1463:
evident effect on hindering scientific development than Paris condemnation on stimulating it. But my main objection was on calling Paris condemnations a birth day of modern science. Having effect on development of science and be considered as an immediate cause of its existence (that what term “birth date” implies) are completely different things. Yes, arguably, this event may be ONE of many factors which in long term gave rise to modern science. But it can’t be considered as the main or even the most important one. Was there anything what could be considered a modern science next day after condemnations? A year later? A century later? So how can we consider that event a starting point of modern science if there was no modern science for ages to come after it? After all, how can condemnation and prohibition of something be considered a starting point of modern science???
1406:
teachings were trying to give some answers to wide range of questions not covered by holly books. So church simply adopted his theories and dogmatized them. And it took almost 1000 years for church to realize that some of his teachings actually contradict to holly books. Church dogmatized his theories, church then condemned them. What it has to do with science? – Nothing! Claiming that Paris condemnation gave a start to a modern science is not just baseless it is simply ridiculous. Methods and approaches used by
Aristotel and his contemporaries were much closer to modern science than those used by authors of Paris condemnations.
951:
930:
1638:
I mentioned who died before 1277.) Your analogy was that censorship cannot be considered the birth of free speech; but, on the other hand, declaring previous assumptions to be false is not an attack on science, but something that science does everyday. You overlook the stated facts in the article: the most obvious being that that within three years the possibility of the vacuum was accepted, and that this gave rise to dynamics. It was
Buridan, Oresme and the Oxford Calculators who made important developments to dynamics in the following century.
1429:
Arab texts. Aristotle's teachings were not dogmatised, but they were highly respected by philosophers in Europe and the Middle East (and indeed they are still are). The question of the period was how philosophy could be reconciled with religious belief; the
Averroeists taught what is often summarised as the "double truth" (that what it is true in philosophy does not have to be true in religion, and vice versa); the Thomists taught that apparent contradictions were based on a misunderstanding of either faith or reason.
846:
438:
417:
2462:, which advises against "constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose". How about putting a nice frame around the three paragraphs by starting with an introductory sentence that explains why Duhem's opinion is important (fleshing out in half a sentence what Rwflammang hinted at) and announces that much of the following is based on his research, and then concluding with another sentence that introduces opposing opinions? —
1630:"The currents of history run deep and often unseen beneath the everyday flow of events… there are moments when these currents rise to the surface - with an effect that is often shattering, occassionally moving, but always transforming - to shed an exceptional light on the meaning of history. …the patterns of world history are also shaped by less obviously dramatic occurrences and by processes whose significance only became apparent much later."
1285:
1269:
961:
836:
815:
1500:
of his theory were actually later proven wrong, it must be noted; he felt, for example, that the motion of the Earth was the cause of the tides). And even with the frenzy that normally surrounds the
Galileo affair, it is useful to remember that it is virtually the only case that springs to mind. (Bruno is the other example you mention, although this was based on his theological beliefs, and had nothing to do with Copernicanism.)
556:
190:
341:
1574:"In his works of 1220-1235, in particular the Aristotelian commentaries, Grosseteste laid out the framework for the proper methods of science... Grosseteste was the first of the Scholastics to fully understand Aristotle's vision of the dual path of scientific reasoning: generalizing from particular observations into a universal law, and then back again from universal laws to prediction of particulars."
2366:
2345:
2328:
2300:
2279:
2256:
2244:
2223:
2206:
2193:
2166:
2150:
386:
448:
276:
1056:
1035:
1390:), China failed to produce science. The Greeks came closest to science, and after them the Islamic philosophers. The importance of the Condemnations (along with other important developments in medieval Europe) is that they forced scholars not to take previous assumptions for granted, which led toward Western Science and (ultimately) the modern science which is based upon it. --
1066:
2402:, most paragraphs begin with "Pierre Duhem ...", where Pierre Duhem just happens to be the author who was most perused by the authors of this article. I find that quite annoying and distracting. Should we try to improve that wording (how?), or is it actually good that it's so clumsy, because it may warn readers and invite the eventual addition of other viewpoints? —
1171:
1140:
1613:
works…" The condemned works at least "continued to be read in Paris in private, and there are also signs that their discussion had become public by 1240." The point was not that the
Condemnations stamped out Aristotle (which they clearly did not), but that their effect was in undermining his works as the unquestioned basis of scientific discussion.
1181:
1691:
of 1277, which emphasized God's ability to establish the orders of nature and of salvation freely without any logical constraints, logic was no longer probative by itself. Thus we began to see an increasing concern with epistemological questions in philosophy, with observation in science, and with revelation in theology.
