Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009.

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism

 * Nominator(s):  Nancy Heise    talk  15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets FA criteria and all concerns raised in the last FAC have been addressed with the help of other editors and myself.  Nancy Heise    talk  15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Struck, Steve  T • C I'm sorry, I took a look at the article out of curiosity, not intending to review it (in the middle of a review of another huge article), but I got so bogged down with prose problems in the lead that I felt I had to comment (please see the link for why it's an "oppose" and not a "comment", despite my not doing a full review). Major issues manifest from the first sentence:
 * "The Ten Commandments are a series of religious and moral imperatives, recognized as a moral foundation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and among the cornerstones of theology of the Roman Catholic Church." – this just doesn't work; the first half, up to "Islam", is fine, but the second half is I assume missing an "are" before "among"? Imagine the sentence with the RCC moved up to see why: "The Ten Commandments are a series of religious and moral imperatives, and among the cornerstones of theology of the Roman Catholic Church." See what I mean?
 * "The New Testament contains Jesus's teaching that observing the commandments is a minimum requirement for mankind, he exceeded them in his teachings requiring more, not less moral effort." – again, the segment before the first comma is OK, but then it runs on to a completely separate sentence that doesn't make sense either alone or as the second half of the original statement. Split the sentence after "mankind" and somehow make sense of "He exceeded them in his teachings requiring more, not less moral effort." A comma after teachings might help, but I don't even know what this is trying to say.
 * He also summarized them into two "great commandments that taught love of God (the first three Commandments) and love of neighbor (the last seven)." – a quote ("great) that isn't closed? Inconsistent capitalisation of "Commandments" in both this sentence and the rest of the lead.
 * "Church beliefs are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which devotes a separate section to explain each of the commandments." – without a comma before "which", it reads as if there are multiple Catechism's, of which there is one (which devotes a separate section to explain each of the commandments) that details church beliefs. A simple fix, but one that alters the whole meaning of the sentence.
 * According to the Catechism" – inconsistent italicisation; the capitalisation tells us it's the proper noun shorthand for the aforementioned Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than merely "the catechism", so it needs italics too.
 * These are all issues that should really have been caught before FAC submission. I don't know if they're representative of the rest of the article, but being in the lead section they're major enough to warrant an oppose vote. I'm sorry if my tone seems harsh, but the lead is supposed to grab the reader's interest; it won't if the reader trips up on easily-spotted mistakes like these. I'll keep this page watchlisted for any response, and promise to look back in when I've finished my other review. All the best, and good luck with the rest of the nomination, Steve  T • C 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve, I did not find your tone to be harsh and your comments are spot on. I agree that changes can be made to the lead to improve the prose. Efforts by different editors to fix the lead have created a mishmash of styles that does not work and I am happy to address your issues here. I do not feel that the rest of the article is in need of this kind of work so I hope you are not discouraged from further review after I finish the lead. Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  23:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have made changes to the lead that address your concerns here. Please have another look. Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That new lead is a lot better. Oppose struck. Also, you're right, it didn't look particularly representative of the rest of the article. I'm not confident enough on religious subjects, so I'll probably not review this fully, but if I get time, once this review has developed further I'll pop back in to see if I can at least give the general prose a closer look. Nice work, Steve  T • C 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I welcome any further review you can offer.  Nancy Heise    talk  18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker is showing one link as dead, but it actually works, I clicked through to it fine.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not FA. Poorly referenced. Publications by historians should be used, instead of "catholic sources". The ref problem results in a pov problem, since the article is not presented with a rigorous critical historical perspective.--Sum (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. It might help if you can expand on that comment. Can you give a specific example of a statement cited to catholic sources that might be significantly different if cited to an independent historian? Otherwise, it will be difficult for the nominator to pin down exactly what the problem is, what to change, and for other reviewers to determine whether to take this point into consideration. Steve  T • C 19:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a history article but a theology article, so historians are not qualified to discuss the matter. Not all writers on Catholic theology are Catholic, nor are all Catholics of the same mind, so your second point has no grounds. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just added some Protestant historians and views to Background to supplement the Protestant and Catholic and secular historians that are already in the article. The article now includes 12 non-Catholic sources and 13 Catholic sources not including the Bible and the Catechism.  Nancy Heise    talk  00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Well written and thoroughly referenced. I don't have a problem with having many references that are "Catholic sources" because this is an article about Catholic teachings. Dincher (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for your support. I just want to post some clarifying comments about sources used to help people who do not know some important details regarding them:
 * all sentences that state a fact of official Catholic teaching in this article are referenced to sources that contain Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Church. I have also cross referenced these sources to the actual primary sources (like the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that they cite. All are written by professors of theology at prestigious universities in accordance with recommendations of WP:reliable source examples. One of the sources used in the article is approved by the USCCB for use in catechesis.
 * all sentences that discuss a historical or background aspect of the article do not specifically come from Catholic sources. These sources include both Catholic and non-Catholic authors that meet the requirements of WP:reliable source examples as well but because they do not deal with official Catholic doctrine, they do not posess nor have they applied for Nihil obstat or imprimatur because it would be inappropriate to the subject matter these books discuss.

