Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Archive 1

message: *St. Thomas wrote complicated things; the metaphysical and philosophical relations among things are complex. 
Masturbation is either worse than rape or it isn't. How is that complex?
*This is a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it is not the job of a Catechism to show metaphysical or philosophical relations among things. 
If the Catechism wasn't interested in showing the relative difference in sinfulness between masturbation and rape, it wouldn't have called one "gravely disordered" and the other "intrinsically evil;" it would have simply said that both are bad.
*The editor is writing about theology, which in Catholicism includes the need for awareness that something is grave matter before it is culpable.
The editor just did it again: he ignored all of the other additional factors that extenuate the moral culpability of masturbation. The editor seems to have difficulty dealing with the issues head-on, instead choosing to rely on transparently bogus attempts at verbal prestidigitation in the hopes of distracting the readers from his argument's weaknesses.
*There is a social difference in how people regard rape and masturbation, and the Catechism is intended to reach people and help bring them into the Catholic faith. Therefore it must take account of what people know. St. Thomas labors under no such burden, so he can simply expound the relations among things directly.
So? Again, you're only dealing with one of the factors that extenuate the culpability of masturbation, and ignoring those that hamper your argument, such as maturity. Infants masturbate; are you really claiming that infants are committing a graver sin than rape?
*St. Thomas provides a theological study, not a list-out of what people consider morally acceptable.
I agree, but so what? Both the Catechism and the Summa Theologica are theological studies, not guides to contemporary behavior. Unfortunately, they contradict each other. And I will also take that remark to mean you're afraid to ask your mother what I suggested, probably because you are unable to reconcile what the Church has taught and the dictates of your conscience. I hope it doesn't take the rape of a loved one to make you see the error of your heartless philosophy.
Darnel 13:03, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Darnel's Replies to 207

message: Some people cannot be swayed by logical arguments or appeals to human decency; they have their faith, you are their persecutor and that's the end of it. To argue with them is to argue with a brick wall.
I'm not going to stick around to hear the latest reply from 207. I've met my migraine quota.
That's all, folks. It's been fun.
Darnel 12:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "The modern Church seems to differ with Aquinas on another issue, and that is the use of torture. Aquinas said: "Hence just as by public authority a person is lawfully deprived of life altogether on account of certain more heinous sins, so is he deprived of a member on account of certain lesser sins" (Secunda Secundae Partis, Article 65, Part 1) QUOTE. The Catechism, by contrast, says: "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity" (paragraph 2297 QUOTE)."
This would appear to be an incoherent statement, as what Aquinas said does not imply the use of torture. Aquinas referred to the "consent of the owner" as a necessary precondition, stressing furthermore that "it is always possible to further one's spiritual welfare otherwise than by cutting off a member, because sin is always subject to the will". Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not parallel to the Summa Theologica, as the former is a summary of faith and the latter is a treatise that delves into greater detail. Since the contributor appears not to have understood the matter on which he commented, this section should be excised from the entry. Trc | [msg] 22:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Darnel Suddenly Realizes Something Important

message: The link that the text connects to does not say he supports slavery. It just says a lawful authority can STRIKE or punish whoever is under their authority.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.227.88 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005.
:I haven't read the text in question, but I know that this isn't the first time something like this has happened.  The apostle Paul mentions how one should treat their slaves, and this has been wrongly construed as saying that Paul advocated slavery.  He was just prescribing some ethics for the structure of the society at the time, and I can see how Aquinas could be doing the same thing without actually advocated slavery over nonslavery.  FranksValli 22:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfair exageration or extension of Thomas's disciplinary thought to support for slavery

message: I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love."  It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion.  But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete.  Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago.  I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented.  So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  favor? 