1490:). Similarly, it is often forgotten that Copernicus, the scientist and father of heliocentrism, was a Catholic cleric (with evidence suggesting that, more specifically, he was a priest). Pope Clement VII was impressed by a public lecture on heliocentrism that he requested in Rome, and Copernicus' book
2457:
Thanks for the helpful comments. If Duhem was that important for assessing the effects, then my complaint indeed reduces to a purely stylistic one. As for inline citations, I find they are already used too often at WP in situations like this, as an ersatz for actually writing an article. I agree with
1637:
The rudiments of modern science were already appearing before 1277, but scientific progress accelerated after 1277. As Duhem said, 1277 was the most dramatic event that represented the break with
Aristotle. (Grosseteste, whose work emphasised the importance of mathematics on science, was the only one
1439:
that the
Condemnation had on science. Try and explain how the rejection of geomancy and witchcraft had no effect on science. Or perhaps Aristotle's stance on the concept of the vacuum? It had previously been accepted based on Aristotle that a vacuum could not exist, but within the immediate aftermath
1428:
The Church never "dogmatised" Aristotle's teachings. It would not even have been possible for the Church in Europe to do so, and then fail to notice the apparent contradictions for over a thousand years as you suggest, because much of their influence in the 13th century had been a reintroduction from
1798:
I agree with you that the latter two don't adequately fit the scope. I think the problem with "Philosophical condemnations (13th century)" is that the
Condemnations of 1277 in particular targeted both philosophical and theological ideas. "Condemnations (University of Paris)" or even "Condemnations
1584:
Huh? What is the logic? Yes I don't have academic knowledge on this matter and never did any deep original research either. But that is the good think about logic, if something is apparently illogical; there is no need to dig for details to understand that it is wrong. Saying that condemnations and
1499:
Later, many of
Galileo's discoveries were confirmed by Jesuit astronomers, and the prominent scientists among the clergy were excited by his hypothesis of heliocentrism. It was only when he began persistently teaching his then unproven hypothesis as truth that he was subjected to censure (some parts
1445:
Lastly, I can not see why you would refer to the claims as "baseless", when the historical evidence of their effects (as well as the historians of science who analysed them) are laid out quite clearly in this article. I would suggest that your argument may be based on popular assumptions rather than
1405:
How could replacement of one dogma with another be considered as a birth date of science?? Did
Aristotel ever claimed to be a prophet or any kind of messenger who tells absolute divine truth? – No It was church who dogmatized his teachings, because at the time when church was founded only Aritotels
1690:
There's also a third point of view, touched on in the works of William Courtenay that the dialectic between the absolute and ordained powers of God sharpened epistemological issues. It was conventional that three sources of knowledge were logic, experience, and revelation. After the Condemnations
1612:
Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon read Aristotle's works, as did many in the period. You neglected to mention that, also according to this article, the condemnations of 1210 were "restricted to the Arts faculty at the University of Paris. Theologians were therefore left free to read the prohibited
1364:
Perhaps you have shown another problem: the assumption that Europe was in the "Dark Ages" at this time. The term "Dark Ages" is no longer used by historians today - the traditional assumptions of backwardness in the arts, technology, political and social organizations of the time have been shown to
1683:
It seems to treat fairly well the view held by Duhem, and in a more moderate form by Grant, holding that the condemnations freed scholars to speculate about alternative world models and physical laws, contrary to those held by Aristotle. The biggest gap at present is that it doesn't deal with the
1618:
You asked whether science was emerging in the 13th century, and indeed it was. Also from this article, historians of science "no longer fully endorse his view that modern science started in 1277". The reason for this is that days or events that represent a change in the course of history are never
1485:
Again, these are the assumptions of traditional popular histories, which have been shown to be incorrect by the most recent research of historians of science. For example, it was widely believed that all medieval thinkers thought the world was flat, whereas it was in fact the earth's spherity was
2412:
It's been a long time since I've looked at the literature, but a place to start would be by fleshing out the discussions that maintained that the condemnations led to skepticism and a consequent decline of philosophical and scientific investigation. People who come to mind are Gordon Leff, John
1550:
mathematically analysed the kinematics of motion. It was only with disasters such as the Black Death in 1348 that the massive scientific development was suddenly halted. The Scientific Revolution was resumed during the Renaissance, and was well rooted in the work that had been carried out in the
1462:
Church did dogmatise some postulates of Aristotellian science, most notably geocentric universe model and furiously defended it against all revisionist attempts. Remember repressions suffered by Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno from hands of inquisition. And these actions had much stronger and
1718:
It is commonplace in Science Fiction circles to cite the condemnations of 1277 as evidence that the Church viewed positively the possibility of intellegent life on other worlds. Maybe I'm just guilty of (sub)cultural centrism, but it might be worthwhile to mention the particular article which
1656:
Now that's still more simplified than outlined in the article, but it is a bit more accurate than your logic. Ultimately, we go with the conclusions of the historians of science and the sources cited for articles such as this, and broadly, these are they. Also, the list you to which you refer
1852:
guideline discusses how parentheses may be used, but warns against using adjectives even in cases of an ambiguous title. Since "Condemnations" would just be a redirect back here, no parentheses should be used if we are to change the title. I would suggest something like "Condemnations at the
2081:
I assume that there is a typo in the statement:- "However, it seems "inconceivable" that any teacher would present deny God's Providence or present the Aristotelian "Unmoved Mover" as the true God.". I assume that it should read - "However, it seems "inconceivable" that any teacher would
1434:
Saying that Aristotle had a more scientific approach than Tempier is irrelevant as to whether the events initiated modern science (or at least had positive effects on its development). The discussion is not over the scientific merits of the authors of the Condemnation, but about the
1332:
The "preview" on Knowledge's main page said this lead to the "Birth of Science", but shouldn't it be reworded to say "the Birth of Science in the Western World"? A number of civilizations in the Middle East and Asia were far more advanced than Europe was during its Dark Ages.