I'm leaning to support, but just needs a little checking jimfbleak (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to improve upon the sources as they are the best English language sources available. However, if someone has another source they would like to include, I am open to having a look and including it as an additional source.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments A few quibbles
 * He exceeded them in his word -is this right? reads oddly to me, expect either "words" or "work"
 * I fixed the schism dab, didn't check for other dabs, but several redirects
 * "Life unworthy of life" If this is a book title, as claimed, it should be italics, but the actual book  is  Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens, (Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life).
 * Evangelium Vitae, Rerum Novarum etc. - italics I think
 * War and self defense - self-defence is usually hyphenated in BE, can you assure me that AE is different?
 * A more literal translation would be "The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life" which is the title used by the New York Times here. Another translation would be "The Permissibility for Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life". --Richard (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks JimFbleak and Richard, I'll get right on these comments and get back to you.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am copying Jimfbleak's comments here to answer them one by one without breaking up his original comments above.
 * He exceeded them in his word -is this right? reads oddly to me, expect either "words" or "work"
 * I changed the sentence to read "The New Testament contains Jesus's moral teachings which confirmed the validity of the commandments. He exceeded them in his teachings and demanded more, not less moral effort.[8]"  Nancy Heise    talk  02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the schism dab, didn't check for other dabs, but several redirects
 * Checked links and made some changes where needed.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * " Life unworthy of life" If this is a book title, as claimed, it should be italics, but the actual book  is  Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens, (Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life).
 * Yes, Richard was kind enough to put the whole name into the article, thanks Richard.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evangelium Vitae, Rerum Novarum etc. - italics I think
 * Yes! changed all papal encyclicals mentioned to italics  Nancy Heise    talk  02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ' 'War and self defense'' - self-defence is usually hyphenated in BE, can you assure me that AE is different?
 * self-defense is correct AE. I have corrected the article text by inserting a hyphen per your comment here.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's time for some silliness, eh? Well then, try this on for size...
 * Support although I'm not an expert, I'm happy with the sources and the changes made above. It's slightly disturbing that the article is in AE, when everyone knows God is an Englishman, but that's probably not actionable (:   jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For he himself has said it,

And it's greatly to his credit,

That he is an Englishman! That he is an Englishman!

For he might have been a Roosian,

A French, or Turk, or Proosian,

Or perhaps Itali-an!

Or perhaps Itali-an!

But in spite of all temptations

To belong to other nations,

He remains an Englishman!