message: What I find interesting about Aquinas is the way he combines philosophy and theology.He takes alot from Aristotle whom he referred to as " The Philosopher" and blends his teachings with theology. His Famous " Five Ways to prove God's Existence" was his way of proving God's existance based on what man can know from the world. He maintained that what God teaches will always be consistent with whatever truths man will discover. He should have perhaps been more famous during his life, and probably should be read more today.(faithnet.org) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tired dad (talk • contribs) 6 February 2006.
Thomas Aquinas is most famous for his incorrect view of the fall in Eden. He taught that only the will of man was fallen and that mans intellect was not affected. This set up an area of autonomy in the intellect of man. It also set up a humanistic framework for society visible in Catholicism. When Aquinas did this the begginings of a natural theology were set. Man no longer looked to the Bible to answer the questions of metaphysics and of morals. The philosophers also began to look for truth apart from the Bible and so the artist followed, the writer and thengeneral culture followed last of all by theology. By the time we get to Kant and Rousseau, the philosophers had given up any hope of finding a unified field of knowledge. Wilhelm Hegel arrived on the scene and he changes the way humans approached the deep questions. Prior to Hegel the Biblical oresuppositions had been the default mthodology of the known world. With the arrival of Hegel that all changed. Hegel introduced a new methodlogy called dialectical methodology or synthesis in place of the previous Biblical antithesis. In dialectical methodology you have relative truth. This means two opposites can both be right. The Biblical methodology there is either right or wrong. There is no grey areas at all. If you study Plato and Socrates you will find they both grappled witth this issue. Plato knew a moral absolute must exist for true morals to exist. Leonrdo Davinci wanted to paint the soul of a tree and not merely a tree. he never painted very much because he to could not find a unified field of knowledge. These men as a result of Aquinas' incorrect view of the space time historic fall had reached a place of despair. if you view paintings by Gauguin Van Gogh Cezanne, Picasso and Bacon to mention a few. You will see they were seeing the dissapearance of the human race and the emergence of something less than the image and likeness of the God who is there. Francis A Schaeffer's 'Trilogy' is a good starting place to understand what has occurred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.18.201 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.
Don't be so dull. Your imaginary friend doesn't exist, and you need to get out more often. Maybe you can become a buddhist and worship wheels if ignorance is your bag.
83.70.219.27 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle and God 

message: I came to this article to see examples of Aquinas's worldview and I see none. I do see a section criticizing Aquinas's writings, but I see no section summarizing his theological or philosophical perspectives. Shouldn't Wikipedia give a summary of a philosopher's views a higher priority than nitpicks? I say this as a frustrated encyclopedia user, not as a partisan in this debate, because I know little to nothing about Aquinas. --Ben Applegate 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added section on theology. David aukerman 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about his philosophy and theology? 

message: I second the complaint of a user above who mentions that this article has nothing on his philosophy or theology. What did the man think that makes him so important? This article is in poor condition on that basis alone. Srnec 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added section on theology. David aukerman 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy?

message: Some kind of small mistake.
There's a line in this page which says:
'During 1269 to 1271 he was again active in Paris, lecturing to the students, managing the affairs of the church and consulted by the king, Louis VIII, his kinsman, on affairs of state'.
Louis VIII died in 1223, so maybe the author here is talking about Louis IX. However, Louis IX died in 1270 (i.e. before 1271), and I don't see how a French king can be kinsman to an Italian scholar. I don't know what was intended so I can't edit this page myself. Who wrote this?
-David Cleave
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.85.248 (talk • contribs) 3 July 2006.
:Good question.  It looks like User:Pwqn added the text in question on 6 November 2005.  I've asked this user for a response on User_talk:Pwqn, but this person has been inactive since 20 November 2005, so I don't know if we'll get an answer. David aukerman 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica gives this information (particularly the wording "his kinsman").  Perhaps newer resources might resolve the issue... - David aukerman talk 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King Louis VIII

message: Someone added this to the section on epistemology:
:Aquinas believed that the purest way to find knowledge is through divine revelation. Specifically, he stressed the necessity of divine grace: "It would seem that without grace man can know no truth. . . . we cannot know truth without grace." (This is what a Wikipedia contributor claims. In fact, this statement is taken from Aquinas' objections. On the contrary, Aquinas states in the sed contra that "Therefore without grace man of himself can know truth," although he concedes that grace at times does come to the aid of man's intellectual endeavors and that man needs God's auxilio generale to attain any truth." See Prima Secundae 109.1. Of course, I would be glad for someone to take this information and put it into the Wikipedia article in the appropriate manner. Nevertheless, I found it absolutely necessary to correct this egregious error as quickly as possible!) He was also, however, an Aristotelian and an empiricist whose influence on those two streams of Western thought is substantial.
Tom Harrison Talk 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for moving this comment here, Tom.  This person is absolutely correct!  I've made the appropriate changes. - David aukerman talk 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: I've droped by to review that article. You all have done a good job of improving the article, but it still needs a bit of work, so I'll put it on hold. What I need to see is inline documentation of the biography sections of the article, especially the Career section, where we share what contemporaries wrote about him. Which people? When?
Not critical, but very helpful would be some style changes in language. Most readers of the English language find it hard to read long sentences, filled with passive constructions, participles ("ing" words) and semicolons. It makes the text fell fuzzy, distant and abstract. Especially in the bio sections, try shorter sentences, active constructions (Thomas served the church ... vs. the church was served by Thomas), simple word order (subject-verb-object-direct object) and periods/commas v. semicolons. I hope that helps.--CTSWyneken(talk) 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments ... the biography information was added to this article long ago by someone who has since disappeared.  Therefore, getting strong documentation for these things will be tricky, but we'll give it a shot.David aukerman 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten the entire biography section to be more readable.  Now we need some references... anyone?David aukerman 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's looking pretty good. All that's left is to satisfy the fact tags or comment out the details pending documentation and I'll promote the article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tracked down sources for the remaining  tags (at least, I think I got them all!).  Most came from the 1911 EB, so I also added  to the References section.  One quote can be found in another 1911 text available online at nd.edu (link included in footnote).  Let me know if I missed anything! - David aukerman talk 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Renom 

