Talk:Catholic theology on the body

Sources

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? Lyrl^Talk _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? Lyrl^Talk _C 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The final result was 50 - 50. Fifty percent "Strong Keep" and 50 percent "Keep" . --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:52, 29 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. Lyrl^Talk _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)

The thing about Catholic theology is that, according to its own rules, it doesn't change, it only gets clarified and deepened. So Catholic theologians in general make a point of not contradicting "old" theology. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 09:34, 30 June 2016 (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)

Are the headers still necessary?

I came to this article for a Catholic view on the "Theology of the Body," simplified but neutral. The first things I saw were flags saying the article is marked for deletion because it's written as a personal opinion and it's not neutral. So much for research! But I scrolled down the page to assess that opinion for myself. It looks pretty good to me, but I wanted to find out what the objections were about, so "So much for research!" I clicked on all the talk pages and just wasted 15 minutes trying to find out what the problem is. And I found out that it's all history -- the article was originally composed in 2008, and marked for deletion within hours. The final vote was keep it. There were additional edits in 2010. The talk page was last updated in 2014 (or maybe that was the article, I forget).

This is 2016. Apparently all issues have been resolved. Is it really necessary to distract from research by warning us that the article was marked for deletion 8 years ago? I mean, I'm glad whatever the problem was has been addressed, and it's nice that there was a polite discussion about it, but at this point -- 8 years later -- it's not pertinent to the casual-yet-cautious researcher. A fitting analogy is if you go to an unfamiliar town, and ask for directions, and are told to turn left at the 3 storey gray house that burned down 8 years ago, but not told that a new shopping development went up in its place, you'll end up driving all over the place, lost. Please, just remove the flags. Thanks. KiAnCaFleur (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I've removed the banners from the main page. The talk page notice of the old deletion discussion with the link to the AfD has to stay, though. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 09:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic theology of the body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211214257/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What are those references referring to?

"Ramsey" and "Utz Groner" are put as references numerous times, but their work is never mentioned. Veverve (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: @Jpacobb: @KiAnCaFleur: do you have any clue? Veverve (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The references section is seriously incomplete. The style used requires a Bibliography with the details of the works consulted listed by authors. There is one title given at the bottom of the references section which should be set apart under Bibliography. It has two authors: "Arthur Fridolin Utz, Joseph Fulko Groner, Aufbau und Entfaltung des Gesellschaflichen Lebens, Soziale Summe Pius XII, Freiburg, Schweiz, 1954, 1961" which explains "Utz Groner". I can't place Ramsey. Sorry! You might check through the sequence of versions of the article to see if other titles were added there and later deleted.— Jpacobb (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jpacobb: found it! Veverve (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)