", clearly we should add this back in, no?  Steve kap (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro and importance section edits
I edited intro and importance sections.

The reasons this was done are as follows:

a) Though this is an English language encyclopedia, the term originates in Hebrew and Judaism, and so chronologically the definition has to come from that culture rather than skip to the Greek Decalogue.

b) The concept in Judaism is different to that in Christianity, because the later does not recognise the rest of the 603 commandments (mitzvot) which all forms of Judaism recognise in some form and to some extent.

c) For the above reasons I made the distinction in the importance the concept carries to Jews and Christians somewhat stronger, particularly the already existing context in the paragraphs.

It seems to me the source for the later section has been misinterpreted, though I have not read it. However, I can not possibly imagine anyone would say that the punishment for transgression of the Ten Commandments is not given in Judaism given the punishment of "thou shall not kill" has four optional forms of death in Judaism! 220.238.43.188 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverts explained further. As indicated in the edit comments, there were multiple problems with the good faith edits by IP user 220.238.43.188, mainly modifications of sourced statements contrary to the cited references.


 * a) Decalogue is an English term derived from a Greek term, and is the most widely known alternate term for the ten commandments. A partial quote of the additions to the intro: "...translated as Ten Statements. They are ten of the 613 commandments contained in the Torah." That claim is contradicted elsewhere in the article: "The passages in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 contain more than ten imperative statements, totalling 14 or 15 in all." The change of "Different groups" to "Different Christian groups" is wrong. Look at the two texts with numbering schemes section. There are primarly 3 schemes with some variation. The first is Jewish, as used by Philo, a Jew, in the early 1st century, and Jewish historian Josephus in the latter end of the 1st century. The second scheme is also Jewish, the talmudic scheme. The third is the scheme followed by Catholics and Lutherans. Most Christian groups follow the 1st century Jewish numbering scheme.
 * b) We can't make blanket statements about what "all forms of Judaism" or "Christianity" believe. As for the elimination of "now-obsolete" from the phrase "now-obsolete rituals to be performed by priests in the Holy Temple", I agree that "obsolete" may not be the best choice of words. The cited source (page 33) says: "In modern times, at least 200 of the 613 Torah mitzvot cannot be observed, for they are concerned with the duties of the priests (who no longer function), the Holy Temple (which no longer exists), animal sacrifice (which is no longer offered), and living in the Land of Israel (which many Jews do not)." Perhaps, instead of now-obsolete, "unobservable" might be a better word there.
 * c) The 3rd edit summary said in part, "their transgression is punishable and is given in the Talmud". There was no Talmud when the ten commandments were given. The statement in the article said, "They do not specify punishments for their violation." There are statutes and judgments elsewhere in Torah, as well as case law, that are more specific concerning punishment. The ten commandments are fundamental law.
 * In sum, the edits appeared to be well meaning, but more reliance on secondary sources is needed. Thanks for your attention to these matters. (Sorry for the delay - I fell asleep before I could save the above, and am just now catching up. Thanks for your patience. G'day. :) —Telpardec TALK  20:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources in the article
For the paragraph "The Ten Commandments concern only matters of fundamental importance: the greatest obligation (to worship only God), the greatest injury to a person (murder), the greatest injury to family bonds (adultery), the greatest injury to commerce and law (bearing false witness), the greatest intergenerational obligation (honor to parents), the greatest obligation to community (truthfulness), the greatest injury to moveable property (theft). Does the source refer to the Ten Commandments being matters of fundamental importance to Christians or Jews? 220.238.43.188 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence with your partial quote: "These verses concern matters of fundamental importance." &mdash;p.205, The Fundamental Code Illustrated: The Third Commandment, Herbert B. Huffmon. It does not appear to be either Jew specific or Christian specific, but generic; and he also compares it to various other law codes, including the American Bill of Rights. —Telpardec TALK  04:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is very wrong (at least according to Judaism)' many facts wrong, for example, in hebrew it is deibrote, not devarim, and there is a major difference between the two, and their are many mistakes and misdooes. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by German Dove (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

RD in lede – questions
Header added after discussion branched off to latest edits to lede. Quotation box added. —Telpardec TALK  23:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To JWF edit comment. Thats a bunch of nonsense. There are plenty of sources the ref to the RD as a version of the 10C.  Steve kap (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a question of semantics. The RD and the ED are arguably related.  On one quite probable theory, the RD is the prototype of the ED.  At the very lowest, it is certainly a decalogue.  So using the word "version" loosely, they are both versions of a story of which the bare bones is that at some point God gave ten commandments full stop.  But that doesn't make the RD and the ED the same thing.  Therefore, you can say ONE decalogue occurs in Ex 20 and Deut wherever, and ANOTHER decalogue occurs in Ex 34.  But you can't say that THE decalogue occurs in all three places.  As Aristotle says, everything is what it is and not another thing.