message: That does it. Congratulations! I've promoted the article to GA status. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Thanks again for all your help. - David aukerman talk 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are welcome. Next step towards FA is a peer review. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Passed 

message: What castle?  Parents live at castle "Roccasecca" near Frosinone, he flees, gets kidnapped and brought back to them in their castle "San Giovanni".  Is that the same castle, or if not, where is that other one?--dunnhaupt 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question... I don't know the answer.  I do know, however, that this text came from an early 20th century encyclopedia entry about Aquinas - not that that means it's necessarily accurate.  For what it's worth, this entire section (Biography) is on my list of things to fix up in the near future.  So hopefully this will get cleared up in good time.  - David aukerman talk 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone reads this, I should change my statement on the Biography section ... it still needs to be redone, updated, revamped, rewritten, etc., but it's not on my list of things to do any more - too many other things going on for me.  So if you have a couple of good, new biographies of Aquinas, feel free to jump in and rewrite the biography section here. David aukerman talk 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: As a response to the request for peer review, I would like to make a few suggestions:
*First and foremost the article needs a historical background to Thomas' philosophy: what necessitated the reconciliation of Aristotelian thought with Christian theology? This has to do with the rediscovery of classical texts (the Crusades, growth of the universities etc). This subject is absent, and needs to be explored more fully.
*Early years: 'on the way to Rome...' Out of context.
*Career: 'provincial' is not a helpful hyperlink.
*Ethics: 'Aquinas also greatly influenced Roman Catholic understandings of mortal and venial sins.' Needs expansion.
*Modern criticism: Shouldn't inline citations be used also here, for consistency? Also, the last sentence ('Many biographies of Aquinas have been written over the centuries, one of the most notable by G.K. Chesterton.') is out of context. It should either (ideally) be expanded to a short bibliography, or removed altogether.
For an example of a good article on a philosopher, I suggest looking at Søren Kierkegaard, which has good prose, good use of pictures, an up-to-date bibliography, and very pretty quotation boxes.Eixo 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your time and suggestions, Eixo.  This gives us a bit to work on... -David aukerman talk 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review – suggestions for improvement

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Thomas Aquinas]] 

message: I have removed the changes by  Phil Franco and gone back to the previous version by Shipmaster because, according to Aquinas' teachings, God does not have a gender. Aquinas' first point is that "God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form." If this is the case then god certainly has no gender. Aquinas' second point is that "God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of His complete actuality." If god is perfect and lacks nothing then god can't be a male as then he would be lacking the feminine gender and thus not be perfect. Morgan Leigh 00:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God and Gender 

message: The idea that the title of "doctor of the church" puts Thomas on a level with St Paul is completely mad.  Nb. Paul is not on the list of doctors of the church given on Wikipedia.  I am worried that the use - indeed extensive outright quotation - of an antiquated "religious encyclopedia" throughout the article - from which this fact is derived - may be cause for general revision. Frege1b 23:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually two different titles being used here.  The title "Doctor of the Church" is applied to 33 people throughout history; St. Paul is not on that list, but St. Augustine is.  So we shouldn't eliminate that title.  I think the term you are concerned about is "Doctor Angelicus," which is (according to this article) why Aquinas is "on a level" with Paul and Augustine.  I am not sure why the title "Doctor Angelicus" does this; as far as I can tell, that title always refers to Aquinas.  In any case, this is what the 1953 encyclopedia (which, by the way, isn't the oldest source for this article) says.  On the other hand, I do agree with you - the Biography section is in need of a sweeping revision (see previous comments on this talk page).  -David aukerman talk 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification.  It is indeed hard to imagine Paul, Thomas, and Augustine on the same level.  If/when this biography section gets rewritten, that statement will surely be left out. -David aukerman talk 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: title of doctor of the church

