Talk:Honour thy father and thy mother/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

This article should be citing primary sources when ever possible. such as Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 240/241, Kitzor shulchan aruchk 243, mishna torah, Shoftim mamrim chapter 6, mishna Peah 1,1, and various Talmudic references to daman son of natina. I am sure there is more, but that is all I have at the moment. Jon513 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

biblical reference

The article states that there are eight references. I could only find three: Exodus 21:11; Deuteronomy 5:16; Leviticus 19:3. Is this also referring to בן סורר ומורה? Also the article should mention the stated death penalty for hitting for cursing parents Leviticus 20:9 and exodus 21:15, but I am not sure if that should count as an explicit reference to respect for parents.Jon513 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent move

I undid the recent move because the ultimate goal I had planned for the article was NOT for it to be about Jewish law, but about the commandment at a multicultural POV. Xyz7890 (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? do you have any sources that compare and contrast multiple views about respect for parents? If you don't there is no reason to have different views lumped together. Jon513 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, big problems now. If the title was "Jewish law and the respect for Partents", or such, thats one thing. Nothing to do with me, and people that know about Jewish law, they can work it out. But, presented as the correct interpretation of the particular commandment, thats another thing. To state, with no qualitfication, 'this is what it means', 'it applys to stepfathers and teacher','tell you're partents where you are'; and based soley some specfic interpretation of Jewish law or tradition, that's no good. Thats POV in the extreme. Thats minority point of view. Thats a confusion with fact and tradition. Those are the Wiki rules reasons that we can't have it. What bugs me about it, its just a piety display. Piety inflation, in fact. 'You have this rule, but I know the REAL rule, and its even MORE restrictive'. I think this Wiki is suppose to inform, not to be a platform for such displays.

You can't do it. You can't say "This is what this section of the bible means". It may well be that some Christians might like to make the statement, say in the 10C article 'The Ten Commandments are no longer valid because Christ relplaced them with thus and so..'. You might be able to say ".. there is some in Jewish tradition that hold that...". But thats about it. Then you have to worry about minority point of view. Particulary if thats the only POV presented.Steve kap (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is about a Jewish point of view and should be presented as such. But I don't think anyone is trying to misrepresent Judaism as the only point of view, and your outrage is uncalled for and unproductive. There is a problem with the article, and it need to be corrected, there is no conspiracy to present tradition as fact.

While I respect Xyz7890 ultimate goal of have a multi-perceptive article, leaving it as a general perceptive article hoping that someday, someone might expand it is stupid. We should turn it in a Jewish perspective article. I am not sure if other points of view even exist, and I am certain not in a position to write about it. If someone, someday, does want to make an article about other points of view of respect for parents we can deal with it then - possibly with a merge. Jon513 (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we went from the Jewish prespective being presented as the only POV, to having it be the only POV presented. Progress, I guess. Xyz9880, I see what you're going for, you're hoping that other views will be filled in. That makes sence, I guess. But until then you've got the problem that the Jewish is the only POV presented. I've got an idea, why don't you rename it to "The Jewish View of 'Honor they...'" or some such, until such time, if ever, others are represented. You know there is that old rule of catagorization, you can't have a "I" without a "II", you can't have an A without a B. Steve kap (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already made headings to for the Jewish POV. This is in preparation for views to be written about other religions. I am in the process of attempting to find information about the viewpoints of other religions. This is difficult for me because I am not so familar with them, but I am at least planning to get it started pretty soon for others to come along and work on it in more detail. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the headings, I get your intent. I think you'll find not much from the Christian perspective. As far as there even IS a codified perspective, I think it will be that this commandement is pretty self explanitory, that is means just what it says. That would make a rather benal artile. But, you said there were many reference, maybe you can prove me wrong! Steve kap (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Having read the hidden message, I propose to merge this into Ten Commandments. Given all the various interpretations of the Ten Commandments, and the different styles with which they are written in the various sources, I don't believe that one of the commandments in one interpretation should have an article of its own. SGGH ^ping! 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Several people are trying to say this article should be merged into Ten Commandments. But I created and have been expanding this article as a separate topic. Ten Commandments is already a long article, and when all is said and done, this shall be a long article of its own, linked from Ten Commandments. Besides, all information here is properly sourced, thereby meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So this should not be merged. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also have a concern that creating an article for this law specifically, and for his viewpoint of it and this interpretation may also fall foul of undue weight. SGGH ^ping! 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This article simply does not have enough weight to exist on its own. It's overall content can be expanded upon within the bounds of the original article -- which in and of itself is NOT too long at this point -- as can breakouts on the other Commandments. I would strongly endorse and encourage the merger and redirect of this article back to Ten Commandments. --mhking (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while it may look small to you, I am currently in the process of adding more information from various sources with an edit every few minutes. As for the POV issue, that can be solved if others come and add information from other sources. That is no reason to jump into a merger. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Ten Commandments article is currently about 74K in length, far beyond the 60K that according to WP:SIZE guidelines, the article probably should be divided. This article is currently around 6K, and is very likely to grow far beyond that as more information is added (which is neccessary to make some improvement, such as POV).Xyz7890 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As the article is about Jewish law I suggest that it be renamed "respect for parents in Jewish Law". There is plenty in Halacha about respect for parents to warrant an article separate from 10 commandments especially as the laws are not a direct commentary on the bible. Jon513 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there can be much more written, and it does not have to be limited to Judaism. I never intended for it to be. But as a Jew, I know too little to write about it at the POV of other religions. That is where others will come in handy.