2434:
Duhem was a giant in the field. I don't see any more of a problem with the repetitive use of "Duhem said" than I would of "Newton said" in a physics article. If your objection is purely stylistic, you could replace the phrase "Duhem said" with an appropriate inline citation.
1567:
Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. According to this article, condemnation of 1210 states: "Neither the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy or their commentaries are to be read at Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication."
1619:
isolated from the broader historical context. Their effects are felt over the wider course of history, and are recognised by historians as significant in retrospect. In this context, I feel it would be useful to quote the historian Hywel Williams, from
2109:
This:- "(Ironically, the concept of vacuum energy in quantum mechanics now shows that empty space, devoid of both matter and energy, is not possible.)" appears to be, possibly, a point of view or original research. Can be it be validated by means of a
1890:
looks like a bad idea as it would forestall the logical expansion of this article to include the related condemnations that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Kilwardby, issued for Oxford (also in 1277). That leaves us with the two time candidates
1679:
This topic is an excellent example of how we could treat competing points of view Knowledge style. There are at least three different opinions in the historical literature on the effects of the condemnation; this article should present all of them.
2378:
I have left two (unanswered) comments above. Other than resolving these two minor points, I consider that the article is fully compliant with the requirements of a GA. I'm therefore awarding GA status. Congratulations on the quality of the article.
1534:(contemporary with the effects all the condemnations in this article) are seen as precursors of the modern scientific method. Greater emphasis was placed on experiment. Much important scientific work was undertaken in the early 14th century:
153:
786:
1847:
because the parentheses implies that the title is ambiguous and needs to be distinguished from other articles with the same name. That was not the case here, as we have no other article called "Condemnations". The
1687:
I don't see much mention of the rival view held by Jean Gimpel, Gordon Leff (in his early writings) and others who maintained that the condemnations suppressed scientific inquiry and led to a rise of skepticism.
1585:
prohibitions gave birth to science is similar to presenting induction of tyranny as a birth day of democracy or introduction of censorship as a freedom of speech or declaration of war as a commencement of peace!
877:
1494:
was dedicated to Pope Paul III; it was received with great interest by many throughout the Church. The Church never dogmatised heliocentrism - the Church can and has only ever dogmatised theological positions.
1317:
While the sources cited say that Tempier's investigation of heresy was conducted, at least in part, under Papal authority; they do not say that the actual condemnations promulgated under Papal authority.
2495:
147:
1546:
reinvestigated Aristotelian mechanics. (Buridan developed the theory that impetus - which paved the way for Copernicus and was the first step toward the modern concept of inertia). The
1960:
Just a brief request; it would be helpful for readers if those cited works whose details are not fully listed in the References section were listed in the Notes section. For example,
706:
44:
2580:
1440:
of the Condemnations, it was admitted that such a position was possible. The most basic piece of evidence is that scientists were simply more imaginative after the Condemnations.
2595:
1899:. I slightly favor the latter, because both the condemnation of Aristotle in 1210 and Tempier's condemnations of 1277 are well known among historians of medieval thought. --
2520:
912:
902:
2585:
1590:
timeline I can’t see any indirect effects of condemnations on development of scientific method. The closest significant even is 50 years after the latest condemnation.
2600:
2575:
2525:
593:
1202:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
201:
2590:
2490:
2515:
872:
2535:
2505:
1658:
1017:
1007:
610:
509:
499:
2570:
1239:
1229:
2545:
1387:
79:
2510:
1292:
1154:
625:
575:
1359:
science - Aristotellian science was of course the system that had existed in Europe and the Middle East before it was displaced by the Condemnations.
1276:
1150:
868:
859:
820:
720:
589:
2011:
259:
2555:
1122:
1112:
168:
1648:
1. Some clerics condemned certain flawed positions of ancient philosophers, astrologers, works on witchcraft, and some contemporary theologians.
