Talk:I am the Lord thy God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claim of OR seems absurd in light of citations[edit]

The topic is notable and lots of quality secondary and tertiary sources are quoted.Jeremiah.Ten (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where your definition of notable comes from, but the criteria used on Wikipedia is at Wikipedia's Guidelines on Notability. Lots of sources ≠ notable.
Out of the 51 citations, the breakdown is:
21 Biblical/Torahic references (so in effect, one source, even if it is in slightly different versions)
15 Catechism references (one source)
15 other references.
However, none of these references constitute a substantial reference (with the arguable exception of the Bible/Torah and the Catechism, which obviously are used a lot).
To be honest, this is not my area of expertise - I feel that this is OR, but I think this requires a discussion, so I will be putting the article up on Articles for Deletion (AfD). Basically, this gives an opportunity for interested editors to discuss the pros and cons of keeping the article. There isn't a vote - the closing administrator will (usually after a week) look at the arguments given, and see what the consensus of the arguments is - not the number of votes - and then will either decide to Delete, Keep or another option (as detailed in the AfD Guidelines.
Please don't take this personally - I just feel that this is not an article suitable for Wikipedia, you think it is... so we will take it to a discussion where a decision can be made!
If you have any other questions (not just about this article, about Wikipedia editing in general), please feel free to contact me. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for verification need to be more specific[edit]

When an article is as extensively referenced with inline citations as this one is, a single tag at the top of the article or the top of a section does little to inform editors of which specific statements might be in need of better verification. The "fact" and "syn" tags can be placed adjacent to specific assertions, and this approach can yield the greater level of verifiability that is desired. Since the article already has many inline citations, editors are left guessing which specific statements need additional citations.Jeremiah.Ten (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the tag. I'm not sure why the admin who closed the AfD put it there, as it was not an issue from the conversation at the AfD. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EZEKIE<cod 2A00:23C8:9DCF:4201:50CA:73B4:4D98:F40D (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues[edit]

In the early parts of this article, I do not think that NPOV is followed sufficiently carefully. Consider the following sentences:

  • The name Yahweh is the personal (proper) name of God that was revealed to Moses in the account of the bush.
  • By saying, “I am the LORD (Yahweh) your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery,” God introduces himself by name to establish his authority behind the stipulations that follow.

Neither of these sentences reports on verifiable views or opinions. They assert particular views as truth. I think that to be consistent with NPOV, they need to be re-written, e.g.:

  • According to Exodus, the name Yahweh ...
  • According to (commentator, referenced), the statement "I am .. slavery" has the effect of establishing that God's authority is behind behind the stipulations that follow.

The subsections under the section "Meaning", which discuss the views of particular groups/denominations, are reports of the views of various groups/denominations. This style should be followed throughout. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article is also idly discussing content not in its scope. It essentially consists of lengthy quotes and off topic tangents. The name Yahweh, for example, is discussed at Yahweh. This discussion need not be repeated here. Similarly, the nature and importance of the Ten Commandments is discussed at Ten Commandments, and it is superfluous to discuss it here.

If there is no material unique to this article, it can just redirect to Ten Commandments. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

The article subject has considerable notability and is discussed independently of "You shall have no other gods before me" in many sources. The originator of the "Ten Commandments" template obviously thought the two independent clauses were worthy of separate articles, and the discussion of combining two of the articles listed in the template, probably more properly belongs on the template talk page. Either combining or separating has certain sectarian connotations, but as long as there are sufficient reliable sources to establish separate notability, separate articles seem justified. The main body of this article was written some time before "You shall have no other gods before me" so it is natural that the scope includes some of the latter. As the articles are improved, the scope of each can be better focused. The "Ten Commandments" article is much too long already, and each commandment certainly has sufficient notability for independent treatment.Jeremiah.Ten (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The KJV is the most recognizable, and in my opinion the best solution, but even if not then we should be consistent. Right now "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is using the KJV and the rest appear to be NRSV except that a comma has been left out and "Sabbath" is capitalized in "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" (I don't believe any popular translation has it exactly that way). "First Commandment," etc. doesn't work because there are three numbering schemes, none of which are dominant. I don't think we should use Bible references because the commandments appear twice in the Bible, limiting the scope of the articles. JFH (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these articles must be tagged for a valid debate. None seem to be. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are now. Not sure why it did not appear that they were earlier. Apteva (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - although WP:COMMONNAME has its faults it's difficult to not apply it in this situation. There's no way any other set phrase will be as familiar as the 1611 version. "Thou shalt not kill" 3:1 to "You shall not murder" in Google books. I suppose someone should run an ngram. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The King James Version is still the commonest source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USEEARLYMODERNENGLISH? "The KJV is the most recognizable" is a rather sweeping statement presented without evidence. I'm skeptical. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the 1611 edition, which is in Early Modern English has, "Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me," and such. The text commonly used today for the KJV, and the one used for the titles above, is the 1769 edition, written well after the Great Vowel Shift. "Thou" is archaic, but it is not Early Modern. A technicality, perhaps.
Here's an ngram, though I'm not too experienced with these things. I chose steal because some modern translations use murder and some kill. --JFH (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but only moderately. The KJV is a foundational text for the English language and is the original, most historic phrase which has entered the English language in numerous ways. Not only were other translations done within a language created by the KJV text but the text has entered the language in numerous ways. See how often speakers use the formula "thou shalt not". See Thou Shalt Not or search Wikipedia for "thou shalt". I also note this template:
Part of a series on the
Ten Commandments
Related articles
Perhaps there should a brief subsection on the translations. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all as most historically correct phraseology -- and, funny how those are the 'big ten' but there's no word against homosexuality amongst them, though people now fixate on that so that they may be led to ignore the murder of children by guns and by bombs, ignore the theft from the poorest effected by the corporate rich, and ignore that our entire culture has become built in encouraging the coveting of the property of others. And so, yes, it makes sense that these archaic commandments, now ignored in favor of the anti-gay focus, ought to be presented in their quaint and archaic form. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bible concerning "I am the Lord your Triune God"?[edit]

what says that

I am the Lord your God the Father... I am the Lord your God the Son... I am the Lord your God the Holy Spirit...