 * Again, think of it from the point of view of someone looking up an article. Rightly or wrongly, what people in our culture mean by "The Ten Commandments" is the ED, and that is what anyone looking them up will want to know about; the fact that the ED may have been based on the RD is one fact about the ED, and that is the only reason to mention it in this article.  If people from say 2000BC to 1000 BC used that phrase to mean the RD, so be it.  But those people aren't users of Wikipedia!


 * To sum up, meaning is one thing. Origin is another.  As I argued much earlier, are we really going to put a full description of Ireland into the article on Scotland because, etymologically speaking, that is what Scottia originally meant? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why I think we should have a redirect in the lede. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree, the RD and ED aren't the same thing, clearly. Sound like we a gree the the RD is a VERSION. I like the comparison to the English artilce. It mentions the relationship to Old English, a version of english. But the ariticle as a whole is about English. Further, because so, so many people make the same "The RD is the 10C" comment on the talk page, we need to make the point early in the article, so the RD is addressed, in its proper place.  IMO. Steve kap (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I noticed the parties of God are using edit waring to get their way again (2 vs 3 in the lede). Not bothering to make their points or have their say on the talk page. Stand by for cry of please don't edit war, and allow us to edit war and have our way'.  I know, I know, they care deeply, deeply about the article, and can't be bothered about the rule they would have others follow.  02:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

"Sounds like we agree the RD is a version". A version of what? My whole contention is that, while the RD and the ED may be versions of the same story, they are not versions of each other. And as this article is about the ED (that being what the phrase "the Ten Commandments" conveys to the normal reader), anything about the RD goes in a section about possible/probable origins of the ED, not in a section saying what the ED is.

The "English" example is different. There is no dispute at all that modern English derives from old English, or about what order they came in; and normal usage does use "English" for both (though old English is also called Anglo-Saxon). Even if the derivation of the RD from the ED were undisputed, which it is not, the present situation would be more like including a description of Latin in an article on Italian. One could mount a plausible argument that, logically, Latin should be described as "Old Italian"; but normal usage simply doesn't do that. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"A version of what"... a version of the 10C, of course that is what we are talking about, yes? I think the comparson to English is a good one, thu not perfect (what analogy is?). Its true that it is univerially accepted that English is derived from Old English, but is that what is necessary for something to be a "version"? We don't need unveral acceptance, just opinion of experts, which we have. As to latin/italian, I'm not suggestin we ref to the RD and "the old 10C", but merly the we reflect the wide held opion of scholors, and ref to it as a version. I think an article on Italian would be incomplete if it didn't speek to the relationship with Latin. Steve kap (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes and I agree the article should mention the relation of the ED to the RD. That is not the same as including the RD as an early version of the ED.  An article on Italian says it is derived from Latin, but does not have a full description of Latin in the first paragraph as if the word "Italian" should cover both.
 * Another difference is that the evolution from Latin to Italian, and from Old English to current English, are both attested and continuous. There are no intermediate stages between the RD and the ED.  So: keep them in separate articles; in each article, have one paragraph describing the relationship to the other.  That is the current state of things, and seems satisfactory to me. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there are no intermediate stages between the 2008 Prius and the 2009 Prius, but clearly they are both versions of the same car. As to the case at hand, I don't know that, according to expert consenses there are no intermediate stages between the RD and the ED.  I suspect that not to be true.  But that doesn't matter, clearly most experts, and people who discuss the RD and ED see them as versions of the same, and derivitive of the same concept.  If thats the point in disput, let me know, we can talk about sources.  As to 'the current state' being satisfactory, remember that we have a steady stream of commentors expressing confusion between the relationship between the RD and ED.  That would indicate to me some lack of clarity.  Steve kap (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To my last point, I noticed another editor 27 April expressing the same confusion. With JFW responding "nope, see extensive discussions on the talk page."  Apparently JFW see expressing his opinion on the talk page as the same as arriving at a concensis. OH, I keep forgetting, he cares deeply about the article, so different standards apply.14:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)


