User talk:Smit1937

Please note that disambiguation pages like Dr. K are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

The article Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge makes no mention of Dr K. If you have a reliable source for this, please add it to the article before putting it on the disambiguation page.

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate (Thomas Aquinas) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate (Thomas Aquinas) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate (Thomas Aquinas) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sandstein 16:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the question of the notability of the work, that is, the question if this work deserves a wikipedia article I will refer to what the guidelines on notability themselves state.

"The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

Thomas Aquinas is easily the most important theologian and philosopher of the middle ages, and is still widely considered the most important catholic theologian. So states his own wikipedia article: "He has been described as "the most influential thinker of the medieval period" and "the greatest of the medieval philosopher-theologians". According to the English philosopher Anthony Kenny, Thomas was "one of the greatest philosophers of the Western world."

This requirement is also easily fulfilled by the work: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." It has been translated into multiple languages, and as I mention in the expansion discussion the German translation was done by Edith Stein. Smit1937 (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Did you have any plan for how you were going to expand Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate (Thomas Aquinas) (AfD discussion)? Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, no. The reason I made the article was the fact that I was not able to find anything like this online yet, a short description of contents. I made a list for myself and thought it useful to share it in this manner.

I have not in fact read any of the Quaestiones but am going to study Question 24 de Libero Arbitrio Hominis, because my professor told me that it is the principal place in which he expounds the issue. I will write this down in the article for now, although I base it on the authority of the spoken word of my professor.

I could add a short description of the basic idea Thomas has of what truth is, but I wouldn't be getting that from the text itself but rather from the Summa Theologica, in which I have read the relevant parts. I will also add this.

Then I could add a few translations of the text, which will in itself show the importance of the text, since relatively little from this period has been translated. Adding to this the fact that Edith Stein, an important phenomenological philosopher in her own right, wrote the German translation. Smit1937 (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most of this has already been done, thanks to the community. But now you now how I came to add the article. Smit1937 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given Wippel 1989 and Wippel 1990 I think that a "short description of the basic idea" is impossible. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then I'll leave it as it is now, I am happy that there is an article on it and it contains what I was looking for in a wikipedia entry on the work. Thanks again for your expanding of the article. Smit1937 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wippel, John F. (December 1989). "Truth in Thomas Aquinas". The Review of Metaphysics. 43 (2). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 295–326. JSTOR 20128871.
Wippel, John F. (March 1990). "Truth in Thomas Aquinas, Part II". The Review of Metaphysics. 43 (3). Philosophy Education Society Inc.: 543–567. JSTOR 20128906.