From HMS Pinafore --Richard (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It must be nice to be a pure breed - we mutts in the US don't know that kind of pride. We are just proud when our local football team wins the Superbowl.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I have commented at length during previous FACs and peer reviews, and my view holds: this article is a thoughtful and comprehensive account of the Catholic Church's teaching relative to the Ten Commandments, well worthy of promotion, and I look forward to seeing it featured. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Notes: the first line in the section "Jesus' expansion" contains an external jump to a scripture (external links belong in citations or external links). The final quote in the section "Separation, civil divorce, annulments" appears to be split, resulting in confusing punctuation and what looks like (but isn't) the need for an ellipses ... is it possible to put all of the quote in the quote, not in the preceding line?  There are still WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues that need addressing (example ... because the adulterer sins against "his spouse, his society, and his children as well as his own body and soul.")  There are still hyphen, endash mixups (example:  ... total self–giving and union, ... should be a hyphen, not an endash).  This clause is still unexplained and uncited:  ...  unchastity or an unlawful marriage (depending upon the Biblical translation), ... a citation to go through every possible translation of the Bible doesn't clarify the translation issue.  There is an inconsistent citation style wrt Bible sources:  some have a colon, some don't, examples ...  Deuteronomy 4 13, others are Matthew 5:20.  These are samples; a good Mos review is needed of these issues throughout.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, I've made corrections per your comments here and checking the article again searching for any punctuation or endash mixups. Steve says he is going to go through the article again over the weekend so maybe between the two of us all issues relating to MOS will be resolved.   Nancy Heise    talk  17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yeah, I've been performing a light copyedit at a leisurely pace over the last few days. I think I've done up to "Third Commandment" so far; the others will probably take another couple of days. I was planning to leave the full MOS-sweep until the end, so I can fix any outstanding issues in one go. But while I'm here, I have got one question: is there any particular reason the quote boxes are in boldface and a seemingly-larger font? I can't see anything specific in the guidelines that prohibits different formatting in the boxes than in the article body, but it is a little... distracting... which might be the intention? :) Steve  T • C 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I pondered on same, and went back and forth for a while. WP:MOSBOLD allows for bolding of lists, and in a sense, they are a list.  So I'm not fussed either way.  They do look a bit ... awkward ... but not enough for me to argue against the bolding.  Consensus ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fuss me too much either; as both a list and, in effect, an extension of the section header, I'm OK with its remaining. Steve  T • C 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm generally supportive of this article being classed as a Featured Article. During the first candidacy, User:Ioannes Pragensis commented that the article "offers almost no information about hundreds years of Catholic moral theology, the development of its views and related church doctrines etc. There is only one short reference to Thomas Aquinas in the article, and that is all - no other early Catholic moral theologians are included, no explanation of "sola fide" conflict with Reformators in 16th century is offered etc. I think that the article in its current state is a well designed presentation of what one would hear about Ten Commandments in the church sermons and documents today, but it has a rather shallow theoretical basis (for example it offers almost no information about the textual critic of Ten C. in context of Vulgata translation) and it ignores the historical development of the understanding and use of Ten C. in the church. Therefore its perspective is more the perspective of an insider from 2009, not neutral perspective of history, sociology and philosophy of religion, which considers development of ideologies in time, includes also critical voices and tries to see things from impartial perspective."  In response to Ioannes' comments, we have made an effort to address some of his concerns relative to the historical development of church teaching around specific commandments.  However, it was not until a few weeks ago, that I came to understand that there is an issue regarding the assertion by the Catechism that the Ten Commandments have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)".  It took me a while to research this issue and write it up (partly due to other things going on in "the real world").  Please see my comment on the article's Talk Page.  My recommendation would be hold up a decision on this article until this issue is resolved.  I think this can be done fairly quickly but I also think it is important to address it before qualifying the article as FA since this seems to me to be a fair-sized hole in the article's coverage of the topic. --Richard (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, I have inserted more info per your comments here and on the talk page. Please see my additional information in Background. Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What you added to the "Background" section addresses the issue that I raised. Although the prose could be improved, I am happy with the points that are made there.  I will leave it to others to tighten up the prose.  --Richard (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some improvements in prose and logical flow of ideas, please see again. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I was waiting to see if Savidan raised any substantive issues regarding historical development. Since he is satisfied, I am now ready to support the FA status of this article.  Kudos to NancyHeise for much hard work and a job well-done. --Richard (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, Wow! I just saw your support way up here Richard. Thanks so much for your support and for your terrific help in moving the article along toward improvement - especially for your help in meeting WP:NPOV.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - this article is a good summary of the Commandments as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I would like to see more on the history of the 10 commandments within the Catholic Church before the era of John Paul II. What role did the 10 commandments play in Catholic theology in the Middle Ages? Or even the 19th/early 20th century? How has emphasis changed over time? What papal encyclicals or ecumenical councils have spoken to the issue? These are the types of questions a featured article would address. The "Background" section does not seem to address this issue at all. There is only sentence about the early church, and then >90% of the article is about modern issues. I am also concerned that much of the material in the intro and the first section is too generic given the title of this article; I would prefer that it maintain a laserlike focus on Roman Catholicism itself and not repeat too much content that is common to all Christian denominations. Savidan 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have inserted more information on history while addressing Richard's comments. However, the article already includes all mentions of papal encyclicals regarding the Ten. There are no missing issues. We went through each commandment and included a history of Church teaching within each commandment where one existed. This information is not in Background because that section is a general overview of all the commandments. Please see the histories discussed within each commandment. If you know of any papal encyclicals that I have omitted from the article please specify because I do not believe I have omitted any.