 * Once again, JFW can't tell the difference between having a discussion (if we discussed this to death, why aren't you dead?) and coming to an agreement. Apparently, because he cares deeply, so very deeply about the article, his is the default position. Steve kap (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Newadvent.org / Catholic Encyclopedia
keeps adding to the ledeto following statement: "These ten commands serve to reveal, in Judeo-Christian understanding, the will of God for religious and moral obligations between humanity and God, as well as between humanity and the rest of creation." The source is the Catholic Encyclopedia; the first volume was published in 1907, the last in 1913. There are a number of issues with the insertion, as I've outlined in a couple of edit summaries: I've brought the material here for further discussion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It violates WP:LEDE: the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not introduce new material. This material is new, and summarizes nothing I can see in the article itself.
 * 2) It violates WP:NPOV: the material itself purports to present the "Judeo-Christian understanding", but the authors actually provide an independent Catholic view of a century ago. The authors of the encylopedia do not represent the Catholic church (much less all Catholics), and Catholic views do not represent all Christian views, much less Jewish views.
 * 3) It violates WP:RS: the material is from a hundred-year-old encyclopedia, and was not even an official publication of the Catholic church.
 * The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source for many things. It does have some bias issues in some areas, but that does not mean that we should dismiss it as a whole. I'd like to respond to the various points that Jayjg makes.


 * 1) In the section "Importance within Judaism and Christianity" the article makes reference to the fact that these commands are " of fundamental importance" and are "fundamental." A quote that explains that the purpose is to reveal the fundamental nature as a religious and moral obligation is indeed a summary of these statements from later in the article.
 * 2) The Ten Commandments are a part of the history of the Jewish and Christian religions. It is appropriate to point out what role they play in that system. Furthermore, the 10 commandments are commonly seen and understood to be a summary of the rest of the Law by Catholic, broader Christian, and Jewish Sources. You are going to have to show good cause to claim that this quote violates PoV when it faithfully reflects the various perspectives of the concerned parties.
 * 3) There is nothing in WP:RS that claims that age is a determiner of the reliability of a source. It is certainly something to consider, especially in areas in which information is changing rapidly. However, the understanding of a code of laws that originated 4000 years ago (baring any new discoveries) is relatively static, and a work that was published 100 years ago vs a work that was published 10 years ago is going to say roughly the same thing. Jayjg needs to point out WHY its age makes it unreliable. In many areas (especially historical areas) older documents may actually have a better understanding of the text in question in light of being separated by less temporal distance from the original document.ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayjg's first two points, (violates WP:LEDE, violates WP:NPOV), but am not sure about the third. Many wiki articles began with out-of-copyright (and therefore public domain) works like the Jewish Encyclopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia and Easton's Bible Dictionary, with each topic section copied in its entirety. Most of such articles have since been improved to the point that they contain very little of the original single source article. Wikisource has been adding the complete text of such works little by little. (Is Wikisource a RS? :)
 * To all: Be advised that the sentence under current discussion was not inserted first by User:ReformedArsenal, but by User:Promontorylink, who was recently BLOCKED indefinitely as a SOCK PUPPET, and for edit warring.
 * In the first enumerated point by User:ReformedArsenal we find, in pertinent part: "A quote that explains that the purpose is to reveal the fundamental. . ." Well, the "quote" from CathEncy with the word "fundamental" was replaced with a paraphrase without any hint of that idea. (The first sentence of the lede has the expression "fundamental role" in it.) The paraphrase also appears to be a bit WP:SYNTH to me. The questionable sentence simply does not belong in the lede. —Telpardec TALK  01:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ReformedArsenal, you need to respond to the points raised - your points do not directly address the WP:NPOV, WP:LEDE, and WP:RS issues. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't care enough to fight about it anymore. I thought that it was a sentence that had been in there for a long time and so I was trying to preserve what I thought was a mistaken change (all I did was paraphrase the sentence that was quoted)... but it looks like it was only added earlier that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the new sentence slightly increases the length of the lede and slightly decreases the clarity (by delaying getting to the specifics). Please don't add it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholic 10 Commandments and protestant 10 Commandments
There doesn't seem to be any mention of the fact that the Catholic 10 Commandments are not the same as the protestant 10 Commandments. The protestants separate the First Commandment into two Commandments and join the last two (coveting of goods and the coveting of people) into one Commandment (ie. "Thou Shalt Not Covet"). Would have thought that it would have at least been mentioned, but I see only the protestant Commandments listed here...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.92 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a statement in the lede/intro that says, "Different groups follow slightly different traditions for interpreting and numbering them." See Ten Commandments where there is text that makes known the fact that Protestants generally follow the Philonic division and Catholics (& Lutherans) follow the Augustinian division. The numbering schemes are also shown in the table. —Telpardec TALK  18:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not Islam?
Why is Islam not listed in the introduction? The 10 commandments are a central feature of Moslem ethics. Why is the concept "Judeo-Christian" not better expressed as "Ibrahimic"? Efraimkeller (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Long ago, we did cover the Ten Commandments in relation to Islam. I'm not sure why that section was removed. Does anyone else know?


