Talk:Honour thy father and thy mother

Secular Views

If the idea is to let this article expand, I might be able to put in something from the non-religous perspective. I've got an article from the "Freedom From Religon Foundation". This is perhaps the most notable group of secularist in the U.S., they are constently involved with law suites trying to keep religon out of governement.

Non believers make up about 15% of the US population, higher in Europe and world wide. Although a minoriy, this vastely outweighs the Jewish minority, with is about .2% world wide. There is the problem that maybe the FFRF doesn't represent all secularist, but, who is to say that the Jewish laws sighted represent the beliefs of all Jews?

The article represents that the 5th commandent is a contiuation of the authoritarian tone of the previous 4. For your consideration and discussion. Steve kap (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added, and, without comment on the Talk page, it was removed. Along with the link to the source. I guess only certain views are suitable for this page. So, I ask again, is this a real article, or just an expression of religous pioty?

(ps, I noted the bit about Catholics counting this at the 4th commandment is not gone. I guess they done't count for much either) Steve kap (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the removes were by Corrinne68, under the heading "expanded view points" no less. Corrine68, you did these removals? Isn't that what the talk page is for?

Secular views are welcome if they are reliably sourced with inline citations, per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia lede policy says the lede is to be a summary of what is discussed in the main body. Without discussion in the main body, it is inappropriate to include in the lede. Corinne68 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Secular view are welcome? Well, I'm not sure what made you the judge of whats welcome or not, but, thanks!! In the same spirit, I'd like to add that, even though Jewish people are outnumber by the Secular by over 100 to 1, you're view are welcome as well! As to "reliable source" do you mean like the external link, that you also deleted without comment? Steve kap (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, WP policy welcomes all significant viewpoints as long as they are properly sourced with in-line citations (so that specific statements are verifiable). An editor with three years of WP experience should know that removing unsourced material is consistent with Wikipedia policy and with the “bold, revert, discuss” approach to article editing. This article currently appears to set a good standard of scholarship and encyclopedic content in its verifiabilify, use of sources, and multiplicity of viewpoints (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant). One hopes that future contributions maintain the same level of encyclopedic standards. Try not to take things personally when other editors uphold encyclopedic standards and WP policies.Pasteur1967 (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying the problem that the comment didn't have an inline citation? Notice that I added a link as a source. If that were truely the objection, wound't adding the footnote to the source provided (instead of deleting both) be the WP way to go?

Now, notice when you started the article, your answer to many flaws was "I'm hoping it will grow" and "there is NO TIME LIMIT". Notice also your critics started on the discussion page before making edits. Notice that my suggestions started on the discussion page, were met with no responce, and, once added, they were summarily deleted WITH NO COMMENT! Notice the difference? This difference is generally called hypocrisy. Don't take it personally when I point it out. Its my policy to point out hypocrisy whenever I encounter it. Also, your comment about me as an editor, that's "ad hom". It has no place in this discussion. Please stick to the issues at hand. Notice that I only call your (or Corrines, I'm not sure) actions hypocritical, I don't address if you personally are a hypocrit, thats not at all the issue.

Finally, as you and Corrine only object to the placement of the sentence, and the way its footnoted, please put the sentence back in its proper place as you see it, add back the source that you deleted, and add the footnote as you would have it. Then the whole matter will be settled. Steve kap (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

After several weeks, I noticed that the statment in question, which Corrine68's only voiced objection was its placement, and the supporting link, which is voiced no objection to, but no the less deleted, have not been put back in. Seems strange. Could it be that the objection was other than the placement? And the supporting link, which he removed under the Orwellain summary "expanded view point" , could that have been a mistake? In any case, I once again invite Corrine to correct the mistake by adding both is its proper place. There is no time limit Steve kap (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Months later, secular opinions and related documentation remain deleted. Although the only stated objection was their placement, still, after months and months, the proper placem stil just can't be mananged. A thorny issue, this placement. I understand it must be studied, considered, debated. I perphaps it will take years. However, I noticed that the placement of religious opinions seem to be quite easy!! How odd. Steve kap (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on related article

There is currently a deletion discussion on a related article, "I am the Lord your God" which could set a precedent for deletion of this article, because one of the important points is whether or not individual commandments are sufficiently notable to have their own articles or whether they should be merged into the "ten commandments" article. Editors here might be interested in giving input to that discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_am_the_Lord_your_God Pasteur1967 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we gave this thing a chance. But, as anyone can see, this page is nothing but a piety display for the Jewish and Christian faithful. I can't see anything of interest here. Can we re open the DELETE debate? Steve kap (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Overkill on quote boxes

I like quote boxes too, but this many breaks up the article text so as to be unreadable. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:I am the Lord your God which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The title of this should be different

I suppose the title of this to be more neutral. As honoring parent or respecting parents. Then this is idea rather than a quote fro the Bible. However what should for sure be done is more redirect pages leading here as honoring parents and the like. I'm newish to Wikipedia and do not know all the rules and how to create all these things --Rashba (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Calling the bible the bible

Calling it the Hebrew bible is a misrepresentation. 2604:2D80:9F81:F00:5C5A:A085:5300:2985 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)