Talk:Ritual Decalogue/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Compromise

Okay, this version accepts Jayjg's objection that the phrase TC's does not occur within the RD, and uses the wording Slrubenstein proposed in the last section. It also restores the other names this goes by while keeping the rare SCC. (I've omitted only Cultic Ten Commandments, as that is not only rare but easily recognized based on the more common names Ritual Ten Commandments and Cultic Decalogue.) If there are specific objections, can they be presented as or removed as specific objections, rather than blindly reverting? — kwami (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence repeats a claim made in the first sentence. Therefore it is sloppy writing. We should delte it, and move the sourced provided to the appropriate place - I propose in the body of the article where the view is explained in detail. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if we're not disputing the accuracy of the lede, the sources do belong in the body.

Which point is repeated? I don't see it. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

While your changes pretended to be some sort of "compromise", they actually ignored all of my substantive objections. For example, you've reverted the phrase "one of three sets of "Ten Commandments" in the Bible" (or variations thereof) sixteen times now; it's unclear why you are so wedded to that specific (and misleading) phrase, but if it happens a 17th time we're heading back to WP:AN/3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's sourced, and it's the reason the RD is so notable! Why are you so adamantly opposed to it? — kwami (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV-compliant version of the lede made it quite clear that many scholars think the phrase "Ten Words" in verse 28 refers to verses 11 to 26, but in a NPOV-compliant and more clearly written way. It's still unclear why you are so wedded to that specific (and misleading) phrase. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

When you deleted it just now, I started wondering if it might be an improvement, or at least could be worded so as to not obfuscate the point. But then you started deleting more. The whole reason that this is called the "Ritual Decalogue / Ritual Ten Commandments" at all is the understanding that the phrase "Ten Commandments" refers to it. That's fundamental. It may be minority opinion, but it's the reason for each of the names given to it apart from SCC. I honestly fail to see what's misleading about it: what is the misleading impression it gives to the reader? You state categorically that it is not the TCs, when we have sources stating that it is. What was all that above about not presenting one POV as if it were the only one? We have sources for two POVs (though we could use more for yours), so both should be presented as POVs. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't "state categorically that it is not the TCs"; rather, I state that it's not what the phrase "Ten Commandments" is generally used to mean. And the fact is that both POVs are indeed included in the NPOV-compliant version you keep removing; explain where it is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My primary problem with your edits[1] is that you seem to be trying to distance the phrase "TCs" from the RD as much as possible, though not the synonym "Decalogue". I'm not clear on why the two should be treated differently.

• You keep deleting "ritual Ten Commandments", which as a alternate name in the lit, and one that is more common than SCC, should be included. You also delete "Exodus-34 Decalogue", which is the phrase used in one of our sources.
• You use Mays (1988) to support the POV that v 28 refers to Ex20, but Mays never says that, as has been pointed out by both Steve and myself. It can't be that hard to find sources which state that v. 28 refers to Ex20, or at least is traditionally understood to. (I'd add some myself if I knew of any.)
• Deleting one of three sets of "Ten Commandments" : Though I left this out in my last edit,[2] I fail to see what is misleading about it.
• [RD has] different authorship that the Ten Commandments : As explained below, we shouldn't be calling the ED "the" TCs in an article discussing how some scholars see it as "a" TCs alongside the RD.
• Because of its proximity to them, many scholars believe the phrase refers to [Ex34] : I don't think it's because of proximity, but because of context. The RD is framed within the proclamation of the Covenant, the carving of the tablets, and the phrase TCs (or so that POV argues). It's not just that the phrase happens to appear in the next paragraph and people attached it to the closest set of laws. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Decalogue" is an academic term, used to refer to both the Ten Commandments and the "Ritual Decalogue". "Ten Commandments" is a common and academic term, used to refer to the Ten Commandments, not the "Ritual Decalogue". It's rather obvious why they should be treated differently; we are writing for a general audience, not academics.
• "ritual Ten Commandments" gets 4 gbook hits. "Exodus-34 Decalogue" gets one Neither of these extremely rare terms belong in the lede as an "alternate".
• I've used the more complete quote from Mays, which obviously supports the view that the laws in Exodus 34 are different from the Decalogue, as has been pointed out to both Steve and yourself.
• Already explained, and well understood.
• As explained many times, "Ten Commandments" is the common name for the Ten Commandments. This is an encyclopedia for general readers, not academics.
• The "context" is the proximity. The main reason people think the phrase is related verses 11-26 is because it comes two verses later. Were this statement found in Chapters 33 or 36 no-one would think the phrase was related to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Academic or not, they are synonyms. You are introducing an AFAIK artificial distinction not found in the lit. If there is any support for this distinction, please provide it. Otherwise I'm afraid we'll have to follow normal English usage. OED: Decalogue: The Ten Commandments collectively as a body of law. Commandments: The Ten Commandments or precepts of the Mosaic Decalogue. Ten Words: the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue.

2) I don't mind removing rare alternate names, since you've now removed SCC as well. However, small covenant code redirects here, so we really should mention it somewhere. I'll try a footnote, so they're out of the way.

3) You still fail to understand what Mays is saying, or at least how it applies here. Yes, he says the laws in Ex34 are different from "the Decalogue", by which he means the ED. Everyone says that, but it's irrelevant for the point here. The relevant point is that Mays says, or at least implies, that the phrase TCs refers to Ex34.