 * As for not listing Islam in the lead, normally in a long article, the lead only summarizes content that is covered in more detail in the body of the article. See WP:MOSINTRO. If someone (maybe you?) writes a section on Islam, then it would make sense to put it back in the lead as you've suggested. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a section on Islam. It's in the "Religious interpretations" section. Efraimkeller (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on your instructions, I assume my edit will remain intact. Adding "Islam" to the list in the introduction corresponds to the fact that there is a section on Islam in the article.Efraimkeller (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The change you made to the lead says that the Ten Commandments play a fundamental role in Islam, but this is not what the section on Islam says, so I'm reverting it. Please stop editing the lead so it no longer summarizes the body. The article's coverage of Islam certainly should be improved, and you are welcome to do so (with cited sources, of course). Take a look at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY for some insight into how to do this so you're working with rather than against your fellow editors. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

King James Version
The table quotes the King James Version of the Bible. As has already been demonstrated, there are some translation issues with the KJV, and particularly with the Hebrew Bible, there are manuscript issues with the Textus Receptus. Does anyone have any major objections if I switch the quoted text to the ESV? I'll give it a few days for discussion before I make the change.ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The KJV has the advantage of being – by far – the most famous and well-known English translation. If we start proposing other versions, then where will it end? If you're looking for accuracy, why not the New English Translation? If you're looking for fidelity to the Hebrew Bible / Masoretic Text, then why not use the JPS Tanakh? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure that the New English Translation is the most accurate... and I'm also not sure that the JPS Tanakh has the most fidelity to the Hebrew... However, I know that both are better and more reliable than the KJV. The KJV was translated 300 years ago and other than some basic updates it reflects that translation. Beyond that there has been significant discoveries that provided both better Manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls) as well as a better linguistic understanding of Hebrew (Discoveries at Ugarit in the 40's). Pretty much any critical modern text (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc) will be a better translation than the KJV.ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't change to ESV. This is an encyclopedia article on the Ten Commandments: a summary the main information about the topic, for a lay reader in English. We should stick to the most famous and well-known English translation (as Jayjg put it). Using any other translation but the KJV is asking to get us mired in translation arguments. If there is a particular point of translation of the 10C that truly stands out among all other 10C facts, on a par with most of what we have now, then please add a paragraph about the specific difference of opinion regarding a specific verse that's quoted in the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly because this is an encyclopedia we try to offer the best (i.e. the most accurate) information available. We do not dumb articles down just so some readers are comfortable. If there is a better translation available than the KJV (and there are indeed many), then that is what we are supposed to use. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 10:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the article is really about (at least) two different things: the Ten Commandments as an event in the history of Israelite religion, and the Ten Commandments as a well-known part of present-day culture. The KJV has value as evidence of the second, as that is the form in which they are most widely known.  Issues of accuracy in translation can be discussed as part of the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. The Ten Commandments are religious folklore with no basis in actual history whatsoever, least of all in any real Israelite history.
 * 2. The KJV is a rather bad version of the Bible, so it is in fact better to use a better one. As I said, this is an encyclopedia and not a platform for popularity contests over Bible versions. Arguments ad populum are invalid in an encyclopedic context. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 18:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So lets just put this to a vote: Those in favor of a switch to a modern Translation say yes and indicate which translation you think we should go to, those opposed say No.ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - ESV ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Ten Commandments are religious folklore with no basis in actual history whatsoever, least of all in any real Israelite history." What on earth do you mean by that? All right, assume Sinai is a myth. Assume that the earliest document mentioning the Ten Commandments is the Deuteronomic Code, and that that was forged in say the 8th century BCE. Even so, that fact is in itself an event in the history of Israelite religion.

