545:
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 Knowledge 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.
729:. The does not mean that it should repeat the primary source, in other words to become plagiaristic: but it is equally clear that history is in general the victor's version, and that it is often nationally chauvinistic - an example I quoted in a European discussion paper adopted as a basis for a revised European history in production between the French and Germans cites the absence from French history of the Battle of Agincourt, which was important for the French in that it removed the dead-wood from the aristocracy, leading to important military innovations such as the adoption of artillery which put them at the forefront of European power, and of the Battle of Bouvines in British history, which marked the apogee of British influence in Europe.
206:
1075:
265:
1888:
985:
776:
50:
477:
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.
21:
108:
81:
939:
880:
821:
1943:
1686:
118:
1353:
should summarise what they have said (with essential summaries of
Aquinas as necessary), not just regurgitate the primary source. But the deleted version is utterly pointless too. I'm not sure repeated near-blanking is appropriate since it's now contested; the article could be sent to AfD as a TNT case, but it'd be better to improve it.
255:
234:
725:- An academic fallacy has spread onto Knowledge of late, that it is tertiary. Because it allows original research and debate, however, it can rise into the secondary, and to criticise that is to devalue the original work, indeed to become dogmatic, which breaches the most fundamental principal of the Knowledge,
1375:
the article will not be TNTed by throught an AfD, as it will be considered as a topic worthy of its own article. I am not willing to go and make my own reasearch with secondary sources to make this article readable. If you want to find secondary sources and improve this article, feel free to do so. I
544:
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
1622:
Trying to resolve a content dispute by edit-warring is unacceptable. You are experienced editors and you should know better. I have reverted back to a version before this began (that version contained several empty sections, which I combined into "See also"), and full-protected the article for two
1352:
is that the article needs to be based around secondary sources. We shouldn't just summarise
Aquinas' own words (which is what the long version of this article, by its own admission, did). Aquinas' view of sacraments is obviously a notable subject on which many theologians will have written, and we
661:
contests, specifically, the references and original research tags. The references tag is because the statements are not referenced. References are not just the names of entire books, but page numbers and such. Likewise, this and the original research tags are addressed to clauses in the article
476:
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
419:
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
1421:
I sympathise; the long version was definitely inappropriate. Thanks for the refs. I don't know if I'll get a chance or not, and I'm no theologian, I just stumbled across this and thought it looked like it needed a 3rd opinion. But whoever decides to tackle the task, those refs are a good place to
504:
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
734:
The role of this article should be to précis
Aquinas' thoelogy. The sources used are in general Catholic, which does infringe NPOV, and so it should at some point be re-edited to remove dogma and expand cultural parallels. That does not completely invalidate the description, and to that end the
766:
Of late, Knowledge 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.
642:
An article on
Thomistic doctrine of the sacraments would be a nice thing, but this is just a catena of Thomistic citations. As such, it's not encyclopedic, and it's had plenty of time to get that way. Can we either have an encyclopedia article, or do something more helpful?
1777:
Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by
Knowledge
704:
references), but I expect that was going to happen had people not interfered with tags and the like. Everyone should keep in mind that there was nothing here before and now there is something. If anyone thinks something is worse than nothing they are not smart.
1808:
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.
1856:
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
1623:
weeks while you guys sort it out. Resumption of disruption after protection expires will result in blocks on involved accounts; therefore, use the talk page. I am happy to make noncontroversial changes by request while the article is protected. ~
1103:
by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a
674:
sources. But the article only quotes primary sources. That's nice to do, but it's not an adequate substitute, and makes the result original research (the selection of quotes and the interpretation of them) and unreferenced.
420:
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?