 * Also, What information do you think should be deleted form Background and the lead that is too generic? I am not sure what to delete without seriously depriving Reader of important basic facts that provide him/her with a general understanding of the issue. Can you be more specific? Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have eliminated some of the details pertaining to the giving of the Ten Commandments and replaced these with Church teaching regarding their issuance. Please let me know if I have addressed your concern. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, you have indeed cited many papal encyclicals as they related to specific commandments. My concern is more towards the history of the commandments as a whole. There are two important issues that I view as neglected: (1) the history of the theology of the Ten as a group rather than as individual moral issues. For example, the Catholics differ in their numbering of the Commands; to wit, no other substantial Judeo-Christian denomination shares this numbering&mdash;this, I believe, has a history; (2) the history of the joint importance of the Ten, as theologically more or less important than other teachings. I agree that this issue is separate from the equally important "Background" section, so I would perhaps like to see a new "History" section. If JPII is truly the first pope to write about the fundamental importance of the Ten Commandments as a group of teachings, that would seem to be a very important point; if he is not, then the article has made an important omission.
 * Additionally, I believe that the article is too quick to claim that the present interpretation is substantially similar to historical church teaching. I will give the example of capital punishment because it is the area that I am most familiar. I can give more examples when I am less pressed for time. I believe the article is incorrect when it states that the Church did not explicitly support capital punishment at some points in its history. Please see the Dulles and Megivern sources I have cited in Capital punishment in Vatican City. I think the article would also be remiss to omit the fact that the Church was itself not just a supporter, but an active administrator, of the death penalty historically (see List of people executed by the Holy See). Savidan 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Savidan, to address your comments here I have added the following to the article:
 * A seealso link in Capital punishment section to List of people executed by the Holy See
 * Expanded Capital punishment, (see ) to include mention of points made by the Dulles source you suggest above with wikilinked mention of Inquisition as well.
 * The sentence that says official Church teaching has neither absolutely condemned nor promoted the death penalty was changed to include the name of the person stating this.
 * Numbering of the Commandments history is already mentioned here . There is no more history to report on this. Scholarly sources do not say anything more about numbering. Wondering if I had missed something, I performed a search and read about this topic in various other sources both Protestant and Catholic and secular but there is nothing more to report other than what is already here. I could include the fact that some Protestants think their numbering is more correct but that is also true of Catholics and Jews all of whom have different numberings. Lutherans have the same numbering system as Catholics and this too is included in the article. What more would you like to see here? What do you think has been omitted? Please be more specific, Thanks.
 * History - I have changed the name of the Background section to "History" as it now relates the history of the Ten that includes a history of its emphasis in teaching the faith as you requested. See . This history section also provides mention of divisive issues between Protestants and Catholics regarding the Ten and developement of official Church teaching on them. I hope this addresses all your concerns. Thanks for taking the time to review the article,  Nancy Heise    talk  19:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  Neutral, but a tentative one: interested to see whether Savidan is satisfied. as yet (neutrality, writing).
 * Savidan, above, is one of our best religious/historical scholars. I'd like to second his line of questions. In addition, the shades of belief within the church are not given nearly enough oxygen; WP's job is not to repeat the iron-fisted control over ideology of whichever regime is in power in the Vatican in what needs to be a scupulously NPOV account.
 * "demanding a righteousness that exceeded that of the scribes"—consider avoiding that that ... "demanding a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes" (the ing ing is less instrusive, possibly).
 * uncertain, not "not certain".
 * Jesus's, then Jesus'.
 * "a place of predominant importance"—ouch ... "a predominant place".
 * This is certainly better than the previous "Roman CC" FAC I saw a few years ago in its use of techniques to distance WP explicitly from statements of ideology and dogma. That's good NPOV technique. Tony   (talk)  17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that has gone into this; it has the makings of a good FAC, but I'm uneasy as yet. Tony  (talk)  17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tony, I have made the prose changes you suggest here and I have inserted info on the number of practicing Catholics in the lead. Please see my additions to the article in response to Savidan and Richard's comments and let me know what other kinds of reservations you have about the article, specifics will help me to be able to address them. Nancy Heise    talk  19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, I just want to add that we were careful to add criticisms of Church teaching where these existed. I think that maybe you may not have seen these within each commandment section. Not all of the commandments have these because not all are controversial, in fact very few are. I'll list the specific areas that needed criticism discussions to help you review it:
 * Lead- I added a sentence that says the number of practicing Catholics is not reliably known cited to the BBC per your comments here.
 * Numbering- Differences between Catholic and Protestant numbering is identified along with info where these different systems originated.
 * Background- Differences in understanding the place of the Commandments as a source of grace between Protestant and Catholics.
 * Graven Images- discusses criticism of Catholics for idolatry and history of Church belief on this subject.
 * Third commandment - contains discussion on differences between Jewish and Catholic and some other Christian denominations and Catholics on Sabbath Day issue (Sunday or Saturday).
