Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology/archive1

===The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to bring it to FA status eventually and I need some outside opinions on what to do to make it better.

Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology/archive1.
 * I look forward to reviewing this. It may take a couple of days - other reviewers should not be deterred from making comments meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Since it may be a liitle while before I complete my studies of this article, here are some initial thoughts:


 * History section
 * There is no real "history" here. I am not clear whether the section is intended to summarise the biblical history of the giving of the Ten Commandments as per Exodus chs 20–34, or whether it its purpose is a history of the Catholic Church's teaching relative to the Ten Commandments. In fact it is neither at the moment.
 * The section begins: "According to the Catholic Church, God led the people of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt..." This is according to the Holy Scriptures as written in the book of Exodus, not according to the Church or any other organisation.
 * "A covenant is like a legal or political treaty..." This is an imprecise definition, and could be written with more certainty: a covenant is a binding agreement between two or more entities.
 * "...but is used uniquely..." What, exactly, is being used uniquely? Unique use of the word "covenant"? Unique kind of covenant between God and humankind? It needs to be made clear.
 * "The Catholic Catechism discerns..." Surely, the catechism itself can't practise discernment? The formulators of the words of the catechism (Council of Trent? I'm not an expert on this) may have discerned a separation between what was written by the "finger of God" on the tablets of stone and what was made up by Moses or whoever wrote Exodus, but there is nothing in the bible itself that relates what was actually on the tablets.
 * I would also like some clear exposition in this section of the extent to which Catholics believe the literality of the imagery associated with the giving of the commandments. I have always considered references to the "finger of God" and "tablets of stone", etc, to be figurative, part of the allegory through which these laws are given their divine authority; what is the Catholic take on this, or is there a breadth of view across the Church?


 * Organisation of the Decalogue: You have used the Catholic numbering, which is fine given the article's subject. But I feel that, since the article will be read by many non-Catholics, a brief section needs to be inserted to explain that the Jewish and Protestant traditions number the commandments differently; "no other God before me" and "no graven images" are separate commandments, and not coveting your neighbour's wife or possessions are a single one. A useful summary of the difference is found here

I intend to continue the review over the weekend, children permitting, and will report further. Meanwhile, thank you for a thought-provoking article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great comments. I have addressed all of them except your request to add more info on the "finger of God" reference. My sources do not go into detail on that other than to quote the Catechism's "finger of God" comment. The Catechism does go into greater detail that appears as if the literal interpretation is the one accepted but I would be violating WP:OR by expanding on those without scholarly interpretation. I will try to find some other sources that discuss that. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I took care of that last one too.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Further comments: I have managed to cover the first five commandments.