message: I propose splitting this section off into its own page (e.g., Thomas Aquinas and the Sacraments).  The length and depth of this section seem to dominate the overall article on Aquinas.  As such, we might do well to create a separate article for this topic.  Comments?  David aukerman talk 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with separating it;  it all depends what you want this page to look like.  It seemed to me that there should be a fairly "in-depth" look at waht Aquinas actually said about the sacraments.  If you think it is too long for this entry, that is fine.  It is going to be longer, because I have to put some more in from Summa Theologia... what do you want to do with the others I have added... death penalty, usuary, and forced baptism? A E Francis 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having a lot of information on the Aquinas page.  He was a complicated person.  Too spread it out in several different places just makes research on the subject difficult.  What I was thinking when I wrote about the sacraments is all the people I meet (both Catholic and non-Catholic) who say the sacraments and the Church in general are not based on the Bible.  If anything, even a superficial reading of Aquinas should dispel this.  But I wanted people who show up on this site to have the opportunity to at least be exposed to some of Aquinas' actual thinking.  Summa Contra Gentiles is 1500 pages long.  I wrote a "short" synopsis of this in 2000-2002.  It is 300 pages long!  Summa Thoelogia is even longer.  I think an effort to try to reduce Aquinas to a superficial page, such as "he was born, he thought this, he went there, he died here." is a sort of disservice to the man and the Church in general.  That is just the way I feel about it.  I also intend to put a section on the difference between Platonism and Neo-Platonism with Aristotle's "natural" philosophy, which Aquinas explored. But I am flexible! A E Francis 02:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: David, I have been thinking about this... how hard is it too edit these to another page?  The reason I am asking is I intend to keep writing... maybe it will be worth it to see what it looks like, then do some re-arranging, or develop some different pages... I am open to suggestions. A E Francis 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the delay... I started writing here but then got sidetracked for a while. :)  Anyway, to answer your questions, it's not hard at all to move information from one page to another.  And I think it probably ought to be done, since the main Aquinas page is getting pretty long, according to Wikipedia:Article_size.  (They make some good points and suggestions in that article.)  Having more information about Aquinas certainly isn't bad; it just needs to be readable, and it needs to be encyclopedic (i.e., not totally exhaustive).  All this to say that I think some rearranging is in order; much of the new content you have added can be placed in new articles that can be linked from the main page.  One sure-fire page is Aquinas and the Sacraments.  Another possible new page could be Aquinas's Viewpoints (or something like that) to cover the usury, capital punishment, and forced baptism sections.  I don't know if that's totally appropriate, though; my main concern is that the main Aquinas article remain as a thorough summary of his life and thought.  (By the way, take a quick look at Death_penalty#Christianity; there's a nice one-sentence summary of Aquinas's position on the death penalty there.)  To be thorough and verbose (like the Islam pages you mentioned) is good; to be encyclopedic (and less verbose) is better in tune with what Wikipedia is about. David aukerman talk 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Another thought I just had - last summer I worked to get this article up to Good Article status, and I'd like it to continue to meet the standards for GA articles.  With lots of extra information in the article, I wonder if it's starting to become less of a GA article.  David aukerman talk 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquinas and the Sacraments 

message: This site was vandalized on June 19, 2007;; it came from 124.105.191.164;; this should be reported, and as far as I am concerned, should be blocked from any further access to Wiki.  Thanks for fixing it, Dave.  A E Francis 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  I've been watching this page for over a year now, and it's been subject to vandalism pretty consistently during that time.  So ... don't be surprised if it happens again. :)  And if you see an edit that's not kosher, go ahead and undo it! David aukerman talk 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Chris, thanks for cleaing up the typos.... I found a few more... there are probably a lot!  Every bit helps! A E Francis 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: spelling errors

message: Chris... you bracketed the date March 7, but when I go there, there is no mention of Aquinas' death... A E Francis 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't necessarily have to.  That happens with a lot of date references... usually those are there so people can find out what else happened on that date. David aukerman talk 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it. David aukerman talk 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 7