 * Fifth commandment - contains discussion on the difference between santity of life ethic and quality of life ethic as framed by most medical journals and scholars discussing this commandment. This encompasses all discussion on abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia which break down to differences between these two ethics.
 * Sixth commandment section on homosexuality contains the two opposing philosophies within the Church on the issue. Also, this commandment contains information on the fact that many Church members and non-members criticize the Church teachings on birth control as contributing to overpopulation. Also included: info on criticism surrounding condom policy with regards to AIDS.
 * Do these address your concerns and if not, can you specify any criticisms you think I have omitted?  Nancy Heise    talk  02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A thorough and well-written article. I do have a comment, but it's purely aesthetic in nature: I noticed that all of the quotation boxes and images are on the right. I think it looks nicer when the images are sometimes on the left and sometimes on the right; but that's a personal preference and just a suggestion. Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support - I was able to move one picture to the left (in Graven Images) but I am unable to do so with any of the others without violating some Wikipedia policies. We can't put pictures directly underneath subject headings and pictures can't run into the section below. I thought the Bathsheba picture could be moved but it results in a little bit of what is called "sandwiching" of text. Thanks for your support and for not being a stickler on placement of images!  Nancy Heise    talk  03:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - it was just a thought. Ricardiana (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the copyediting front, I've come across this statement in the "Sixth commandment" section:"The sexual act is sacred within the context of the marital relationship that reflects a 'complete' and 'life-long' 'mutual' 'gift' 'of a man and a woman'."The series of brief quotations, sans interruption, don't read that well, but I'm struggling to paraphrase it because I'm not 100% sure what the sentence is saying. Does marriage represent the life-long mutual gift, or is it "the sexual act"? Can you elaborate here? Or if you still have access to Kreeft, it might be useful to post the relevant text, maybe on my talk to avoid clogging this page (as bad luck would have it, page 245 is unavailable in Google Books' preview). A side note: would you object to my altering "The sexual act" in the above to "Sexual intercourse"? It's more specific and avoids ambiguities of the "which sexual act?" variety. Steve  T • C 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee! I don't know about you but for me, only one of the sexual acts is considered "the" sexual act! : )  Nancy Heise    talk  16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, "sexual intercourse" is a more common locution and thus scans better. If we're not working with a direct quote from the cited work, I would just remove all the quotations and not worry about paraphrasing.  As long as the sentence has a citation, this is not really a copyright issue, the "fair use" doctrine should cover use of such a short snippet. --Richard (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, I posted Kreeft's quote from page 245 on this FACs discussion page here . I changed the sentence per comments here, it now states "Sexual intercourse is sacred within the context of the marital relationship that reflects "the five essential ingredients of a marriage"&mdash;a "complete" and "life-long" "mutual" "gift" "of a man and a woman". This I think addresses the "sexual act" comment and clarifies what the series of quotes are describing. Feel free to improve upon this if you like and thanks for your terrific copyedit.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that text; it explains a lot (i.e. that the machine-gun quotes were Kreeft's not-so-great idea). Hope my tweak to the section is appropriate. The MOS concerns seem mostly cleared up (I'll check for any I've missed later), save for the logical quotation issues, for which I need to go pick over the guideline first. Steve  T • C 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that it is not necessary to perpetuate "Kreeft's not-so-great idea" of using machine-gun quotes. For one thing, the point is that there are "five essential ingredients of a marriage".  Perhaps it would be useful to present these five as a separate topic early in the section on the sixth commandment preceding the other discussions that reference them.  Perhaps we could put the five elements in a bullet-pointed list with brief explanations in a sentence of two. For example, I think it's pretty obvious what "life-long" and "of a man and a woman" mean but it's not so obvious what "complete", "mutual" and "gift" mean.  Obviously, people will have some idea but some elaboration could be useful here if we can do it .  "Mutual" means that both sides want to be in the marriage but what if one party wants out?  There is no divorce so this seems to be a contradiction.  Do any of the sources amplify the meaning of "mutual"?  "Gift" presumably means that the marriage was freely entered into and no coercion or inducement was involved.  The marriage was not arranged, coerced or part of a contract involving a quid pro quo.  That's what I read into the word.  Do any of our sources provide an amplification of the word "gift"?  Now, I have to say that I don't have a clear understanding of what "complete" means.  I'm guessing that it means you cannot have a marriage which intentionally excludes characteristics and activities normally associated with a "complete" marriage.  This would therefore exclude "marriages of convenience" or prohibit a spouse from refusing to have sex even though he/she is not unfaithful in the sense of having sexual intercourse outside the marriage.  Now, I am personally uncomfortable with the last proposition about "withholding sex" but that should illustrate the need for providing sourced elaborations of what the "five essential ingredients" mean. --Richard (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea Richard, I'm adding this info now from a different nihil obstat, imprimatur source that was created by 12 Catholic theologians, its called "Catholic for a Reason".  Nancy Heise    talk  16:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, after researching this, I believe it is inappropriate. The five ingredients of a marriage are not discussed as part of the Ten Commandments and are not even identified as the "five ingredients", this is Kreeft's analysis. He is correct, there are five ingredients but they are not listed and interpreted by either the Catechism or scholarly sources. The Catechism states them as part of the explanation of the sixth commandment but omits "free" which is explained under "mutual consent" in its explanation of the sacrament of matrimony. To address the awkwardness of the sentence punctuation, I have instead reworded the sentence to quote the Catechism instead of Kreeft and added ref.