 * The History section is not yet "history" as such. History requires a narrative, a sequence of events that reveals a story. A hint of this narrative is given in the first two sentences of the lead, but is not otherwise followed through. If you feel that this history is not the concern of this particular article, then I think the section heading should change to "Background". Either way, the text should make it clear that the commandments are the core of the covenant between God and humankind.
 * done.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * General MOS point: Should section headings be "First Commandment", "Second Commandment" etc, rather than "First commandment", "Second commandment", etc? "Ten Commandments" is OK as a generic title, but I'm not sure of the capitalization otherwise.
 * My scholarly sources do not capitalize either the first or second word of each commandment when they are found within a sentence. I changed the headings to "First commandment" "Second commandment" following MOS for section headings and per your comment here.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First commandment
 * Leading off with what St Augustine said makes it seem that he is the spokesman for the Church. You could reverse the order of the two paragraphs, with a slight change in wording (e.g. deleting "also" from "The Catechism also specifies..."), or you could introduce St Augustine's comment slightly differently
 * rearranged per your comment here. PS (St. Augustine is a spokesman for the church! :) Seminarians devote a very large amount of time studying his teachings because he is considered one of the most important Church Father's.)  Nancy Heise    talk  19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (in the Graven images subsection): "History notes the dispute..." sounds like the authorial voice invoking "history", a rather vague source. Also, disputes are resolved rather than decided. I suggest rewording this sentence: "The dispute between the Iconoclasts and the Iconodules was resolved at the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787), which determined that veneration..." etc
 * done.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Second commandment: no particular comment
 * Third commandment: I think something is missing from the sentence "On these days they may not work or do activities that 'hinder the worship of God', performance of the works of mercy and appropriate relaxation in a spirit of joy". I think a full stop is needed after the worship of God quote, with a new sentence explaining that works of mercy etc are permitted activities.
 * See the Catechism paragraph 2185 here - it is correct to keep the three items together. If I break up the sentence, I will be breaking up an actual quote from one of my scholarly sources and making it seem as if these things do not go together when the Catechism treats them as such.   Nancy Heise    talk  19:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that, as presented, the sentence mixes what is forbidden (activities that hinder the worship of God) with what is permitted (works of mercy and appropriate relaxation). I presume the intended meaning is "...they may not work or do activities that 'hinder the worship of God', [but] 'performance of works of mercy and appropriate relaxation in a spirit of joy' [are permitted]", but that is not how the sentence reads at present. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added your words and rearranged the quotation marks to make it all fit, please see again.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fourth commandment: no particular comment
 * Fifth commandment
 * I am not a theologian, nor particularly well-versed in Catholic theology, but I am somewhat shocked by the absolutist tone reflected in the Abortion subsection. This indicates that conceptions through violent rape, even incestuous rape, cannot be terminated except on pain of the excommunication of everyone, including the mother-victim, who cooperates in this. "No one under any circumstances" (my italics) implies that a pregnancy has to be carried to its term even when its continuation will seriously endanger the mother's health. This seems extreme; is there no challenge to this interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" within the church?
 * I added a new paragraph to that section that discusses the only circumstance of when an abortion is permitted by the church. Conceptions through violent rape, even incestuous rape can not be terminated. The mother has to be in mortal danger of dying. The child, however it is conceived and with whatever deformities, is considered to be an innocent human being with a right to life.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Small point) In the War and self-defense subsection, note 2), quote marks need sorting out.
 * done. (I think)  Nancy Heise    talk  20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the Church's ban on contraception related to its interpetation of "Thou shalt not kill"?
 * No, it is under the sixth commandment regarding marital relations being open to new life.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Scandal subsection: what is the relevance to this commandment? It seems to have no connection.
 * I added to the article text to explain why it is here. Nancy Heise    talk  20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That will have to suffice for the present. I will try to wrap up my comments tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing
 * Sixth commandment
 * (Homosexuality) The sentence beginning "The Catechism states that they violate natural law..." appears to have quotes within quotes. What, actually, is being quoted?
 * The author is quoting the Catechism. His words appear in the double quote and the Catechism's words, within that quote, are in the single quote mark.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the parenthetical quote "(on any issue, not just homosexuality)" a bit confusing. The opposing lay movements discussed here seem specific to the homosexuality question. Is it the case tat these same two groups propagate opposing on other questions, too?
 * I removed that quote per your comments here because it extended beyond the subject of homosexuality.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The subsection on birth control answers a point I made earlier. Last sentence should end "are not" rather than "is not". The subject ("all forms") is plural
 * done.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Divorce) spelling, "accommodation"
 * Thanks for pointing that out. corrected.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is note 1) in quotes?
 * Reworded.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seventh commandment: I have made a few punctuation edits, and have also decapitalized "capitalism" and "socialism". As a point of interest, does the Church have a view about legal tax avoidance schemes, i.e. schemes that use loopholes in the law to avoid paying taxes? Has the church spoken out on this issue?
 * Thanks for the corrections. I did a search on the tax issue, there are no books that cover that issue and I have never personally heard it discussed. The Church requires people to pay their taxes and respect legitimate authorities like governments. Nancy Heise    talk  02:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Eighth commandmant
 * The words "They include:" were inappropriate to introduce your list, as you had written it. I have made it OK now, but please check.
 * "...it does not require a person to reveal a truth to someone who does not have a right to know, and teaches respect for a right to privacy by recognizing that not all truth needs to be communicated." This sentence seems to be saying the same thing twice.
 * OK, good catch, I eliminated the redundancy, thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninth commandment: some people, including me, will wonder why coveting one's neighbour's wife is not covered by the sixth commandment with its warnings against lust etc. The commentary given doesn't really help explain why this has been separated into a distinct commandment, nor whether, in this context, "wife" includes "husband".
 * done.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tenth commandmant: no special comment.

That completes my review. Please raise with me any points which I have not made clear. Reviewing the article has been most interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I have taken care of almost all of these. I have run out of time and will have to address your comments on the 7th and 8th commandments tomorrow. Thanks. Brian B.! Great comments.   Nancy Heise    talk  20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow up: I have finished all of these comments now. Please let me know what you think.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See my final comment on third commandment. Also (I should have picked this up before) in the Numbering subsection you refer to "the English translation" of the Hebrew text. There are dozens of English translations, and you should state which one you are adopting. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the problem with that situation. I don't think the page will be helped to get involved in a discussion of Bible translations so I eliminated that last sentence. The Bible quotes come from my scholarly source, Peter Kreeft's Catholic Christianity. Let me know what you think. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy with your treatment of my final queries. However, a couple of bald links to external sources have appeared in the Numbering section. Surely, these need to be formatted as references in the normal way? As I understand it no bald links should appear within an article. That apart, I think this is a quality article that deserves to take its place among Wikipedia's best work and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great catch, I've changed all bald links into proper format now. Thanks Brian!  Nancy Heise    talk  21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, the link in the Numbering section is still wrongly formatted - see my suggestion on your talk page for dealing with this. I am going to read the article again, following your recent addenda, and will let you know if I can see any problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, Karanacs edited that link out of the article and I am OK with her changes. Let me know what you think. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  14:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it, it's fine now. The whole article looks good to me. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)