2530:
2500:
983:
135:
2565:
2560:
1204:
297:
85:
1413:
1340:
1964:
Rubenstein citation is ok given that the ISBN, publisher, author, year of publication and full title of the book is listed below, whereas
1517:(father of genetics) were all priests. The Jesuits were the order most associated with the concept of the "scientist-priest" (of which a
1844:
671:
308:
219:
2540:
2124:
1597:
1470:
2550:
1088:
974:
935:
645:
475:
466:
422:
129:
2485:
2322:
1936:
1860:
1194:
1145:
371:
367:
353:
1374:
682:
363:
359:
207:
125:
99:
30:
2399:
24:
2217:
724:
104:
20:
950:
929:
175:
74:
1079:
1040:
699:
582:
568:
397:
1661:") has its own flaws - it fails to mention Grosseteste, Bacon, Buridan or Oresme; and it is very short on sources. --
867:
content on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
864:
655:
632:
65:
1965:
1961:
2056:
After a quick read-through this article appears to be at or about GA-level. I will now do a more detailed review.
2416:
That being said, I find something like Grant and Lindberg's modifications of the Duhem thesis most convincing. --
2160:
1518:
851:
758:
1576:
Do you mean that condemnations in fact had opposite effect and stimulated interest towards Aristotellian works?
141:
2421:
1904:
1826:
1788:
1754:; it does not give the reader an idea of what to expect in the article. I would suggest one of the following:
1701:
618:
1719:
condemned the notion that extraterrestrial intellegent life was impossible, if indeed such an article exists.
1417:
1386:
advanced at this time - China being the best example. However, for all its achievements (as you will see from
1344:
1821:
Nice suggestion, it includes the dates that are often mentioned in the literature -- esp. 1277 of course. --
2183:
748:
109:
2007:
1601:
1474:
754:
453:
1588:
774:
741:
403:
290:
189:
340:
2459:
2440:
1933:
1857:
1724:
1593:
1466:
1409:
1336:
688:
663:
659:
1696:
Documenting the varied points of view among historians would do much to strengthen this article. --
2417:
1973:
1900:
1822:
1784:
1751:
1697:
1319:
606:
313:
275:
161:
55:
2466:
2444:
2425:
2406:
2388:
2065:
2045:
2030:
1993:
1978:
1941:
1908:
1865:
1830:
1812:
1792:
1728:
1705:
1670:
1605:
1560:
1478:
1455:
1421:
1399:
1348:
1322:
1087:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
982:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
470:, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
2463:
2403:
1989:
1808:
1666:
1556:
1547:
1527:
1451:
1395:
966:
320:
70:
2384:
2061:
2041:
2026:
1535:
1366:
1186:
675:
638:
600:
211:
51:
2314:
1370:
2436:
2128:
1930:
1854:
1849:
1720:
1684:
problem that these alternatives were treated hypothetically or "according to imagination."
1510:
979:
960:
731:
471:
1526:
But you ask whether there was any immediate increase in science after the Condemnations.
437:
416:
2269:
1651:
2. It had positive effects on scientific thought, and represented the birth of science.
770:
713:
555:
1284:
1268:
835:
814:
2479:
2339:
1985:
1804:
1662:
1552:
1543:
1514:
1506:
1447:
1391:
1071:
667:
324:
2086:
deny God's Providence or present the Aristotelian "Unmoved Mover" as the true God."?
1369:" (up to AD 1000); the Condemnations of Paris, on the other hand, took place in the
2380:
2057:
2037:
2022:
1539:
737:
1972:
is incomplete, giving no author/date of publication/date of URL access. Mahalo,
1531:
766:
447:
1882:
We seem to agree on avoiding parentheses and on being more specific than mere
1487:
1199:
1176:
1061:
956:
841:
692:
443:
1886:. We can either specify by place or by time. As I've thought about this,
1055:
1034:
347:
328:
284:
2413:
Murdoch, and a wide range of early (say pre-1960) historians of philosophy.
2014:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
1580:
1. Some clerics condemned and prohibited some ancient scientific works.
1198:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
651:
1505:
The Church certainly did more to stimulate science than to stifle it:
1084:
762:
1170:
1139:
1779:— Seems too specific; the article discusses other condemnations
1853:
University of Paris" or "Condemnations of the 13th century".--
1803:
as the title which best reflects the scope of the article. --
379:
15:
2338:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
1283:
1267:
871:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
2321:
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
2136:
A readable, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.
1799:
of Paris" would fit well, although I would counsel for
1739:
707:
Category:Knowledge requested photographs of Catholicism
544:
539:
534:
529:
252:
2496:
Knowledge Did you know articles that are good articles
160:
1355:
Actually, what was meant was more along the lines of
346:
Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge's
1083:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
978:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1250:
1530:(contemporary with the Condemnations of 1210) and
2203:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
1578:To put it simple, the essence of this article is:
283:A fact from this article appeared on Knowledge's
594:Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1377:. This was a period of great advance in Europe.
331:and think about the physical world in new ways?
217:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
2581:Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
1538:introduced the principle of parsimony, while
1486:universally accepted in the Middle Ages (see
878:History of Science Collaboration of the Month
174:
8:
1659:Timeline of the history of scientific method
2596:Mid-importance Medieval philosophy articles
2521:Mid-importance history of science articles
1765:Philosophical condemnations (13th century)
1388:History of science and technology in China
1247:
1134:
1029:
924:
809:
563:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
517:
411:
231:
184:
2586:Philosophy of science task force articles
863:, an attempt to improve and organize the
626:Category:WikiProject invitation templates
1888:Condemnations at the University of Paris
1382:Other civilisations were of course more
887:Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science
721:Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles
590:Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles
2601:Medieval philosophy task force articles
2576:GA-Class philosophy of science articles
2526:WikiProject History of Science articles
1571:From article about Robert Grosseteste:
1136:
1031:
926:
890:Template:WikiProject History of Science
811:
413:
1742:this article's title was changed from
1208:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
2591:GA-Class Medieval philosophy articles
2491:Philosophy and religion good articles
1513:(father of modern atomic theory) and
202:Philosophy and religion good articles
7:
2516:GA-Class history of science articles
1192:This article is within the scope of
1077:This article is within the scope of
972:This article is within the scope of
385:
383:
2536:Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
2506:Mid-importance Catholicism articles
2394:Can we balance the Effects section?
2012:Talk:Condemnations of 1210–1277/GA1
1845:Condemnations (University of Paris)
1759:Condemnations (University of Paris)
1744:Condemnations (University of Paris)
672:American Board of Catholic Missions
402:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2571:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
2276:Fair representation without bias:
1365:be outdated. The correct term is "
474:. For more information, visit the
14:
2546:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
1893:Condemnations of the 13th century
992:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle Ages
484:Knowledge:WikiProject Catholicism
210:. If you can improve it further,
2511:WikiProject Catholicism articles
2364:
2343:
2326:
2298:
2277:
2254:
2242:
2221:
2204:
2191:
2164:
2148:
1771:Condemnations of Aristotelianism
1750:. As it stands the title lacks
1643:To refine your simplified logic:
1214:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
1179:
1169:
1138:
1064:
1054:
1033:
995:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages
959:
949:
928:
844:
834:
813:
624:Invitation template needed, see
554:
487:Template:WikiProject Catholicism
446:
436:
415:
384:
339:
274:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1761:— Returning to the former title
1375:Renaissance of the 12th century
1234:This article has been rated as
1217:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
1117:This article has been rated as
1012:This article has been rated as
907:This article has been rated as
504:This article has been rated as
319:are cited by historians as the
2556:Low-importance France articles
1994:18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
1582:2. It gave a birth to science.
875:. You can also help with the
860:History of Science WikiProject
725:Category:Catholic Church stubs
198:has been listed as one of the
1:
2531:GA-Class Middle Ages articles
2501:GA-Class Catholicism articles
1979:22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
1734:Needs a more meaningful title
1091:and see a list of open tasks.
986:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2566:GA-Class Philosophy articles
2561:All WikiProject France pages
2389:21:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
2365:
2344:
2327:
2299:
2278:
2255:
2243:
2222:
2205:
2192:
2165:
2149:
2066:20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
2046:20:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
2031:20:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
1097:Knowledge:WikiProject France
857:This article is part of the
2467:21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
2445:00:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
2426:21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
2407:04:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
1942:12:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
1909:22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
1866:17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
1831:15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
1813:10:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
1793:20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
1729:19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
1621:Days that Changed the World
1323:23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1100:Template:WikiProject France
893:history of science articles
660:Bishop Adolph John Paschang
656:Roman Catholicism in Kosovo
304:The text of the entry was:
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2617:
2190:A. References to sources:
2134:
1897:Condemnations of 1210-1277
1801:Condemnations of 1210-1277
1706:14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1671:13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1606:01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1561:23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1479:07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1456:16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1422:11:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1400:17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1349:15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1328:Ethnocentric Point of View
1240:project's importance scale
1123:project's importance scale
1018:project's importance scale
913:project's importance scale
510:project's importance scale
461:Condemnations of 1210–1277
196:Condemnations of 1210–1277
25:Condemnations of 1210–1277
2541:GA-Class history articles
2318:to illustrate the topic?
