Talk:Catholic theology of the body
|WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
Using German and Italian publications, I went through the trouble to quote some sources (Ambose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas etc) in the original, with the understanding, that these sources - especially internet links - may more accessable to most readers not familiar with these foreign publications. However, should this create any problems or even suspicion of "original research" I would be delighted to quote the foreign sources as well.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Citing the foreign sources would be best, because these are the sources you used. Seeing secondary references in the article (rather than only primary sources) would also greatly reduce the appearance of original research. Thank you for offering this.
- I would also like to suggest moving the article to Catholic theology of the body. Outside of the name of a book (JPII's speeches), I don't think this topic is referred to as a proper noun. Does that suggestion make sense? LyrlTalk C 01:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI: AfD nomination of Catholic Theology of the Body
I have nominated Catholic Theology of the Body, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Theology of the Body. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LyrlTalk C 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Out of the four !votes, two were WP:ILIKEIT, one was by the author of the article, and one specified as a condition that sources be added to remove the appearance of original research (which was offered by the author in the above section, but has not actually been done). This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the current condition of the article.
- Ambrosius007's statement that (s)he did, in fact, use secondary sources to write this article has assuaged my concerns over OR and means this article is not a candidate for deletion. Still, the omission of these sources from the citations, while it seems well-intentioned (to avoid directing English-speaking readers to sources in German and Italian), leaves the appearance of OR in this article, and borders on plagiarism.
- Also, my concerns over the title of the article remain, and I have proposed a renaming of the category (see below). Comments on this are welcome. LyrlTalk C 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why I nominated for POV-check
I also tagged for copy-and-paste, as there are certain tell-tale signs, e.g. double spaces within sentences, which is indicative of scanned text. I'm sure that people are going to continue to work this article over. At the moment it is written from a Catholic within-universe perspective. Now, that's not the worst possible kind of POV: it's not going to persuade any non-Catholics to sign up, and it's informative as far as it goes. But because it's written for a Catholic audience it misses out some interesting questions. How and why does the Catholic theology of the body differ from Protestant perspectives? How much did Aquinas derive from Classical and Islamic sources (Aristotle and Avicenna)? Has not the theology changed out of all recognition between the Middle Ages and today? Of course Catholic writers need to stress the continuities but historians might only see discontinuities. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about the in-universe observation. I would not characterize that as a POV issue rather as an editorial (writing style) one, but that may be splitting hairs. Your questions are interesting although as I understand it the topic has considerably more depth and development than other parallel perspectives, so it may be hard to source well (say) Protestant comparisons or historical discontinuities. But then maybe not.
- I have worked before with the editor who wrote a lot of this article. (S)He is good intentioned, perhaps to a fault, but I am almost certain English is not his first language. The writing style could surely use work as you say. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Human body as icon of the communio personarum
The article on perichoresis currently includes a long section (about half the whole article) with the above title. Very little of the section has anything to do directly with perichoresis and it ranges far and wide. I consider the material fits better here but would like the opinion of editors interested in this article before doing anything to move it across. Jpacobb (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)