Apart from the "kill"/"murder" question, what actual inaccuracies do you see in the KJV translation of the Ten Commandments themselves? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it uses out of use English phrasing like "spake." That one right there has had several good faith edits correcting it to "spoke" that have had to be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 13:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's been long enough and this conversation hasn't gone anywhere. People are going to constantly change it to murder because it is in fact a better translation. Unless someone has a good reason to keep it in the KJV (which hasn't been provided at this point) I'm changing it to the ESV on Monday. Speak now or forever hold your peace. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thou shalt not kill v. Thou shalt not murder
Does the Torah have priority here? Should this edit be kept diff? Per user talk:50.131.112.56's edit summary ''The commandment verbatim is לא תרצח, which means do not murder, not לא הורג, which means do not kill. The "ten commandments" are from the Torah, so the article must accept that source since it is the origin'' Jim1138 (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We use 2ary sources; the Torah would be 1ary. And our own translation is not appropriate unless we have nothing better to go on. — kwami (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is an obvious mistranslation to have 'kill' when it should be 'murder.' The average rabbi will point this out since it is common knowledge among those of the Jewish faith. The bible should be amended to reflect this. Although I appreciate it is not the job of Wikipedia to change the bible it is rather cowardly not to point out the error in translation since it is the duty of Wikipedia to inform. The error can hardly be considered insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.5.66 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This was resolved a long time ago when we switched the translation to the ESV. However, if it as obvious as you claim it should not be hard to find a published resource to support your statement.ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what?
"but is divided over exactly when the Ten Commandments were written and who wrote them."

Uh... Moses? 1500-ish BC? Though you could quibble that God wrote them the first time. If this is a criticism of the bible being accurate history, as opposed to being made up by random douchebags, could you make a distinction? As in, 'the biblical history/literal interpretation of the bible is (highly disputed)' etc. Something to that effect. Just for the sake of courtesy, and not confusing the hell out of me when I read it.

Also, at least the rough date, should be the easiest thing in the world, unless again, you just assume the bible doesn't count as history, or it's ALL LIES. :D It makes it sound like Moses, and 1500-ish (can't remember off the top of my head), aren't even considered an option, like it's a matter of finding out how wrong it is. Just make it a bit clearer for those of us that do consider the bible authentic history. There can't be that few of us.

Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMudz (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly there are two versions. The traditional view which accepts the Bible as historical, and the modern scholarly view which takes a different approach. Encyclopedias don't choose sides (see WP:NPOV); rather, they summarise human knowledge and belief that already exists. We're certainly not here to establish the absolute truth. JFW &#124; T@lk  15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious Text as Primary Source
I noticed that this tag was recenlty removed, and I'd like to discuss, to re-enstate the tag, and in the long run, reform the article so as to no longer need it. First to the tag, which says that the article wrongly uses religous texts as primary sources, without critical secondary sources, and that the article could be improved if it were otherwise.

So, first, can some explain in what way the tag doesn't apply. Is the claim that religous text isn't used as primary source? Is it that doing so is not improper? Is the claim that secondary sources are suficenalty contained? Let me know what we're talking about, and lets go from there.