It is actually music to my ears to see this much discussion on this page less than 24 hours after creation. This shows it'll probably be greatly improved in the future.Xyz7890 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy, this article seems to be on a very specific subject. I don't see the need to break the 10C to this degree. To me, it doesn't seem like "honor thy father and mother" is so complex, hard to understand, that it would need an article to explain it. I'd vote to delete this. Steve kap (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a very complex topic. Hundreds of published books have been written about it, some full books about this commandment alone. This is plenty enough to make a standalone article valid. Also, this article is not up for deletion now, only a possible merger that probably will not happen. If this article were to be put up at afd, given the large number of reliable sources, it would probably be overwhelmingly called for being kept. At this point, to put it up for deletion would be nothing more than a reaction of dislike, which would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you mistake me. I have nothing against this commandment, and, my intention is NOT to disrupt or to make a point. I take a bit of offence at that accusation, doesn't seem like assuming good will to me. But, let us set that aside and focus on the issue. Have their Really been hundreds of books written on this commandment alone? I'm a bit suprised, can you name any? Can you verify that claim?

As to this issue being "a very complex topic" a d "plenty enough matterial to make a standalone article", frankly, and no offence intended, the article doesn't reflect that in my opinion. I think its extremly benal, and can't imagine that any amount of effert would make it otherwise. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, as unlikely as I think that is. Steve kap (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a further problems. The aritle seems to expand the meaning of the commandment by conflating it with other aspects of Jewish law and tradition. This conflation is a bit misleading, a bit POV, I think. That is, not everyone would make the same connections.l

Also, the artitle seems to be argueing for a particular inturpretation of the commandment, and doing so in a rather authoritarian tone, that is 'this is what it means' rather than 'this is what its taken to mean by these people'. Mind you, I think the whole enterprise is hopeless, but if it is to be, I think these things need to be fixed. Steve kap (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Honor your father and your mother" certainly has enough notability to have its own Wikipedia article. The current article does represent a point of view (Jewish), but it uses plenty of reliable sources, and gives due weight to the Jewish material in context. There is plenty of room remaining for capable editors to add material giving due weight to other viewpoints. An article should indeed represent all sufficiently notable viewpoints, but there is no burden for an originating editor to provide an article that is complete in this respect. Oppose merge.Pasteur1967 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New article name not NPOV, should return to original "Honor your father and your mother"

The article name should be restored to the original: "Honor your father and your mother" because "The fifth commandment" is biased against Catholic and Lutheran traditions which view "Honor your father and your mother" as the fourth commandment AND because many readers understand "The fifth commandment" to refer to "You shall not kill." Nine out of the top ten Google hits on "The fifth commandment" refer to it in the sense of "You shall not kill" while only one of the hits refers to it in the sense of honoring parents. The article "Honor your father and your mother" is unambiguous and allows for a variety of viewpoints on the topic to be included.Pasteur1967 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article on the fifth commandement should mention both "the honoring parents" commandement and "you shall not kill" commandement. The article should talk about the fifth commandement in general. If the commandement is different in different beliefs, then that should be written. Warrior4321 14:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the original name. Jon513 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the page should remain "Honor your father and your mother" Corinne68 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Improper Synthesis

The phrase "were either spoken by God, Exodus 20.1 [2], written in stone by God, Exodus 34.1 [3], or written in stone by Moses, Exodus 34.28 [4]" violates the policy against original research because it is improper synthesis. Use of sources must only be descriptive of their content and cannot contain conclusions that are not explicitly reached in the sources themselves. Drawing conclusions not explicitly contained in the sources is improper synthesis. See: WP:NOR.Pasteur1967 (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh brother. This is just too much. Now you say that I am not being "descriptive", that I'm drawing "conclusions". Well, lets lay this bare. Lets look at the statements I made, vs. the citations. See how far out on the limb I've gone. The first columm is the statement I put in the article (all ref to the giving of the 10 Commandments), the 2nd is the text I'm citing:

(my statement)..spoken by god...; Exodus 20.1 "And God spoke these words..."

