Talk:Thomistic sacramental theology

message: 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)
thread_title:  [Untitled] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Now four years later this article still fails to meet Wikipedia quality standards. It reads like a blog in support of Aquinas and not like an informative about he and the sacraments. Suggest major revisions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.160.223 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Of late, Wikipedia has developed a habit of criticism rather than constructive writing. The following set demonstrate how the critics want to have their cake and eat it, as the flyers occupying half the top page are internally contradictory - I have therefore reduced them to the objective.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.11.66 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of stickers

message: I agree with @Veverve that this article (based on the August 20, 2022 version) should be totally rewritten. These are the problems that I see, and I would invite @A E Francis to participate in a constructive discussion about how we can improve the quality of the article. 
Sourcing issues
#The original article appears devoid of any reliable sources, such as scholarly explanation/interpretation. This is particularly striking for a topic in which many secondary sources exist, and Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY is clear that 
#The article relies on references to scripture and the church fathers (without any secondary sources to provide verification and context for these references). This is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY clearly states that 
#In places, A E Francis appears to be offering his own commentary within the article space. For example, the Confirmation#Summa Contra Gentiles section has the following: . Obviously, this is blatant original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:No original research)
Style issues
#Lots of very long paragraphs. This makes the article difficult to read. 
These issues are serious (especially the sourcing issues), and I would not support returning the article to what it was. The goal should be to find reliable secondary sources and stop using original research in the form of scripture and editorial commentary. Ltwin (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If @Veverve and @A E Francis can agree to stop edit-warring, we could unprotect sooner so you can make a start on these improvements — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree not to revert additions of reliably and properly sourced material. However, I believe (and it seems to be the opinion of most here) that A E Francis' unsourced walls of texts should be removed should anyone try to add them back. I also believe in WP:REMOVINGTHECHEWINGGUM in general. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total rewrite needed 

message: Please remove AfD template as I have closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 21:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 1 February 2023 

message: I restored the version prior to the mass vandalism that occurred last yearA E Francis (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Without fixing any of the problematic sourcing issues it should be noted.  Ltwin (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

text: this is not how it works. Veverve (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored prior version