Talk:Aquinas and the Sacraments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
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.)

Please note that this article is bsed on the references "Summa Contra Gentiles" and "Summa Thologia" by St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as the Bible ~~ A E Francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

This article in its present form is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is nothing but a string of quotations of very little encyclopediaencyclopedic value. (See WP:NPS and WP:N.) An article on the views of Thomas Aquinas on the sacraments is of value to Wikipedia, but this article in its present form is not. This article needs to be either cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia standards or deleted. —BradV 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

BradV: You are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is wrong. Many have read this article and made changes or contributions. This article is the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, as he wrote them in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica. Are you suggesting that we should take his actual words and rewrite them into something else? That hardly makes any sense. Oh, and by the way, your use of the word "encyclopedia" is incorrect. It is "encyclodepic", not ""encyclopedia". What are you, a high school student? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the guideline "Don't include copies of primary sources". And please, ease up on the personal attacks. I have left a warning on your talk page as well. —BradV 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Friend Brad: Pointing out that your suggestions are worthy of a high school student is hardly a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. Don't play that "you're attacking me personally" game. For your information, I am a medical doctor and an attorney. I don't attack people personally. If the subject is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, and the original author's words are available, what is the point in re-writing them? Read the original, and you will see that this is a summary, and does not include the entire text. So far as I know, there is no copyright violation here. If you want to make suggestions about how to improve this article, please do so. A E Francis (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC) A. E. Francis
Francis, you have attacked me personally. You called my opinions "wrong" and called me a high school student. I can overlook that easily enough, but you do not seem willing to listen to my advice. I simply made a comment on the quality of the article (which was not directed at you), regarding its encyclopedic value and notability. For the third time, I will include a link to WP:NPS. Please do not feel obliged to clean up the article yourself, and do not take my comments on the article personally (see WP:OWN). If you feel we cannot resolve this here, perhaps we can request a WP:RFC on this topic. —BradV 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Brad, you are delusional. I have not attacked you personally. Your assertion of such is ridiculous. I have not called you a high school student. But your ideas are wrong and your suggestion is worthy of a high school student. You have suggested that this article be re-written using words other than those of the original author. This is based on your reading of some vague template descrption. This is a topic which doesn't lend itself to that particular restriction. But you have offered no suggestions on how to improve the article. So your position is worthy of a high school student. If you want to make this a matter of defending your "honor" and proving me wrong, go ahead and delete this article. Then you will have proved yourself right and me wrong. This is the whole problem of wikipedia. We have articles about "Where Playboy Bunnies were Born" or "Paris Hilton". Yet an article about Aquinas' justification of the Sacraments is deemed not worthy to be included. Yes, your ideas are wrong and you are functioning on the level of a high school student. This is not "my" article. If you will review the history, you will see that several have contributed to it. I can tell you one thing: Roving editors like you are particularly discouraging. I can guarantee you, I will never add a thing to Wikipedia again. Thanks for making this a really great, intellectual site. Good job, man! Don't worry. I'll be telling of your efforts on all the blogs I write on. Unlike wiki, they like what I write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulties here

An article on Thomistic doctrine of the sacraments would be a nice thing, but this is just a catena of Thomistic citations. As such, it's not encyclopedic, and it's had plenty of time to get that way. Can we either have an encyclopedia article, or do something more helpful? Tb (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some tags, which User:A E Francis contests, specifically, the references and original research tags. The references tag is because the statements are not referenced. References are not just the names of entire books, but page numbers and such. Likewise, this and the original research tags are addressed to clauses in the article like this: "The following is condensed from..." This is a sign that OR is going on. Why is this the right condensation? The interpretation of Aquinas is a huge industry, and we are given nothing here about why this is the right interpretation. The point is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which must quote secondary sources. But the article only quotes primary sources. That's nice to do, but it's not an adequate substitute, and makes the result original research (the selection of quotes and the interpretation of them) and unreferenced. Tb (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)