Talk:Charity (virtue)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Spirituality Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.

This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Hebrew Definition of Charity

Charity:

The Hebrew word for charity is tseh'-dek, Gesenius's Strong's Concordance:6664—righteous, integrity, equity, justice, straightness. The root of tseh'-dek is tsaw-dak', Gesenius's Strong:6663—upright, just, straight, innocent, true, sincere; (the same root as for Righteousness). Implied in this etymology is that charity is the Golden Rule (ethics) in working clothes—enlightened self—interest. It is what one lung does when the other collapses; it takes over, for its very OWN survival; it is not altruism.

Yesselman 20:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I feel the continuing of the article with Daan creates confusion for a lot of people because many of them donot understand Hinduism. While the information should stay it should be suitably edited as to make it more understandable to the general non-Hindu population.

[edit] Dan

Whoever added that good material, I think it needs its own page. I've created one for you, and linked it from this article. I think it could be a good discussion with a little work, but maybe it is not so related to the Western concept, and kinda ways this article down. Anyway, you can work the relations between the two at Dan (Hinduism)bodhidharma 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Charity

I don't know what to call this chapter. Maybe another title is better.--Daanschr 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a relatively long passage which leans heavily on Mormon sources. While this is not uninformative, and indeed would be welcome in an article of considerably longer size, it gives a undesirable bias to an this short entry.

[edit] Ceesars

The part about "Ceesars" seems more like advertising than useful information about charity.

I think you're right. Goldfritha 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of Wikipedians are you? It's obvious that its advertising! Just take it off!!! GRRR!!!

[edit] Etymology

Latin: caritas, meaning "love, dearness, high price" according to my Oxford Latin Dictionary. This is a probable etymological link. Should be included. Ehjort 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

The lead section, when the article's title was "Charity" (now the title of a Dab) consisted of one sentence:

Charity, meaning selfless giving, is one conventional English translation of the Greek term agapē.

That may be true, but is it is not so "conventional" that either the MW Collegiate or the American Heritage uses "charity" or "agape" in its discussion of the other, and it is thus out of place as the lead. It is also almost certainly PoV to pitch the lead in terms of a Greek term whose modern use is almost entirely dependent on its use in the scripture of one religion.
--Jerzy•t 20:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed dismemberment

The article does not have a clearly defined encyclopedic topic. Here's what to do with the pieces:

  • Transwiki the etymology to Wiktionary
  • Divide "Religious charity" between the religion section (currently a stub) of Altruism, and an article (or section of something) on traditional institutions & practices of poor-aid. (The two existing sub-sections, "Virtue" and "Almsgiving" may divide it properly.)
  • The section on Internet-based charity would be more suited to an article on modern "enterprise-models" in the charitable organization article, since it is about mechanisms rather than goals or motivation.
  • The individual entries in the remaining sections would go to the same articles, once the inappropriate ones are discarded.

--Jerzy•t 20:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There were over a thousand links to the original page, which makes the actual dismemberment of this rather less advisable. It should, in fact, be moved back to the original page to give people time to comment on the movement. Goldfritha 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtue?

I am against the propagandistic title of this article. Instead of the title 'Charity (virtue)', i would prefer 'Charity (practise)'.--Daanschr 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is about what was defined by Christianity to be one of the virtues. In that context it seems correct, but I think "virtue" should be technically defined earlier. It is about the religious context, not the more general modern Charitable organization, nor giving to them, except in context. Notinasnaid 11:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The seven virtues doesn't seem to include charity. Charity could be in the place of liberality (as opposed to Greed), but liberality refers to the article liberalism and not to this article. For me this is highly controversial, since liberalism is a specific political ideology, i don't belong to.--Daanschr 12:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that kindness (as opposed to envy) includes charity. I would propose that this article will change its contents to make it fit into the Roman Catholic Seven Virtues as part of the virtue of kindness. Strange is that liberality doesn't refer to 'Liberalism (virtue)' but to 'liberalism'.--Daanschr 12:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And then what? Eliminate everything from the virtue category on the grounds that it's propaganda to call anything a virtue?
Yes, charity is one of the seven Christian virtues, the theological virtues to be precise, and listed as such in the article you link. It is certainly not classified as part of kindness.
As for "liberalism (virtue)" -- this once was "Charity" and someone decided to move it. Talk to that Wikipedian if you want them to be parallel. Goldfritha 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If charity is one of the seven Christian virtues, and kindness isn't, then seven virtues needs some attention. Notinasnaid 08:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that is hardly relevant to this discussion128.36.86.191 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the seven virtues were not always the same. Charity is mentioned as opposed to greed (in the archives of december 2005) and opposed to envy (according to Dante, see article). It would be good to mention the history of charity as a virtue in this article.--Daanschr 13:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to make a decision about the fundamental nature of this article. If it is to refer to the Christian virtue of charity then a generic charity page ought to be created. May I suggest Charity (practice)? There will also be the issue of overlap with Caritas (one of the three theological virtues). If this page is not to be focused solely on the Christian conception of Charity, as I recommend, then we will need to modify it to include other points of view. For example in Islam charity is a personal religious obligation, not a mark of virtue. There are, of course, totally secular points to be made as well.Stephen Kenny 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Caritas turned into a redirect to this page. Jheald 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article has two big problems and many smaller ones:

  1. No definition or introductory section
  2. Focuses overwhelmingly on Christian ideas, without even acknowledging this bias
  3. Huge quote
  4. Unhelpful illustrations

--Smack (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but.
While most religions have notions about almsgiving, the use of the word "charity" in the other sense of caritas or agape, as in "faith, hope and charity", is a specifically Christian theological term. Jheald 07:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have now split out the material on Charity (practice) into a separate article, per Stephen Kenny's suggestion above. I hope this page is now approaching something reasonable. But the new other article now needs a lot of work. Jheald 09:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images in the article ...

I would like to know the reason why the coin image is being constantly removed. I see no difference with the other images in the article. Let me clarify that I have myself a bit of doubt about the notability in the article, so I am open to suggestions. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Because frankly the notability of the coin to the subject of this article is minimal. Which is the same reason that paragraphs about it have aready been removed from Charity (practice) and Christianity.
And if the coin isn't notable enough (it's hardly an iconic image) to deserve discussion in text, then as a non-free image, we can't have an image of it either. (And I'm not at all sure it even illustrates the subject of this article anyway).
But, if you think that's just my opinion, let's throw it wider and ask people at WPT:Christianity to come and give their views. Jheald (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Jheald, if you think notability is really low, then remove it, no big deal. I thought it was a good image for an article that it is imageless. How about just leaving the coin and not taking anything about the technicalities? Will do some changes, let me know. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I changed my mind, image and text is gone now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)