Talk:Vow

Suggestion to merge the article vow with the article oath

I'm not sure how long ago this suggestion was made, as I've just stumbled across the article, and haven't examined the history, but the discussion doesn't seem to have been very lively! For what it's worth, I oppose a merge. I see "vow" and "oath" as being quite distinct, each significant enough to deserve its own article. AnnH ♫ 12:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anne. Monks and nuns don't take oaths, they take vows. The words have different heuristic impact. Don't merge.

Cor Unum 07:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reproposing merge

Oaths and vows are the same thing. Both articles need a lot of clean up. I am intending to merge and trim. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Both articles need some TLC, but despite similarity, they are distinct topics. While they may overlap in concept, they approach and carry out that concept quite differantly. Oaths are a kind of promise to truthfulness in a particular matter. Vows are a solemn promise to action or to a lifestyle, especially religious vocations. Both are a promise, but of distinctly differant sorts. Vassyana 06:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So an oath is a vow to speak the truth, while a vow is any promise of action generally? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Oaths also relate to contracts, including oaths of service and association. Notably, even in these contexts, vows are still a seperate matter. For example, in orders of knights, one would swear an oath to serve/support/ally with the order (in essence, giving one's word on a contract), but behavioral/devotional promises (such as chasitity, poverty, et al) are still referred to distinctly as vows. Vassyana 00:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I see the prima facie difference between an "oath of fealty" and a "vow of obediance" except that the person being sword to differs. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be no consensus for a merge to Oath in the two sections above, so I am removing the merge template --Lox (t,c) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary use in media

It is commonplace for the media to characterise politician statements as "vows", especially in headlines: e.g. "Minister vows to eliminate poverty." Should this use of the word be ignored in this article, or should it explicitly be rejected, or should it be cited as another "new" meaning of the word "vow"? My personal preference is to reject it, but I guess that's a POV. CarlosChio (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sense of the word would belong in a dictionary, but not in this article, nor in Oath, as much as politicians may swear to do this and that...--Quisqualis (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]