662:
like this: "The following is condensed from..." This is a sign that OR is going on. Why is this the right condensation? The interpretation of
Aquinas is a huge industry, and we are given nothing here about why this is the
690:
Yes, I've removed all tags except the cleanup one, because there is more than enough citation. This is an impressive collection - condensation - about
Aquinas' work. It does however need spacing out, and to conform to
695:
before it's really readable. I think that BradV above was very stupid to be so critical. One of the big problems some Wiki-editors have is to be critical, but not constructive: and it's always the ones who actually
590:
Now four years later this article still fails to meet
Knowledge quality standards. It reads like a blog in support of Aquinas and not like an informative about he and the sacraments. Suggest major revisions.
1517:, so it seems like there is a consensus to keep the current version in hope that one day someone provide some good content for this article (content which is not the your (A E Francis) unsourced OR).
1916:
31:
1771:
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 Knowledge.
1761:
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
2064:
1788:
This is a particularly militant statement by Aquinas, something that is not uncommon in Summa Contra Gentiles. The statement in Summa Theologica is more refined. See infra. AEF
2069:
1181:
your summaries are absolutely horrendous and unacceptable. They are a word salad of non-neutral, badly organised blocs of biased user-made summaries. They do not rely on any
1767:
Knowledge articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.
2059:
139:
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
353:
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
2054:
176:
166:
1085:
213:
91:
1786:
appears to be offering his own commentary within the article space. For example, the Confirmation#Summa Contra Gentiles section has the following:
1100:
995:
2079:
321:
311:
1048:
141:
2049:
1024:
598:
403:
is of value to Knowledge, but this article in its present form is not. This article needs to be either cleaned up to conform to Knowledge
2084:
1243:
What use is "filling out" the whole article and leaving it artificially filled with information that do not meet Knowledge's standards?
1030:
383:
This article in its present form is not suitable for inclusion in Knowledge. It is nothing but a string of quotations of very little
1549:
not to edit-war (my bad, it was not for not following BURDEN, which you did not follow anyway). Also, another user has weighted in.
1141:
966:
957:
920:
861:
802:
750:
560:
435:
368:
786:
287:
131:
86:
1384:
1189:
source for that matter. They have to be removed, there is no other way, nothing is salvageable. And so I removed them. See also
1036:
2074:
902:
1791:
1010:
1020:
509:. Please do not feel obliged to clean up the article yourself, and do not take my comments on the article personally (see
1469:. Either you source the information you add, or you do not add them. Your poorly written OR has no encyclopedical value.
61:
1105:
278:
239:
1858:
1570:
I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by adding back your stream of consciousness WP:OR every X months...
1396:
1832:
can agree to stop edit-warring, we could unprotect sooner so you can make a start on these improvements — Martin
898:
894:
27:
1302:
What is the point of editing this article completely into non-existence? It looks like vandalism. A.E.Francis
839:
602:
1119:
2024:
A.E. Francis can still participate on this talk page, but has been indef-blocked from editing the article. ~
1894:
1186:
1042:
1137:
746:
1224:
so you are choosing to ignore me and instead are restoring your unsourced, poorly written work, with your
623:
Glad you could make it back to be hypercritical and totally non-constructive after a four year absence.
2030:
1978:
1699:
1629:
1546:
1536:
1500:
1492:
1466:
1449:
1441:
628:
556:
482:
431:
364:
67:
1403:
to have an article with very few content than A E Francis' own poorly written summaries of OR that are
1133:
742:
1161:
1129:
1093:
738:
594:
548:
423:
356:
1423:
1370:
1354:
49:
20:
1772:
1762:
1589:
1427:
1358:
831:
1752:
to participate in a constructive discussion about how we can improve the quality of the article.
286:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1661:
889:
may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience
735:
placarding of the introduction is excessive, which is why I'm winnowing them to the objective.