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, per your post immediately above this one, I went through and checked all quotations to their sources and made some punctuation corrections to adhere to WP:LQ.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve and Richard, I was thinking this morning about how we changed "sexual act", (the words used by the Catechism) to "sexual intercourse". I am not sure that is the best thing to do. The "sexual act" could mean more than just "sexual intercourse", it could mean the act of lovemaking which is all inclusive. I am uncomfortable with the change and would like to revert back to "sexual act". Are you both OK with that?  Nancy Heise    talk  15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with changing it back but, if we cannot easily define amongst ourselves the precise meanings of these phrases, it suggests an ambiguity that we should clear up for the reader. If the Catechism doesn't provide a clear definition, do either Kreeft or Schreck shed any light on how to interpret this phrase?  This is especially important if we are proposing a wider definition of "sexual act" than most readers would interpret it to mean.  There are many Christians who would consider "lovemaking short of sexual intercourse" to be permissible activity outside of marriage.  Hmmm... well, um, I guess we'd have to differentiate between premarital lovemaking as opposed extramarital lovemaking.  (cf. "I did not have sex with that woman" - Bill Clinton)  NB: If we can't provide a clear definition of "the sexual act", we should make it clear that the phrase "sexual act" is used by the Catechism and may therefore have a specific definition other than what readers may expect. --Richard (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, Kreeft and Schreck do not specify, they repeat the words used by the Catechism which are "the acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify" Kreeft follows this with an analogy between these words used by the Catechism to describe sexual acts in marriage and words used by the Catechism to describe a sacrament. Because the words signify more than one act "the acts in marriage", I don't think we can use "sexual intercourse" or "the sexual act" but rather "sexual acts" I think is more correct paraphrasing. What do you think?  Nancy Heise    talk  16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, to address your concern over the use of "sexual acts" I have added a note to clarify for Reader what the Catechism states. I hope this addresses your concern. Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come late to your original question; your solution is perfectly OK by me. Steve  T • C 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - my issues resolved. Savidan 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and for taking the time to come review the article and offer your comments.  Nancy Heise    talk  15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Useful compilation that meets FA criteria. The concentration on present-day issues and positions is I think necessary given the length of the article already. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support!  Nancy Heise    talk  03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some minor c/e of recently added material aside, I think it's almost there. The only major issue I can see at the moment is that due to the recent additions to the article body, the lead no longer summarises its content. I've taken the liberty of throwing together a draft, here, but didn't want to make such a large change to the article itself without your say so. Because I'm out of my comfort zone subject-wise, it may be that my paraphrase has misinterpreted the article body or emphasised unimportant aspects, but I think some added focus on the history of Church teaching of the commandments is at least a good idea. Feel free to discard my suggestion for an expansion of your own; you know the subject far more intimately than I. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it and I inserted it into the article - great job! Thank you for your thorough help! I have reworded a couple of sentences and added the criticism of Protestant reformers since this is notable. Let me know what you think. Thanks again.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The new lead is pretty good. I deleted the bit about the numbering because, IMO, it is not that important and thus does not need to be in the lead.  More importantly, it is unrelated to what precedes it and what follows it and thus is a non sequitur.  I also have a problem with this sentence: "While the number of Catholics who adhere to Church teaching is not reliably known, a review of the Commandments is one of the most common types of examination of conscience used by Catholics before receiving the sacrament of Penance."  There is no direct connection between the number of Catholics who adhere to Church teaching and the fact that "a review of the Commandments is one of the most common types of examination of conscience used by Catholics before receiving the sacrament of Penance."  Thus, this is another non sqequitur.  I would delete this text: "While the number of Catholics who adhere to Church teaching is not reliably known" because it does not add anything to the meaning of the main clause and, if anything, becomes a distraction for those who might wonder what the logical connection is between the two. --Richard (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that suggestion. Thanks Richard for your help. I agree that the two sentences you point out don't help logical flow that much, the lead is better without them.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm very pleased to support this article's candidacy; concerns have been tackled swiftly and with good grace throughout by the nominator, and the article has improved significantly since the first nomination, to a point that I'm satisfied that it meets the criteria. As I'm not a content expert in this area, I delayed supporting until I saw comments from those who are, but as far as I can see, the attribution on the quotes and opinions seems sound, appropriate distance has been maintained throughout, it's well-written, and seems a comprehensive overview of the subject's coverage in modern scholarly sources; a valid editorial choice I'm happy to endorse. Nice work! Steve  T • C 09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve, if this makes FA, it will be in large part because you held my hand through the process. I appreciate your help, everyone on Wikipedia I'm sure knows I needed it. : )  Nancy Heise    talk  15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although it's a great picture, the lead image is by Rembrandt, a (most likely) Protestant painter. I would vote for a switch to one of the other images from Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesgles (talk • contribs) 14:33, June 16, 2009