1291:
1275:
1246:
1233:
1164:
1116:
1049:
1011:
944:
906:
852:History of science portal
829:
759:Archbishop of Westminster
516:
503:
431:
410:
306:Did you know ...that the
234:
230:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2551:GA-Class France articles
1984:Amended accordingly. --
1929:That seems fine to me.--
1373:, following on from the
789:for Catholicism articles
2486:Knowledge good articles
2142:reasonably well written
1251:Associated task forces:
975:WikiProject Middle Ages
467:WikiProject Catholicism
464:is within the scope of
1970:Catholic Encyclopaedia
1843:I moved the page from
1446:academic research. --
1288:
1272:
1195:WikiProject Philosophy
755:Archdiocese of Glasgow
521:Catholicism task list:
454:Catholic Church portal
392:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
2236:broad in its coverage
1777:Condemnations of 1277
1509:(father of geology),
1287:
1277:Philosophy of science
1271:
775:Westminster Cathedral
742:John Aloysius Maguire
309:Condemnations of 1277
208:good article criteria
100:Neutral point of view
2460:Knowledge:Quotations
2218:No original research
2072:Condemnation of 1270
1956:Notes and references
1773:— Seems overly broad
998:Middle Ages articles
689:Americanism (heresy)
490:Catholicism articles
260:Good article nominee
105:No original research
2323:fair use rationales
2297:No edit wars, etc:
1783:Comments please --
1293:Medieval philosophy
1220:Philosophy articles
607:Blessed Virgin Mary
314:University of Paris
2241:A. Major aspects:
2179:factually accurate
2147:A. Prose quality:
1767:— Fits fairly well
1548:Oxford Calculators
1528:Robert Grosseteste
1289:
1273:
1205:general discussion
1080:WikiProject France
967:Middle Ages portal
884:History of Science
865:history of science
821:History of Science
398:content assessment
235:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
2350:Well-illustrated.
2340:suitable captions
2333:Well-illustrated.
2036:Starting review.
1939:
1863:
1608:
1596:comment added by
1536:William of Ockham
1492:De revolutionibus
1481:
1469:comment added by
1424:
1412:comment added by
1367:Early Middle Ages
1351:
1339:comment added by
1310:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1187:Philosophy portal
1133:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1023:
923:
922:
919:
918:
808:
807:
804:
803:
800:
799:
796:
795:
664:Cum sæpe accidere
639:Cuthbert Tunstall
378:
377:
323:, as they forced
269:
268:
226:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2608:
2368:
2367:
2347:
2346:
2330:
2329:
2302:
2301:
2281:
2280:
2258:
2257:
2246:
2245:
2225:
2224:
2211:Well-referenced.
2208:
2207:
2198:Well-referenced.
2195:
2194:
2168:
2167:
2152:
2151:
2052:Initial comments
1976:
1968:citation to the
1937:
1861:
1714:Little Green Men
1591:
1551:Middle Ages. --
1464:
1407:
1371:High Middle Ages
1334:
1258:
1248:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1173:
1166:
1165:
1160:
1157:
1142:
1135:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1058:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1037:
1030:
1000:
999:
996:
993:
990:
969:
964:
963:
953:
946:
945:
940:
932:
925:
895:
894:
891:
888:
885:
854:
849:
848:
847:
838:
831:
830:
825:
817:
810:
569:Article requests
558:
551:
550:
518:
492:
491:
488:
485:
482:
456:
451:
450:
440:
433:
432:
427:
419:
412:
395:
389:
388:
387:
380:
343:
321:birth of science
278:
255:
253:November 2, 2009
232:
215:
192:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2616:
2615:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2476:
2475:
2396:
2121:
2119:Overall summary
2054:
2006:This review is
2002:
1974:
1958:
1736:
1716:
1511:Roger Boscovich
1384:technologically
1330:
1315:
1313:Papal Authority
1256:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1185:
1180:
1178:
1158:
1148:
1103:France articles
1102:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1070:
1065:
1063:
1043:
997:
994:
991:
988:
987:
980:the Middle Ages
965:
958:
938:
892:
889:
886:
883:
882:
850:
845:
843:
823:
792:
549:
489:
486:
483:
480:
479:
472:Catholic Church
452:
445:
425:
396:on Knowledge's
393:
334:
333:
302:
251:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2614:
2612:
2604:
2603:
2598:
2593:
2588:
2583:
2578:
2573:
2568:
2563:
2558:
2553:
2548:
2543:
2538:
2533:
2528:
2523:
2518:
2513:
2508:
2503:
2498:
2493:
2488:
2478:
2477:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2429:
2428:
2418:SteveMcCluskey
2414:
2395:
2392:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2363:Pass or Fail:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2120:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2076:
2075:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2017:
2016:
2001:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1957:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1901:SteveMcCluskey
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1823:SteveMcCluskey
1816:
1815:
1785:SteveMcCluskey
1781:
1780:
1774:
1768:
1762:
1735:
1732:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1698:SteveMcCluskey
1694:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1674:
1673:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1625:
1624:
1615:
1614:
1586:
1583:
1581:
1579:
1577:
1575:
1566:
1564:
1563:
1523:
1522:
1502:
1501:
1496:
1495:
1461:
1459:
1458:
1442:
1441:
1431:
1430:
1414:59.101.231.132
1403:
1402:
1379:
1378:
1361:
1360:
1341:131.194.226.35
1329:
1326:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1290:
1280:
1279:
1274:
1264:
1263:
1261:
1259:
1253:
1252:
1244:
1243:
1236:Mid-importance
1232:
1226:
1225:
1223:
1191:
1190:
1174:
1162:
1161:
1159:Mid‑importance
1143:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1119:Low-importance
1115:
1109:
1108:
1106:
1089:the discussion
1076:
1075:
1059:
1047:
1046:
1044:Low‑importance
1038:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1014:Mid-importance
1010:
1004:
1003:
1001:
984:the discussion
971:
970:
954:
942:
941:
939:Mid‑importance
933:
921:
920:
917:
916:
909:Mid-importance
905:
899:
898:
896:
856:
855:
839:
827:
826:
824:Mid‑importance
818:
806:
805:
802:
801:
798:
797:
794:
793:
791:
790:
787:recent changes
777:
771:Sanctification
744:
727:
709:
695:
678:
676:Bernard Häring
641:
628:
614:
596:
578:
576:Draft articles
562:
560:
559:
548:
547:
542:
537:
532:
526:
523:
522:
514:
513:
506:Mid-importance
502:
496:
495:
493:
458:
457:
441:
429:
428:
426:Mid‑importance
420:
408:
407:
401:
390:
376:
375:
354:On this day...