2014:
1930:
1866:
1721:
1674:
1597:
1575:
1554:
1522:
1474:
1412:
1334:
1311:
1288:
1266:
1258:
1248:
1208:
518:
458:
408:
123:
1748:
version) should be totally rewritten. These are the problems that I see, and I would invite @
1257:
You are also, the way you write, using Knowledge as your own blog; it is not acceptable, see
2035:
2025:
2018:
2004:
1997:
1982:
1974:
1962:
1934:
1870:
1844:
1829:
1818:
1783:
1749:
1725:
1711:
1704:
1694:
1678:
1656:
The Cleansing of the Heart: The Sacraments as Instrumental Causes in the Thomistic Tradition
1642:
1634:
1624:
1601:
1585:
1579:
1565:
1558:
1540:
1532:
1526:
1509:
Please stop caracterising my attempt at removing your yearslong OR as vandalism. You do not
1504:
1496:
1488:
1478:
1460:
1453:
1445:
1437:
1431:
1416:
1379:
The Cleansing of the Heart: The Sacraments as Instrumental Causes in the Thomistic Tradition
1362:
1345:
1338:
1324:
1315:
1292:
1270:
1252:
1233:
1219:
1212:
1190:
1176:
1165:
1145:
754:
726:
718:
684:
658:
652:
632:
624:
606:
564:
552:
523:
486:
478:
463:
439:
427:
413:
372:
360:
1074:
1993:
1814:
1157:
692:
1306:
What is the point of having an article turned into your own personnal, unsourced essay?
1957:
1839:
396:
205:
2043:
1510:
1237:
700:
very little themselves. The article certainly needs more work (and yes, perhaps more
514:
510:
506:
454:
450:
404:
388:
1790:. Obviously, this is blatant original research and is not allowed on Knowledge (see
2010:
1925:
1862:
1825:
1741:
1717:
1670:
1593:
1571:
1550:
1518:
1470:
1408:
1349:
1330:
1307:
1284:
1276:
1262:
1244:
1204:
1198:
1182:
712:
707:
680:
648:
270:
984:
505:
encyclopedic value and notability. For the third time, I will include a link to
392:
1989:
1810:
400:
260:
136:
113:
1171:
What use is "wiping out" the whole article and leaving it blank? A.E.Francis
1953:
1851:
1835:
901:
any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against
1988:
Without fixing any of the problematic sourcing issues it should be noted.
1973:
I restored the version prior to the mass vandalism that occurred last year
1588:, instead of making these repeated unwarranted accusations, please read
1156:
Someone needs to sort out this article. It is not very well structured.
1915:
Please remove AfD template as I have closed the deletion discussion at
1804:
Lots of very long paragraphs. This makes the article difficult to read.
1436:
Good enough. I wish the wholesale vandalism of this article would stop.
676:
644:
135:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
1531:
Please quit making assumptions about my efforts to undo your vandalism
1378:
513:). If you feel we cannot resolve this here, perhaps we can request a
1716:
for your information, A E Francis mass reverted changes once again.
1655:
107:
80:
1487:
Your attempts of mass vandalism are not helpful in the present case
1232:
between parenthesis, and all that? Are you aware you are violating
948:
provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject
283:
1917:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology
1882:
1068:
978:
932:
873:
814:
769:
254:
233:
43:
15:
1647:
Could you do the following in the 'Further reading' section:
785:
may be in need of reorganization to comply with Knowledge's
204:
1665:("Sixth Part – The Sacraments of the Church"), pp. 245-71.
1467:
have already been warned due to you not following BURDEN
282:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1745:
1385:
Reality; a synthesis of Thomistic thought (p. 245 etc.)
1280:
1006:
953:
793:
457:. I have left a warning on your talk page as well. —
1513:this article. As another user stated, your version
187:
666:interpretation. The point is that Knowledge is a
1329:please stop edit-warring and come and discuss.
2065:Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
796:to make improvements to the overall structure.
8:
1011:introducing citations to additional sources
842:. There might be a discussion about this on
2070:Philosophy of religion task force articles
228:
184:
75:
1879:Protected edit request on 1 February 2023
1662:Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought
967:Learn how and when to remove this message
921:Learn how and when to remove this message
862:Learn how and when to remove this message
803:Learn how and when to remove this message
1001:Relevant discussion may be found on the
2060:C-Class philosophy of religion articles
1650:change "Confiramtion" to "Confirmation"
451:Don't include copies of primary sources
230:
77:
47:
1787:
1776:
1766:
1584:I see no evidence of vandalism here.