message: My neighbor told me that anyone who is on AOL cannot edit in Wiki without getting special permission;; All AOL users are automatically blocked;; This apparently was because of the troubles with vandals.A E Francis 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: They recommend an article larger than 32 KB should be broken up.  I don't know how large this is... as I wrote, I intend to keep writing. Actually, I haven't written anything which downgrade this page, but that is a matter of opinion and taste.  I spent some years as an editor to a medical legal journal, so I know how these arguments go!  Anyway, if we decide to break some sections off, I don't have any problem with it.  A E Francis 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of article

message: I went to that site you mentioned.  This is a good and concise statement.  But I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a longer look at it elsewhere.  The idea you mentioned about Aquinas' thought on various subjects is a good potential source of this.  I am flexible.  There are a lot of subjects which could end up in a section like that.  (The difference between Plato and Aristotle and the soul;  Aquinas and natural moral law; etc.) If you are wanting to keep this paqe fairly simple and straightforward, this may be better on a separate page.  A E Francis 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquinas and the death penalty

message: Dave, I'm ready to move, but I can't figure out how to split these out... all I do is move the whole article, which, of course, I don't want to do... you are correct... it is too long... please tell me how to move this in parts... I looked under splits, but couldn't find how to do it... also cut and paste.. A E Francis 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do it via cut-and-paste pretty easily.  Just edit the Thomas Aquinas article, cut the desired material to your clipboard, and then enter your new page name in the Wikipedia search box on the left side of the screen.  Click Go, and if the page is available, you'll see a page that has a red link "create this page."  Click that link, and then paste the material in the new page.  You'll want to check out Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section to see how to construct an opening paragraph for the new article.  (Just a note ... since Thought of Thomas Aquinas now redirects to Thomas Aquinas, you might need to choose a different name for the new article(s).  I don't know how to override an automatic redirect.)  Hope this helps... David aukerman talk 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready to Move

message: Perhaps Joyce should be under the 'influenced' section? After all, the last chapter of 'A Portrait of The Artist As A Young Man' is essentially comprised of Aquinas quotes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.57.222 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2007
===Well, this was a good call===
But the person who added Joyce also added that it was "remarkable"that Aquinas influenced him, a completely unnecessary bit of editorializing, I think. GeneCallahan (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: James Joyce

message: But the person who added Joyce also added that it was "remarkable"that Aquinas influenced him, a completely unnecessary bit of editorializing, I think. GeneCallahan (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Well, this was a good call

message: Ok, slow down! If you're going to chop chunks out of this article, you've got to leave summaries behind. Otherwise no-one reading this article will know there's more to read about this guy's thoughts. exolon 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to rush. 32k is a guideline, not a hard limit. It exists as there are a few archaic browsers that can't display more than 32k. Sorry about tagging your new article - didn't realise you were splitting this article up. Cutting and pasting is simple - just click the edit this page link at the top, highlight the text you want and right click to copy (or use Ctrl-C on the keyboard, then paste (Ctrl-V) into the editing window of your new page.exolon 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHOA! 

message: The story of Aquinas and clutching the Ave Maria as an infant is undoubtedly a fable and should not be presented as truth, especially since there is no reference for it.  I've removed it.  Afabbro 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fable 

message: I'm curious as to if there are any known sources we can cite for Aquinas being an "alchemist" and if this is worthy for inclusion in the main article on him. If you peruse the what links here page you'll note there a handful of alchemy related articles that link here. It seems the Aquinas article has no mention of it, and I was wondering if that was because it was judged not notable enough for the article, or if the references to him on alchemy writeups are frivolous. --BHC 09:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any such sources; Aquinas's connection to alchemy is news to me.  As far as I know, the topic hasn't been discussed here with respect to this particular article.  My opinion is that any reference to alchemy in the Aquinas article should be rather brief, just a sentence or two at most.  What do you think? David aukerman talk 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Summa, St. Thomas says "If however real gold were to be produced by alchemy, it would not be unlawful to sell it for the genuine article, for nothing prevents art from employing certain natural causes for the production of natural and true effects, as Augustine says..." (II-II, Q77, A2, ad1). This, his only use of the word in the Summa, doesn't seem worth mentioning.  If there is some other work in which he comments more extensively on it, then maybe. The.helping.people.tick 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquinas and alchemy

message: Is it really necessary to advertise books? (Ave Maria Press). Some links don't add any information to Thomas Aquinas, I presume it's just advertising, so they should be wiped out. --Meldor 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links