344:
336:
335:
303:
298:April 21, 2008
282:
281:
279:
271:
270:
267:
266:
263:
256:
248:
247:
244:
241:
237:
236:
228:
227:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2613:
2602:
2599:
2597:
2594:
2592:
2589:
2587:
2584:
2582:
2579:
2577:
2574:
2572:
2569:
2567:
2564:
2562:
2559:
2557:
2554:
2552:
2549:
2547:
2544:
2542:
2539:
2537:
2534:
2532:
2529:
2527:
2524:
2522:
2519:
2517:
2514:
2512:
2509:
2507:
2504:
2502:
2499:
2497:
2494:
2492:
2489:
2487:
2484:
2483:
2481:
2468:
2465:
2461:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2401:
2393:
2391:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2370:
2369:
2362:
2361:
2359:
2356:
2349:
2348:
2341:
2337:
2332:
2331:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2317:
2316:
2310:
2304:
2303:
2296:
2295:
2293:
2289:
2283:
2282:
2275:
2274:
2272:
2271:
2266:
2260:
2259:
2252:
2248:
2247:
2240:
2239:
2237:
2233:
2227:
2226:
2219:
2215:
2210:
2209:
2202:
2197:
2196:
2189:
2188:
2186:
2185:
2180:
2176:
2170:
2169:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2153:
2146:
2145:
2143:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2133:
2132:
2130:
2127:review – see
2126:
2118:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2097:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2085:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2073:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2021:
2015:
2013:
2009:
2004:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1977:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1955:
1943:
1940:
1934:
1932:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1885:
1884:Condemnations
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1867:
1864:
1858:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1778:
1775:
1772:
1769:
1766:
1763:
1760:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1753:
1749:
1748:Condemnations
1745:
1741:
1733:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1713:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1689:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1636:
1635:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1616:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1589:
1572:
1569:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1544:Nicole Oresme
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1515:Gregor Mendel
1512:
1508:
1507:Nicolas Steno
1504:
1503:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1432:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1327:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1312:
1294:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1188:
1177:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1124:
1120:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1107:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1073:
1072:France portal
1062:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1019:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1002:
985:
981:
977:
976:
968:
962:
957:
955:
952:
948:
947:
943:
937:
934:
931:
927:
914:
910:
904:
901:
900:
897:
880:
879:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:
853:
842:
840:
837:
833:
832:
828:
822:
819:
816:
812:
788:
784:
782:
778:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:
751:
750:
745:
743:
739:
736:
734:
733:
728:
726:
722:
718:
716:
715:
710:
708:
704:
702:
701:
696:
694:
690:
687:
685:
684:
679:
677:
673:
669:
668:Altar Society
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
648:
647:
642:
640:
637:
635:
634:
629:
627:
623:
621:
620:
615:
612:
608:
605:
603:
602:
597:
595:
591:
587:
585:
584:
579:
577:
573:
571:
570:
565:
564:
561:
557:
553:
552:
546:
543:
541:
538:
536:
533:
531:
528:
527:
525:
524:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
501:
498:
497:
494:
477:
473:
469:
468:
463:
462:
455:
449:
444:
442:
439:
435:
434:
430:
424:
421:
418:
414:
409:
405:
399:
391:
382:
381:
373:
372:March 7, 2023
369:
368:March 7, 2022
365:
364:March 7, 2020
361:
360:March 7, 2018
357:
355:
349:
345:
342:
338:
337:
332:
330:
326:
322:
316:
315:
311:
310:
300:
299:
294:
292:
291:Did you know?