1514:
1404:
1392:
145:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
1344:Perhaps another way to look at this,
958:providing more context for the reader
7:
276:This article is within the scope of
129:This article is within the scope of
66:It is of interest to the following
2055:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
449:I suggest you read the guideline "
30:on 24 January 2023. The result of
14:
1941:
1886:
1744:that this article (based on the
1684:
1073:
1021:"Thomistic sacramental theology"
994:relies largely or entirely on a
983:
937:
878:
819:
774:
263:
253:
232:
151:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
116:
106:
79:
48:
19:
1388:if you need to start somewhere.
316:This article has been rated as
171:This article has been rated as
154:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
26:This article was nominated for
1792:Knowledge:No original research
1146:20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
755:20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
453:". And please, ease up on the
395:.) An article on the views of
373:15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
2080:Mid-importance Bible articles
1559:23:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1545:I will not add back your OR.
1541:22:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1527:02:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1505:00:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1479:00:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1454:00:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
1432:18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
1417:18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
1363:17:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
1339:17:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
1293:02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
1271:02:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
1253:02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
1213:22:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
1099:Please review the source and
565:16:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
524:05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
487:04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
464:18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
440:13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
414:05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
290:and see a list of open tasks.
1963:12:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
1935:21:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
1871:12:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
1845:12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
1819:21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
1705:22:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
1679:17:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
1635:16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
1602:17:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
1580:15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1547:You have already been warned
1515:was definitely inappropriate
1407:and potentially misleading.
1316:20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
1166:14:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
1094:Knowledge's copyright policy
903:Knowledge's inclusion policy
2050:C-Class Philosophy articles
1909:to reactivate your request.
1897:has been answered. Set the
633:02:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
607:13:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
296:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible
2101:
2085:WikiProject Bible articles
2036:20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
2019:11:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
2009:this is not how it works.
1998:03:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
1983:02:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
1726:07:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
322:project's importance scale
299:Template:WikiProject Bible
177:project's importance scale
1395:this article, I tried to
1376:suggest having a look at
1228:comments messily written
719:19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
685:21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
670:source, which must quote
657:I added some tags, which
653:21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
387:encyclopedic value. (See
315:
248:
212:
183:
170:
101:
74:
1859:WP:REMOVINGTHECHEWINGGUM
1275:Also, you are violating
1082:This article or section
1088:from another location,
188:Associated task forces:
2075:C-Class Bible articles
1969:Restored prior version
1397:WP:REMOVETHECHEWINGGUM
1002:
214:Philosophy of religion
209:
132:WikiProject Philosophy
56:This article is rated
1653:add those two works:
1281:as I explained before
208:
1775:clearly states that
1736:Total rewrite needed
1007:improve this article
832:confusing or unclear
1773:Knowledge:RSPRIMARY
1763:Knowledge:RSPRIMARY
1590:Knowledge:Vandalism
1203:what do you think?