Also, a point of order, does anyone know, what is the standard for mantaining such tags and removing them. It seems to me the stardard for mantaining would me much less than an ordinary edit, as it is a cirtiism of the article, and not making a claim about the subject itself. But I ask those that know WP policy better that I. Steve kap (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, thanks Steve, for starting a message on this issue, but I'm still not clear why you think this tag is needed. Let me put a copy of the tag itself here before further comment. I'm using the underlying code of the tag, rather than the template, so the parts of the tag can be seen in the edit window. Note that the first sentence is labeled "issue" and the second sentence is called "fix" –


 * The tag is apparently intended for articles that are based only on primary source(s) without secondary source commentary or interpretation. Anyone can look at the table of contents and see that there are multiple viewpoints in this article, and looking at the references section – there are certainly a lot of secondary sources. That alone is sufficient reason not to use this particular tag. The tag was placed in the revelation at Sinai section, which is the biblical narrative. It is not appropriate to intersperse secondary commentary with the narrative, because it breaks up the flow of the overview. My edit summary said: Religious template unneeded, interpretation and comments in other sections :) That about sums it up. Even if it were appropriate it would be unneeded because the editor would still need to come here to the talk page and be more specific about what in his/her view is the problem and propose a solution. Thanks for your attention to these things. —Telpardec TALK  00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You say this this is intended for artical that are "based ONLY on primary sources".,clearly this couldn't be the case. That would mean that if an article had only ONE secondary source, it could avoid the charge of being based ONLY on primary sources. No, like most thinks, I think its a matter of degree. This article gives the impression, on the whole, that the best understanding of the origin of the 10C is that it came as a revelation from God (Yahew, specificlly), during a perion that the Jews were traveling from Eygpt to Palistine. That is a religous position, and it needs to be expressed. But it needs to be put in historical and literarlly context by secondary sources. That is what the tag calls for. The article as is doesn't do that.

As to "even if... the edtor would...", clearly that couldn't be true. If that were the case, why have any tags at all? No, the tagger is NOT required to come up with the perfect solution, he is allowed to tag the deficit, in a call for other, perphaps more knowledgable, to help out.

To that end, and as a point of order, should the tag not be re-instated while its being discussed, to bring others into the discussion? Steve kap (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Got specifics? Sorry, Steve, but your general "impression" does not identify a specific problem that needs a specific fix AFAICT – got a specific sentence or paragraph for starters? Thanks for your patience. —Telpardec TALK  23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifics? Yes, as I said, the Revelation section tagged gives the impression that our best understanding is that the 10C were delivered to the Jews in their Exodus and were written by God. This with barely a word putting this story in hisotrical or literary context.. not in this section or any other. Didn't you read that?   What part do you dispute? Steve kap (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is a qualitative discussion, and its worth having. I'm guessing that you believe info in the "criticle" section somehow balances this rather long section with strickly the religious narrative presented.  I'd be glad to talk that thru, I think we have an honest disagrement there.  But, as my you haven not disputed my point of order, I'm pointing the tag back in.  21:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * JDW, rather than edit war, how about using the talk page! I gave my reasons for the tag here, and invited discusiton about the standards required for a tag, if you objected, I would have liked to hear it here, so I can answer it!!  Steve kap (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you suggest a secondary source that might be acceptable to you? Because I suspect you might not be satisfied with ISBN 161203618X (number 2 on Amazon when searching "The Ten Commandments"), or the little book I have (ISBN 0899061796). Your assistance is much appreciated. JFW &#124; T@lk  18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for engaging. No, I don't have specific secondary sources in mind, the tag is a call for improvment, from material from other sources its not to say I have the answers. Don't mistake me, I have no problem using the bible as a source; its just that you need secondary sources to put them in context. not just religous source, but rather more objective sources.  For an exmaple of what I'm talking about, please is the WP article "Genesis creation narrative".  Notice, in the lede, that narative is told, but historical sources and literary critism put it in the context of our best understanding. In contrast, the 10C section in question give the narative, and little more.  No comment on what was happing in this point in history. No explanation on how a narrative is to be found by cobbling together (by WP editors, BTW) sentences from different books of the bible. This is the type of thing thats missing.    Steve kap (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, all articles are cobbled together by editors from various sources, chosen by the editors. The GCN article has no bearing on this article. I believe the narrative as it stands now needs no further support, since there are other sections dealing with the critical issues. We don't need any Poisoning the well additions. I am willing to discuss the option of an additional prefatory sentence. I'm sorry I have not been very helpful lately - a quick trip to the hospital emergency room turned into nearly a week stay and continued outpatient treatments, (and monster expenses. :) —Telpardec TALK  02:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)