286:
280:
277:
273:
272:
264:
262:
261:
257:
254:
250:
249:
245:
242:
239:
238:
233:
229:
224:
222:
221:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
197:
194:
191:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2397:
2377:
2357:
2312:
2291:
2268:
2253:B. Focused:
2235:
2182:
2178:
2163:compliance:
2141:
2135:
2131:for criteria
2123:
2122:
2095:
2083:
2071:
2055:
2019:
2018:
2005:
1969:
1959:
1896:
1892:
1887:
1883:
1800:
1782:
1776:
1770:
1764:
1758:
1747:
1743:
1737:
1717:
1620:
1598:59.154.63.92
1573:
1570:
1565:
1540:Jean Buridan
1491:
1471:59.154.63.92
1460:
1436:
1404:
1383:
1356:
1331:
1316:
1235:
1203:
1193:
1118:
1078:
1013:
973:
908:
876:
869:project page
858:
780:
779:
747:
746:
730:
729:
712:
711:
698:
697:
681:
680:
644:
643:
631:
630:
617:
616:
599:
598:
581:
580:
567:
566:
505:
476:project page
465:
460:
459:
404:WikiProjects
351:
327:to question
318:
307:
305:
296:
288:
258:
218:
216:
212:please do so
200:
199:
195:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2008:transcluded
1592:—Preceding
1532:Roger Bacon
1465:—Preceding
1408:—Preceding
1335:—Preceding
989:Middle Ages
936:Middle Ages
767:Saint Mungo
738:Peer review
619:Collaborate
481:Catholicism
423:Catholicism
148:free images
31:not a forum
2480:Categories
2458:the essay
2437:Rwflammang
2184:verifiable
1975:Skomorokh
1931:Cúchullain
1855:Cúchullain
1721:Rwflammang
1587:From this
1519:whole list
1211:Philosophy
1200:philosophy
1146:Philosophy
873:discussion
693:Ensoulment
358:column on
317:(pictured)
295:column on
206:under the
2464:Sebastian
2404:Sebastian
2110:citation?
2020:Reviewer:
2000:GA Review
1752:precision
611:talk page
609:(see the
348:Main Page
329:Aristotle
285:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
2313:contain
2311:Does it
2129:WP:WIAGA
1986:Grimhelm
1850:WP:NCDAB
1805:Grimhelm
1740:December
1663:Grimhelm
1594:unsigned
1553:Grimhelm
1521:exists).
1467:unsigned
1448:Grimhelm
1410:unsigned
1392:Grimhelm
1337:unsigned
1320:Joey1898
1155:Medieval
633:Copyedit
394:GA-class
325:scholars
220:reassess
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2400:Effects
2381:Pyrotec
2358:Overall
2270:neutral
2096:Effects
2084:present
2058:Pyrotec
2038:Pyrotec
2023:Pyrotec
1238:on the
1151:Science
1121:on the
1016:on the
911:on the
652:Angelus
601:Cleanup
535:history
508:on the
350:in the
312:at the
287:in the
243:Process
154:WP refs
142:scholar
2315:images
2292:stable
2290:Is it
2267:Is it
2234:Is it
2177:Is it
2140:Is it
1437:effect
1357:modern
1094:France
1085:France
1041:France
785:Watch
763:Bishop
749:Verify
732:Update
646:Expand
583:Assess
400:scale.
370:, and
265:Listed
246:Result
126:Google
2010:from
1738:Last
781:Other
714:Stubs
700:Photo
545:purge
540:watch
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2441:talk
2422:talk
2385:talk
2181:and
2062:talk
2042:talk
2027:talk
1990:talk
1966:this
1962:this
1905:talk
1827:talk
1809:talk
1789:talk
1725:talk
1702:talk
1667:talk
1602:talk
1557:talk
1542:and
1488:here
1475:talk
1452:talk
1418:talk
1396:talk
1345:talk
719:see
705:see
683:NPOV
588:see
574:see
530:edit
240:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
2398:In
2216:C.
2161:MoS
2159:B.
1895:or
1746:to
1230:Mid
1113:Low
1008:Mid
903:Mid
500:Mid
176:TWL
2482::
2443:)
2424:)
2387:)
2360::
2342::
2325::
2294:?
2273:?
2238:?
2220::
2187:?
2144:?
2125:GA
2064:)
2044:)
2029:)
1992:)
1907:)
1829:)
1811:)
1791:)
1727:)
1704:)
1669:)
1657:("
1604:)
1559:)
1477:)
1454:)
1420:)
1398:)
1347:)
1318:--
1257:/
1153:/
1149::
773:;
769:;
765:;
761:;
757:;
740:;
723:;
691:;
674:;
670:;
666:;
662:;
658:;
654:;
592:;
366:,
362:,
223:it
214:.
156:)
54:;
2439:(
2420:(
2383:(
2098:-
2074:-
2060:(
2040:(
2025:(
1988:(
1938:c
1935:/
1903:(
1862:c
1859:/
1825:(
1807:(
1787:(
1723:(
1700:(
1665:(
1623::
1600:(
1555:(
1473:(
1450:(
1416:(
1394:(
1343:(
1242:.
1125:.
1020:.
915:.
881:.
783::
752::
735::
717::
703::
686::
649::
636::
622::
613:)
604::
586::
572::
512:.
478:.
406::
374:.
356:"
352:"
301:.
293:"
289:"
225:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