954:improve the article
840:clarify the article
794:editing the article
762:Removal of stickers
157:Philosophy articles
210:
142:general discussion
62:content assessment
2034:
1961:
1913:
1912:
1843:
1703:
1633:
1618:Article protected
1405:utterly pointless
1152:Sort out required
1132:comment added by
1114:
1113:
1086:copied and pasted
1067:
1066:
1052:
977:
976:
969:
931:
930:
923:
872:
871:
864:
813:
812:
805:
787:layout guidelines
741:comment added by
638:Difficulties here
597:comment added by
567:
551:comment added by
442:
426:comment added by
375:
359:comment added by
336:
335:
332:
331:
328:
327:
279:WikiProject Bible
227:
226:
223:
222:
219:
218:
124:Philosophy portal
42:
41:
2092:
2028:
2008:
1951:
1949:
1945:
1944:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1904:
1900:
1890:
1889:
1883:
1855:
1833:
1715:
1697:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1646:
1627:
1569:
1464:
1374:
1328:
1223:
1202:
1180:
1148:
1124:
1118:
1109:
1106:Knowledge mirror
1092:in violation of
1077:
1069:
1062:
1059:
1053:
1051:
1015:
987:
979:
972:
965:
961:
941:
940:
933:
926:
919:
915:
912:
906:
882:
881:
874:
867:
860:
856:
853:
847:
823:
822:
815:
808:
801:
797:
778:
777:
770:
757:
727:Ignore All Rules
715:
710:
659:User:A E Francis
609:
546:
521:
517:on this topic. —
461:
455:personal attacks
421:
411:
354:
350:
349:
345:
304:
303:
300:
297:
294:
273:
268:
267:
266:
257:
250:
249:
244:
236:
229:
195:
185:
159:
158:
155:
152:
149:
126:
121:
120:
119:
110:
103:
102:
97:
94:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
2100:
2099:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2040:
2039:
2002:
1971:
1942:
1940:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1902:
1898:
1887:
1881:
1849:
1756:Sourcing issues
1746:August 20, 2022
1738:
1709:
1685:
1683:
1640:
1620:
1563:
1458:
1368:
1322:
1217:
1196:
1187:clearly defined
1174:
1154:
1127:
1122:
1116:
1110:
1098:
1078:
1063:
1057:
1054:
1016:
1000:
988:
973:
962:
951:
942:
938:
927:
916:
910:
907:
893:Please help by
892:
883:
879:
868:
857:
851:
848:
837:
824:
820:
809:
798:
792:Please help by
791:
779:
775:
764:
736:
713:
708:
640:
592:
519:
459:
409:
381:
351:
347:
343:
341:
340:
301:
298:
295:
292:
291:
269:
264:
262:
242:
193:
156:
153:
150:
147:
146:
122:
117:
115:
95:
89:
60:on Knowledge's
57:
12:
11:
5:
2098:
2096:
2088:
2087:
2082:
2077:
2072:
2067:
2062:
2057:
2052:
2042:
2041:
2022:
2021:
2000:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1911:
1910:
1891:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1806:
1805:
1796:
1795:
1780:
1769:
1765:is clear that
1740:I agree with @
1737:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1651:
1619:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1582:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1389:
1342:
1341:
1319:
1318:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1273:
1241:
1215:
1194:
1153:
1150:
1120:Unencyclopedic
1112:
1111:
1084:may have been
1081:
1079:
1072:
1065:
1064:
1058:September 2008
1014:
1005:. Please help
991:
989:
982:
975:
974:
945:
943:
936:
929:
928:
911:September 2008
886:
884:
877:
870:
869:
852:September 2008
827:
825:
818:
811:
810:
782:
780:
773:
763:
760:
759:
758:
731:
730:
722:
721:
639:
636:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
599:76.224.160.223
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
469:
468:
467:
466:
444:
443:
397:Thomas Aquinas
380:
377:
339:
337:
334:
333:
330:
329:
326:
325:
318:Mid-importance
314:
308:
307:
305:
302:Bible articles
288:the discussion
275:
274:
258:
246:
245:
243:Mid‑importance
237:
225:
224:
221:
220:
217:
216:
211:
201:
200:
198:
196:
190:
189:
181:
180:
173:Mid-importance
169:
163:
162:
160:
128:
127:
111:
99:
98:
96:Mid‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2097:
2086:
2083:
2081:
2078:
2076:
2073:
2071:
2068:
2066:
2063:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2048:
2047:
2045:
2038:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2006:
2001:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1968:
1964:
1959:
1955:
1948:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1929:
1918:
1908:
1905:parameter to
1896:
1892:
1885:
1884:
1878:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1853:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1841:
1837:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1779:
1774:
1770:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1753:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1735:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1701:
1696:
1691:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1669:
1664:
1663:
1658:
1657:
1652:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1631:
1626:
1617:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1567:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1462:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:near-blanking
1390:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1372:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1326:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1221:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1200:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1178:
1173:
1172:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1151:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1125:
1121:
1107:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1070:
1061:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:Find sources:
1012:
1008:
1004:
998:
997:
996:single source
992:This article
990:
986:
981:
980:
971:
968:
959:
955:
949:
946:This article
944:
935:
934:
925:
922:
914:
904:
900:
896:
890:
887:This article
885:
876:
875:
866:
863:
855:
845:
844:the talk page
841:
835:
833:
828:This article
826:
817:
816:
807:
804:
795:
789:
788:
783:This article
781:
772:
771:
768:
761:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
733:
732:
728:
724:
723:
720:
717:
716:
711:
703:
699:
694:
689:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
673:
669:
665:
660:
655:
654:
650:
646:
637:
635:
634:
630:
626:
608:
604:
600:
596:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
525:
522:
516:
512:
508:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
489:A. E. Francis
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
465:
462:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
407:or deleted. —
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
378:
376:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
346:
338:
323:
319:
313:
310:
309:
306:
289:
285:
281:
280:
272:
261:
259:
256:
252:
251:
247:
241:
238:
235:
231:
215:
207:
203:
202:
199:
197:
192:
191:
186:
182:
178:
174:
168:
165:
164:
161:
144:
143:
138:
134:
133:
125:
114:
112:
109:
105:
104:
100:
93:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
2023:
1972:
1946:
1920:
1914:
1906:
1895:edit request
1861:in general.
1807:
1799:Style issues
1798:
1797:
1755:
1754:
1739:
1689:
1660:
1654:
1621:
1400:
1383:
1377:
1343:
1301:
1229:
1225:
1185:, or on any
1155:
1128:— Preceding
1126:
1115:
1089:
1083:
1055:
1045:
1039:
1033:
1027:
1017:
993:
963:
952:Please help
947:
917:
908:
895:spinning off
888:
858:
849:
843:
838:Please help
829:
799:
784:
765:
737:— Preceding
706:
701:
697:
671:
667:
663:
656:
641:
622:
593:— Preceding
385:encyclopedia
384:
382:
352:
317:
277:
271:Bible portal
172:
140:
130:
68:WikiProjects
35:
2026:Anachronist
2005:A E Francis
1975:A E Francis
1830:A E Francis
1784:A E Francis
1782:In places,
1750:A E Francis
1712:Anachronist
1695:Anachronist
1643:Anachronist
1625:Anachronist
1586:A E Francis
1566:A E Francis
1533:A E Francis
1497:A E Francis
1489:A E Francis
1461:A E Francis
1446:A E Francis
1438:A E Francis
1346:A E Francis
1325:A E Francis
1220:A E Francis
1177:A E Francis
1134:87.64.11.66
1101:remedy this
743:87.64.11.66
625:A E Francis
553:A E Francis
547:—Preceding
479:A E Francis
428:A E Francis
422:—Preceding
361:A E Francis
355:—Preceding
2044:Categories
1899:|answered=
1259:WP:NOTBLOG
1230:and signed
1158:Contaldo80
1031:newspapers
899:relocating
834:to readers
401:sacraments
379:Notability
148:Philosophy
137:philosophy
87:Philosophy
1950:— Martin
1424:Elemimele
1371:Elemimele
1355:Elemimele
1234:WP:BURDEN
1191:WP:BURDEN
1003:talk page
672:secondary
405:standards
1778:editors.
1399:. It is
1391:I am no
1142:contribs
1130:unsigned
1090:possibly
751:contribs
739:unsigned
702:specific
693:WP:STYLE
668:tertiary
595:unsigned
561:contribs
549:unsigned
436:contribs
424:unsigned
369:contribs
357:unsigned
92:Religion
28:deletion
2011:Veverve
1927:Raydann
1863:Veverve
1826:Veverve
1742:Veverve
1718:Veverve
1671:Veverve
1594:Maproom
1572:Veverve
1551:Veverve
1519:Veverve
1471:Veverve
1422:start.
