Talk:Thought of Thomas Aquinas

message: Hello all ... let's not have an edit war about whether or not this article should be deleted quickly.  It will be filled in very soon with non-redundant content (which will be moved from the over-sized article Thomas Aquinas).  Thanks for your patience... David aukerman talk 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale

message: Each section of this article, so far anyway, is one humongous paragraph and therefore virtually unreadable.  Also, I don't get the heading...is there a Part II?  If not, the heading needs to be more specific -- what do these topics have in common that they have been split off from the main Thomas Aquinas article and combined here? I've combed through the discussion on the main Thomas Aquinas article and still don't see the logic -- Sfmammamia 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest that you avoid thinking in terms of Part I and Part II naming structures for articles? In my view, that goes against any kind of topic-based access to the articles, which is the foundation for Wikipedia structure. It also makes for all kinds of editing disputes.  Grouping disparate topics together to avoid stub status is a transparent strategy and unlikely shield to your contributions from the actions of other editors. Perhaps the topics could be grouped something like..."Thomas Aquinas and morality" (or "Thomas Aquinas on moral issues" (or questions) "Thomas Aquinas and philosophy", etc? This is more in keeping with the  WP naming guidelines (scroll down to read the section on naming subsidiary articles). It would be far better to start with proper grouping, even if you have to mark the articles as stubs and/or place  maintenance templates at the top to ward away speedy deletes or premature edits, than to create a non-topic based structure for lengthy articles that will eventually get picked apart or pulled apart by other editors. -- Sfmammamia 17:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup template 

message: Thanks for the clean-up and the contribution.  A E Francis 14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Centipedian

message: Someone added that Aquinas advocated death penalty to heretics, citing ST II II 11:3;  this is true, to a point, although a complete reading of II II 11:3 indicates that Aquinas advocated turning them over to secular authorities, after two admonitions from the Church.  It was not exactly a "summary execution".  I don't think it belongs in here, because it really doesn't add anything to the discussion.  But I am willing to have it, if others think it belongs here. I took it out. Any discussion is encouraged.A E Francis 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquinas and Heretics

message: Why is this called "Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I" and not "Thought of Thomas Aquinas"?
There seems to be no "Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part II" etc.--Carlaude (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Carlaude:  I started this article on the Thomas Aquinas site about a year ago.  It was too long for that, so I broke it off (along with Aquinas and the Sacraments).  Initially, I anticipated there would so much material that an Aquinas Part II would be necessary.  I haven't gotten around to writing it, but there is certainly enough material to warrant it.  Anyway, that was the thought process.  Any ideas of material you would like to see?  We can start it at any time.  I am not sure this article can handle much more information, such as another topic.  It has been my experience that it is better to have the bulk of the article written before starting a new title.  Anyway, I am happy to communicate with you about this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A E Francis (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: This article troubles me for two reasons.  First, it contains a smattering of topics.  It expresses the view that these are the important topics to understand about Aquinas, and this seems to me to be
# false, and
# expressing a POV.
Why these topics and not others?  We need some kind of explanation of that, at the least.
And, the second reason it troubles me, is that the statements in the article are not referenced.  Generic references, to complete texts, at the end of sections, does nothing to address the implied claim of importance made by the selection of topics, and does nothing to defend the particular views here.  What can be done to address these two problems?  Tb (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline citations would solve the last problem. These already exist in the latter part of the article, but are lacking in the first parts. I've changed the "unreferenced" tag to an "inline" tag, since there are references, but they aren't cited inline. I don't know if the article presupposes that these are the only topics of importance; I imagine that all notable thoughts of Thomas Aquinas belong. There may be some WP:OR hiding throughout, though. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this article

message: Without commenting on any wider issue or on the points which have been mentioned above, I'd like to draw attention to what seems to be a lack of clarity in distinguishing Jews from heretics. This could easily be solved, as follows:
* Remove all references to Jews from the "Heretics" paragraph; as explained within that paragraph, Jews are not heretics.
* Remove all references to heretics from the "Forced Baptism" paragraph; heretics are errant Catholics, so already have their children baptised without any question of force. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heretics and Jews 

message: I believe I've incorporated this article sufficiently into Thomism, and thus I think this article is now no longer necessary. Any comments? -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: St. Thomas obviously argues for punishing heretics with death if necessary. But -- I don't want to put it into the article, original research and stuff -- does anyone see (and did anyone quotable mention) that in argumenting so, he is considerably weaker than practically anywhere else? In STh ss 10, art. 9 which is crucial to the point, he has to explicitly countersay a quoted authority, to wit, St. John Chrysostom. He doesn't often do that. He quotes St. Augustine in saying: "It was once my opinion that none should be compelled to union with Christ, that we should deal in words, and fight with arguments. However this opinion of mine is undone, not by words of contradiction" -- now that's what I call a weak argument -- "but by convincing examples. Because fear of the law was so profitable, that many say: Thanks be to the Lord" which I actually don't want to doubt (others would), but which still, obviously, amounts to a good end that doesn't, at least not necessarily, render that deed good it results from. The parable cited in favor, Lk 14,23, actually doesn't speak of heretics, as heretics are not those to be looked for on the roads: on the roads far off, symbolically, are the unbelievers that St. Thomas explicitly says not to be compelled (by bodily force; I think the parable is quite realistic in that the missionary will sometimes have to speak louder to the one he wants to be heard by, and such like compellings); but quite clearly those who are invited and make excuses (Lk 14,18-20), who earn the anger of the Lord but are not ordered to be compelled. The argument of his own: "They have to fulfil what they promised" is valid of course, but on other places St. Thomas is quite strict on the point that no one be judged except by one who has authority to judge him: now that's where the problem comes in, since he seems to taken for granted that the State has authority in religion but doesn't give any argument for that, which is precisely the point which later on was put in question (and denied officially by the Magisterium in Dignitatis humanae).--84.154.43.8 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Death penalty for heretics

message: I have removed the WP:SYNTH, OR and unsourced material from this article, as well as from Thomistic sacramental theology. This was much needed. However, as pointed out already back in 2008, the article "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" 's subject is vague. 
There exist pages like Hegelianism, or encyclopedic formats like Hegel's Social and Political Philosophy. A summary of a thinker's philosophy is usually in a section of their biography article, e.g. Arthur Schopenhauer#Philosophy. However, this WP article seem to have been little more than a blog for the WP user A E Francis' very personnal erratic reflexion on and random interests in such and such aspects discussed by Aquina. Why present usury? Why social justice? Very few secondary sources are used, so it looks like those aspects are personnal choices.
Should the article be AfDed? If so, when? What do you think? Veverve (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking only for myself, I lean towards AfDing. Thomism covers Aquinas's school of thought and it, the biographical article, and specific articles like that for Thomistic sacramental theology ought to be the landing places for any material we can salvage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  the AfD has been opened. Veverve (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with this article?