 * Although I am sure that Catholics love Protestants and would not mind the Rembrandt, I did go to your link and stumbled across another great picture of Moses receiving the Ten on a Jewish page called Mishpatim. I replaced Rembrandt with this da Costa: . What do you think? Better?  Nancy Heise    talk  15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I like the chose of da Costa. It was a trivial matter, for sure, but with this we get an illustration not only of the ten commandments but also of the ten commandments through the eyes of a Roman Catholic, which is closer to the subject of this article. On all other points, I am satisfied, having made some suggestions and edits earlier on in the process. Lesgles (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notes: Will someone please figure out the correct combo of punctuation and capitalization here:
 * Envy is the desire for what belongs to another; "It is an attitude that fills us with sadness at the sight of another's prosperity."

Inconsistency in citations: some are Mt, others are Matthew. I'm not convinced the logical punctuation agrees with WP:PUNC, but I'm not an expert on logical punctuation. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sandy, I changed the Envy sentence into two separate sentences to avoid punctuation difficulties, it now reads "2.Envy is the desire for what belongs to another.[144] The US Bishops define it as "an attitude that fills us with sadness at the sight of another's prosperity." I'm going to correct the Matthew citations and review the rest for consistency.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed two citations from Mt to Matthew for consistency. I did not see any others that needed attention. Thanks Sandy.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the logical punctuation issue, on paper the article conforms to the underwritten WP:LQ, though that guideline doesn't agree with what seems to be standard practise. In summary, then: dunno. :) Steve  T • C 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Status quo :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.