1409:Veverve
1350:Veverve
1331:Veverve
1308:Veverve
1285:Veverve
1263:Veverve
1245:Veverve
1205:Veverve
1199:Pbritti
1043:scholar
830:may be
399:on the
320:on the
175:on the
58:C-class
1659:; and
1511:WP:OWN
1401:better
1238:WP:OWN
515:WP:RFC
511:WP:OWN
507:WP:NPS
389:WP:NPS
342:": -->
64:scale.
1990:Ltwin
1903:|ans=
1893:This
1828:and @
1811:Ltwin
1277:WP:OR
1183:WP:RS
1049:JSTOR
1037:books
698:write
664:right
520:BradV
460:BradV
410:BradV
293:Bible
284:Bible
240:Bible
2031:talk
2015:talk
1994:talk
1979:talk
1958:talk
1954:MSGJ
1947:Done
1867:talk
1852:MSGJ
1840:talk
1836:MSGJ
1824:If @
1815:talk
1722:talk
1700:talk
1690:Done
1675:talk
1630:talk
1598:talk
1592:.
1576:talk
1555:talk
1537:talk
1523:talk
1501:talk
1493:talk
1475:talk
1465:you
1450:talk
1442:talk
1428:talk
1413:talk
1382:and
1359:talk
1348:and
1335:talk
1312:talk
1289:talk
1267:talk
1249:talk
1236:and
1209:talk
1162:talk
1138:talk
1025:news
747:talk
714:idea
681:talk
649:talk
629:talk
603:talk
557:talk
483:talk
432:talk
393:WP:N
391:and
365:talk
344:edit
36:keep
34:was
1923:❯❯❯
1901:or
1693:. ~
1226:own
1009:by
956:by
897:or
709:Wik
312:Mid
167:Mid
2046::
2017:)
1996:)
1981:)
1956:·
1919:.
1907:no
1869:)
1838:·
1817:)
1724:)
1677:)
1600:)
1578:)
1557:)
1539:)
1525:)
1503:)
1495:)
1477:)
1452:)
1444:)
1430:)
1415:)
1361:)
1337:)
1314:)
1291:)
1283:.
1279:,
1269:)
1261:.
1251:)
1211:)
1164:)
1144:)
1140:•
1123:}}
1117:{{
1023:–
753:)
749:•
683:)
677:Tb
651:)
645:Tb
631:)
605:)
563:)
559:•
485:)
438:)
434:•
371:)
367:•
194:/
90::
2033:)
2029:(
2013:(
2007::
2003:@
1992:(
1977:(
1960:)
1952:(
1865:(
1854::
1850:@
1842:)
1834:(
1813:(
1794:)
1720:(
1714::
1710:@
1702:)
1698:(
1673:(
1645::
1641:@
1632:)
1628:(
1596:(
1574:(
1568::
1564:@
1553:(
1535:(
1521:(
1499:(
1491:(
1473:(
1463::
1459:@
1448:(
1440:(
1426:(
1411:(
1373::
1369:@
1357:(
1333:(
1327::
1323:@
1310:(
1287:(
1265:(
1247:(
1240:?
1222::
1218:@
1207:(
1201::
1197:@
1193:.
1179::
1175:@
1160:(
1136:(
1108:.
1097:.
1060:)
1056:(
1046:·
1040:·
1034:·
1028:·
1013:.
999:.
970:)
964:(
960:.
950:.
924:)
918:(
913:)
909:(
905:.
891:.
865:)
859:(
854:)
850:(
846:.
836:.
806:)
800:(
790:.
745:(
679:(
647:(
627:(
601:(
555:(
481:(
430:(
363:(
348:]
324:.
179:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