One true god, three divine people. Can Trinitarians believe that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.209.2 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, yes they can and do. You probably meant to ask something else, but it's still witter. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic / Roman Catholic[edit]

The orthodox church also considers itself part of the big-C Catholic Church. Having a section sourced entirely from the Roman Catholic catechism and trying to rename that as "Catholic" is just apologetics. If somebody wanted to (dare) try to create a section that was actually Catholic in content and sourcing, that would be interesting to see. This is not it. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I'm pretty neutral on the RC vs. Catholic topic. I prefer plain Catholic in articles I am expanding or creating, because typically the statements also apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches, and you could have a strong argument that Roman refers to the Latin Church. Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? is an essay the Zfish118 wrote that takes a pretty straight down the middle approach on the pros and cons. I'm pinging them because I've come to respect their view quite a lot on the topic and think the input could be helpful. In this case, I would have personally not made the RC -> Catholic change, but sense it is a matter in dispute now, I slightly lean towards the Catholic position, because the section quotes extensively from the CCC and Justin Martyr is revered both in the Eastern and the Latin Church. That's only a slight lean, and I wouldn't want this to turn into a RC vs. C battle in a relatively obscure heading. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the section are all from the RC catechism (like In their explanation of the first commandment, the Roman Catholic Catechism quotes Justin Martyr’s....) Please deal with the concrete content here, not the general issue. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Catechism in English or as far as I know any other language. The phrase Roman Catholic is generally not used much in magisterial documents anymore because after Vatican II, there was a push to be more sensitive to the Eastern Catholic Churches. CCC is the common doctrine held by both the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches and the point the IP and Johnbod were trying to make is that the disambiguator Roman here arguably clouds the meaning. In the specific context, Catholic would be more accurate than Roman Catholic, but its also not that big a deal considering that we are talking about a heading on a relatively minor article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and if WP was inside the RC world of content, what you are saying would be relevant. WP is in the wider world, where "Roman Catholic" is not identical with "Catholic". If you are equating them throughout WP we will have to look at that. Not OK. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it wouldn't be okay for me to go around doing that, which is why I don't. RC vs. C is a very complicated topic that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis anytime it does come up. My rule of thumb is to use the name the sources quoted use, which gets messy when the CCC is involved because as you point out, it is an internal document. The Justin Martyr citation is the main thing that swings it very lightly in favour of Catholic here since he is revered in the Eastern Churches as well, but I get the NPOV concerns that you have raised. The best solution is likely to leave it as is because changes either way inevitably cause a fuss that doesn't do much in terms of the content of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog the one change of yours I did just revert was Roman Catholic Catechism to Catechism of the Catholic Church. Since that is a proper noun having it as a Wikilink makes sense in my opinion, and shouldn't have an impact on your concerns with other editors changing the header. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Catholic here is not misleading, whereas "Roman Catholic" could be, in wrongly seeming to exclude the Eastern Catholic Churches. No one is likely to confuse the meaning as including the EO churches (not that their doctrine is probably any different) or Anglo-Catholics, especially when it is tied to a specific source. Having said that, there seems an extraordinary amount from the Catechism, going well beyond the subject of the article. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jytdog, you are being very tiresome. There are Roman Catholic churches, and Roman Catholic bishops, but there is no Roman Catholic doctrine, because it is all shared with the Eastern Catholic Churches, by definition, or it is not doctrine. You don't have consensus on this, so please stop reverting. Where does Catholic church link to? Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above: I don't have a very strong opinion on this naming dispute compared to some on Wikipedia, but I do think the CCC should use the proper noun name. Zfish's advice in WP:RCC is good, and not disturbing the status quo in articles where a form already exists and there is not an explicit reason to make a change is a best practice. To be honest, this series is a mess in terms of consistency, and different articles use different forms of different names for the same religious groups, not to mention the over reliance on primary sourcing. In an ideal world, the series would use the same names for the same groups throughout, but I don't see that happening. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a useful essay. So treat it like WP:ENGVAR; the change yesterday from RC to C should not have been done. That makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The text as it stands now splits the baby nicely by using the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the prose, while keeping the stable Roman Catholic name as the header. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of block quotes in the RC section[edit]

I went ahead and removed the extensive block quoting of the CCC on the entirety of the First Commandment here. It overloaded the section with primary source text that didn't relate to this portion of the commandment in question. The sections removed arguably would better go in Thou shalt have no other gods before me#In the Catholic Church if they should be included at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, the sections you removed and reverted changed both Jytdog's return to RC, which I discussed above, and the removal of the block text which had not previously been discussed and I just explained here. Essentially quoting the entirity of the CCC on this specific passage is WP:UNDUE, especially considering that the way Wikipedia breaks it up is not by the traditional Catholic way of recording, but by phrases. I'm more than happy to be reverted and discuss. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The trimming was great. As long as this remains all/mostly sourced to the catechism there is no way the section can be broadly "Catholic". Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_am_the_Lord_thy_God&oldid=1207682419"