(my statement)..written by God..: Exodus 34.1 "I (God) will write upon the tablets.."

(my statement)... written by Moses; Exosuds 34.28 "And he (Moses) wrote upon the tablets..."

Now I ask you, dear reader, did I stray from the text? Did I extrapolate? Did I draw any "conclusions"? Or did I faithfully and accurately reflect the very text that I was citing. Steve kap (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pastuaer, you seemed determined not address the points that I make, going so far as to put your comments in the wrong section, perphaps to avoid the stark contrast between your arguments and the facts that they are supposed to address. I invite you to correct this error, by pasting your responces to this, the correct section.

Your arguement seems to rest on the accertion that I'm "implying" this or that by the 3 bible quotes. I'd argue that I've implied nothing, and if the reader takes an inference from such fairly represented quotes, that's her business. But, in an effort towards concencise, I will try to reword the sentences, making it more clear that it just ref to the text of the bible, without any POV implied. Would that you do the same with the rest of the article. Steve kap (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Presenting Views without Qualification/Improper Synthesis

Folk, I have to point something out here. If you want to present a view that some particular group has, or that reflects some particular tradition, that fine. But, of course, you have to QUALIFY that statement! Limit it to the group or person that holds that view! Otherwise, you leave the impresion that said veiw is widely or universily held. Which would also be fine, if your citiation can support this. But, in most cases on this page, it can't (BTW, how many religous view ARE universily held?).

For example: Pasteur added in the first sentence"(subject) is moral imperative...". The citation was "How Judges Think" by R Posner. Now, I can concede that citation could support the statement that Posner thinks that (subject) is a moral imperative, but thats has far as it can posibley go. You can't use that citation to present the statement as a universial, agreeded upon, unqualified fact!!

Same could be said for almost all of the led. "Keeping this commandment was associated w/ indiv. benifits..." Really? Who? When?

Don't make statements that your citations can't support. Qualify them to the limits of the scope of the citation.

I suggest a major edit to fix all such issues. Steve kap (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing primary sources is only original research if the primary source is used to draw a conclusion that is not contained in the primary sources. Citing primary sources is not original research if the sourced statement is merely descriptive of the content of the primary sources or if secondary sources are cited also that further support the usage of the primary source. Regarding the claim that the ten commandments represent a moral imperative, there is a broad agreement among a large number of secondary sources that they are intended to be moral imperatives and the Posner cite documents this broad support and is much more than a personal opinion of the author. Why not go to ten commandments article itself and try your argument demanding secondary sources to describe the ten commandments as moral imperatives or that every statement needs to be qualified to apply to only the specific citations? The bulk of the honor your father and mother article has support that is much more broader than the support that has been cited. Alternate viewpoints are welcome, but the burden is on the editors seeking to include them to provide reliable sources. The burden is also on editors not to use primary sources to support their original research by drawing conclusions that are not in their sources.Pasteur1967 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding “citing primary sources...original research (ect)” I’m sorry Pasteur, I just have no idea what you are talking about, and I’m not sure I care. Nothing of that section of your relates in any way that I can see to the question that I’ve raised. Please try to avoid non-squiters. It would make the conversation so much more meaningful.

As to your claim that “there is broad agreement… (that) the ten commandments represent a moral imperative…" Really? Is that what your source, R.Posener says in his book? How does his prove this? Did he take a poll? Could you share his findings with us? But, of course, until you do this, the idea you state is unsupported, and can’t go in the article. Steve kap (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors are not burdened to prove that their contributions are true, only that they are verifiable by a reliable source, which has been done with the Posner citation. If you have a problem with Posner’s assertion, as published by Harvard University Press, then you have the burden to produce other scholarly, reliable sources that offer alternative viewpoints. See: WP:VER

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

The lede is to be a summary of the existing article, which is an overview of Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant views of the ten commandments. The sources cited in the article uniformly treat the ten commandments as moral imperatives, and additional references have been added that bear additional witness to the fact that the ten commandments are broadly considered to be asserted as moral imperatives.