4) Which is why we normally use the term "Ten Commandments" for the ED. But in this article the phrase has a more general application, so that usage is misleading and therefore not acceptable.

5) Yes, we all understand that proximity is part of it, but please give sources that state that the context is nothing more than proximity. What I've seen is that the context is the framing. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. They can be synonyms, but they're not always, because they are used in common parlance to mean different things, depending on the context and audience.
2. I'm fine with having the names in a footnote, although some of them are exceedingly rare (even more rare than "Small Covenenant Code".
3. Don't comment about me, including what you think I "fail to understand". I understand Mays just fine, and I'm sure you're able to make your points without referring to me at all. Try again.
4. The phrase "Ten Commandments" is not "misleading" in this article, any more than it is in the Ten Commandments article. Everyone, general readers and academics alike, know exactly what it means.
5. I don't think we're really disagreeing here; perhaps we're just looking for neutral wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1) Can you give me an example where they are not synonyms? In a biblical context, I mean, not in colloquial usage like 'the TCs of owning a cat'.

2) Yes, they are pretty rare; the only halfway common one is 'cultic D', and that only in stuff from a century ago. Partially I'd like them there for people who wish to look into the lit on their own. I just discovered "Ceremonial Decalogue", and that pulled up a bunch of other sources.

3) I'm not going to play games with you. No response as to how he's relevant to that point, so I deleted the citation. I would like to have a few more refs for the traditional POV he was being cited for, though I suppose it doesn't matter too much.

4) It is at best ambiguous to present a view that the RD is a version of the TCs and then go on to contrast it with the TCs. We should use consistent definitions from one paragraph to the next.

5) I'm glad; it looks like we're pretty close to agreement. (My only recent disagreement is that for accessibility I think we should refer to things in English, esp. in the lede, rather than using the Hebrew, which is better in a parenthetical or footnote.)

The lede is stylistically pretty bad, but I'm afraid of triggering another edit war if I make substantial changes. And of course the refs should be moved to the body, with some sections expanded to accommodate. But that will take time. — kwami (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1. They're not synonyms in a Biblical context because the term "decalogue" is used to refer to all sorts of sections in the Bible.
2. I doubt a long list of potential synonyms that are often just minor variations on each other are that helpful, but it's not worth fighting over.
3. I don't play games, particularly with editors who imagine they can continually get away with violating WP:NPA and then insist that those they have attacked should just ignore the attacks and respond to the rest of their comments. That is why any comments about me in the future will be ignored in toto; you've had more than enough warnings. Also, responses have been given that were "relevant to the point"; it is actually a game to pretend that responses one does not agree with are "not relevant to the point". Mays states that, surprisingly, one does not find the 10Cs of chapters 20-23 in Exodus 34, which directly supports the point in question. If you haven't any other arguments, I will restore it.
4. No one thinks that the RD is a "version of the TCs"; rather, they think they are a different decalogue. It's not ambiguous at all.
5. Please stop reverting my edits to this section, as you've done twice now; using the specific terminology is more accurate and accords with WP:NPOV. Any editor who is concerned about "ambiguity" should welcome this precision.
6. While the current lede isn't really that bad, I agree that it would be better if actually reflected the article contents, which is why the material in it should probably be added in the body as well, then summarized in the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As for 4), "The Ten Commandments occur in three versions" (Alexander & Baker); "What is the purpose of the Decalogue, commonly called the Ten Commandments, and why does the Pentateuch contain three versions" (Aaron); "Exodus 34:14-26 ... is called the "ten commandments" (Whybray); "There is another ... version of the 'Ten Words' preserved in Exod. 34:11-28" (Cross & Livingston); "the Ten Commandments. The second set of the commandments appears here in vv. 14-26" (Friedman). Clearly, there is a significant POV that the RD is a version of the TCs.

As for 5), this is English WP, and we call things what they're called in English. So you please stop reverting. The "specific terminology" is "Ten Commandments". That's how the phrase in v. 28 is translated in the majority of English versions, including the ones used in the article, thus that's the wording we use. — kwami (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: 4), yes, some specialist authors do write that way, but that doesn't mean we should. Wikipedia writes for a general audience, and articles must comply with Wikipedia's content policies. These authors are typically encouraged to do the exact opposite.

Re: 5), the phrase aseret had'varim is an English transliteration of a Hebrew term which does not, in fact, translate literally or directly as "Ten Commandments". The literal translation, as many sources point out, is "Ten Words". "Ten Commandments" is the common interpretation of the term, not the literal translation. You are making the exact opposite argument here that you make immediately above for point 4). These cannot be reconciled. Claiming at this point in the lede that verse 28 uses the phrase "Ten Commandments" is a distortion that confuses the issue and the reader. Explaining that it uses the phrase aseret had'varim – which is commonly translated as "Ten Words" or "Ten Commandments" – clarifies. Our goal here is clarity for the common reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we have confusion over what "English" means. Aseret had'varim is not an English transliteration, but a Roman one. It's still Hebrew. You don't transliterate into languages, but into alphabets. We write in English, not in Hebrew using the Roman alphabet. The English for ''aseret had'varim in "Ten Commandments". Thus we write "Ten Commandments". (And once again, "Ten Words" is not a literal translation either.) — kwami (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The literal English translation of the transliteration aseret had'varim is "Ten Things". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)