Talk:Condemnations of 1210–1277

message: While the sources cited say that Tempier's investigation of heresy was conducted, at least in part, under Papal authority; they do not say that the actual condemnations promulgated under Papal authority.  --Joey1898 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Authority 

message: It is commonplace in Science Fiction circles to cite the condemnations of 1277 as evidence that the Church viewed positively the possibility of intellegent life on other worlds. Maybe I'm just guilty of (sub)cultural centrism, but it might be worthwhile to mention the particular article which condemned the notion that extraterrestrial intellegent life was impossible, if indeed such an article exists. Rwflammang (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Green Men

message: Last December this article's title was changed from Condemnations (University of Paris) to Condemnations.  As it stands the title lacks precision; it does not give the reader an idea of what to expect in the article.  I would suggest one of the following:
*Condemnations (University of Paris) — Returning to the former title 
*Philosophical condemnations (13th century) — Fits fairly well
*Condemnations of Aristotelianism — Seems overly broad
*Condemnations of 1277 — Seems too specific; the article discusses other condemnations
Comments please  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the latter two don't adequately fit the scope.  I think the problem with "Philosophical condemnations (13th century)" is that the Condemnations of 1277 in particular targeted both philosophical and theological ideas.  "Condemnations (University of Paris)" or even "Condemnations of Paris" would fit well, although I would counsel for Condemnations of 1210-1277 as the title which best reflects the scope of the article.  --Grimhelm (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice suggestion, it includes the dates that are often mentioned in the literature -- esp. 1277 of course.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the page from Condemnations (University of Paris) because the parentheses implies that the title is ambiguous and needs to be distinguished from other articles with the same name. That was not the case here, as we have no other article called "Condemnations". The WP:NCDAB guideline discusses how parentheses may be used, but warns against using adjectives even in cases of an ambiguous title. Since "Condemnations" would just be a redirect back here, no parentheses should be used if we are to change the title. I would suggest something like "Condemnations at the University of Paris" or "Condemnations of the 13th century".--Cúchullain t/c 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to agree on avoiding parentheses and on being more specific than mere Condemnations.   We can either specify by place or by time.  As I've thought about this, Condemnations at the University of Paris looks like a bad idea as it would forestall the logical expansion of this article to include the related condemnations that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Kilwardby, issued for Oxford (also in 1277).  That leaves us with the two time candidates Condemnations of the 13th century or Condemnations of 1210-1277.   I slightly favor the latter, because both the condemnation of Aristotle in 1210 and Tempier's condemnations of 1277 are well known among historians of medieval thought. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine to me.--Cúchullain t/c 12:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a more meaningful title 

message: Just a brief request; it would be helpful for readers if those cited works whose details are not fully listed in the References section were listed in the Notes section. For example, this Rubenstein citation is ok given that the ISBN, publisher, author, year of publication and full title of the book is listed below, whereas this citation to the Catholic Encyclopaedia is incomplete, giving no author/date of publication/date of URL access. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended accordingly.  --Grimhelm (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and references