Furthermore, have you bothered to read the policies on original research and primary sources lately? The policy on primary sources says:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

Your use of Exodus advanced the position that the ten commandments were either A, B, or C, implying that the text contradicts itself and that the ten commandments could not possibly have been A,B, AND C. In addition to being original research, the first sentence you keep reverting to is not in any way a summary of the existing article or an overview of its contents. If you think there is some potential contradiction in the Exodus narrative regarding the ten commandments, it might be proper to include in the ten commandments article if you can support it with reliable sources rather than your own interpretation of the primary text.Pasteur1967 (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If the aricle's lede qualified the statement , such as "..which Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant traditions hold as moral imparatives", which is all even you claim that your source can support, I'd be completely satisfied. You might have gotten this by the title of this section "Presenting Views without Qualification". Or by reading the descriptive texts following the heading. Steve kap (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you wrote that you have nothing against the topic of this article, but it has recently come to light that you are a member of a group that vehemently opposes the topic of this article. You wrote that you do not have intent to disrupt the article, yet you have reverted reliably sourced contributions to the article three times in less than 27 hours. You accused editors of hypocrisy, ad hominem attacks and other fallacies. You wrote that you think the whole enterprise (the article) is hopeless. You wrote that you do not even care to try to understand how to be in accord with Wikipedia policy.

I restored the statement that the Ten Commandments are moral imperatives, along with the reliable sources. The Posner source is a secular, secondary source supporting that the ten commandments are considered moral imperatives by a broad range of people throughout history. I have retained your material changing the “or” to an “and,” fixing typographical errors, and bringing it into compliance with the referencing convention.Corinne68 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Corinee68, I agree with your edits, I think they adress the questions that I've raised. As to me being "vehemently apposed" to this artile, well, apposed yes, but not vehemet. As you "not caring about wiki policy", I think that you'll find I do care, and I hold others to it as well. In any case, such is all ad hum, and we should confine ourselves to the arguments being raised. Thank you for considering the problems I've raised and making the needed edtis. Steve kap (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish specific

Is there any reason why this article is written solely from a Jewish perspective, as the 10 Commandments are also as fundamental to the Christain faith? Yes, I know the text and interpretation are the same, but could the article be written in a more general way?—MDCollins (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am Jewish, and as the only major contributor to the article so far, I am only familiar with it at a Jewish POV. I would actually love to see others come along and expand the article to describe the subject at the POV of other religions, as well as the secular. Xyz7890 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, its been a few weeks, and its still Jewish specific. Can we antipate the inclusions of other view? Or is it time to rename the artile, to reflect the fact that it is a Jewish interpretation/ refinedment of the subject? Steve kap (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no deadline. At most, no one who would be able to write the article as such has noticed it. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All, its seems to me that the entire lede, except the 1st sentence and the 1st quote (Exodus 20:12), is specific to the Jewish tradition, and, even at the, sepecfic to a certain time in histoy. I suggest that all of it (except the 1st sentence and 1st quote) be moved to the "Jewish Persective" section. What do other people think? Steve kap (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I made the change. Lets see what happens. 99.191.180.53 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede Additions

I'm not too wild about the addtions that Corrine68 made to the lede. Seems to me that they make the lede too long, that they present various views as if they are held in common, and that they would be better off each sorted to the the religous tradition that holds that view.

Think, for example, if I were to add that secularist think this partiuclar commandent is no big deal (a view that I I can document with noteable sources BTW, that you've previously deleted). Would it not look strange to have that view side by side with the pioty displace that is corrently there? Is the lede not a poor place to have an arguement?

Would it no be better to have the lede short, just introducing the subject, and have the various POV's in there proper place, under the heading of the tradition that hold and profess those POV's? Steve kap (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The additions are within the Wiki guidelines for lede length, and they do no more than summarize material that is discussed in more detail in the main text, which is in accordance with Wiki policy. If one adds a reliably sourced section on secular viewpoints, it would not be out of place to add a brief summary of that section to the lede. Note that WIkipedia standards for verifiabilty require sources be reliable. Notability of sources does not necessarily imply reliability.Pasteur1967 (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that "In the Torah, keeping this commandment was associated with individual benefit" is a high level summary? Its not a very specific detail of on particular tradition? Steve kap (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)