This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Actual sin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
Mike, not sure why the article was reverted. Please let me know.
- NW
This article is rather hilariously neo-con. Puhlease- someone work on it! It needs some contemporary Catholic and Christian theologizing ...instead of simply trotting out Tridentine neo-scholasticism (I'm not even sure it is modern enough to be Thomistic- but maybe scrapes in)....oh dear
Cor Unum 11:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This article only has one outside link for the whole thing, and in general needs to be rewritten. It strikes me as lacking any sort of objectivity, and just describes elements of religion as facts. I think the neutrality thing would be mostly resolved if the contents of the article were rewritten in a way that makes it clear that these guidelines are the beliefs of Christianity, rather than how it currently is just thrown up as "The way things are." Maybe I'm just being overzealous here, but it practically screams to me that this was written by a fervent believer in this faith who accepted it all as fiat and was just writing it up from personal knowledge. Shikitohno ( talk) 06:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oblivious sins are sins that are common and forgivable. These sins are: (Some sins such as Avarice and Covetousness have been given other meanings.)
This material is unsubstantiated OR, but it may have a context in the future.-- Drboisclair 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats pretty much it...
115.64.216.236 ( talk) 12:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is wp:original research, wp:unsourced, and is encyclopedicly covered on articles such as Sin, Original sin and Seven deadly sins. Also, this page is obviously a wp:povfork from the Sin articles mentioned above as ThePepel-Eterni ( talk · contribs) states above, " It is just stating Catholic theology" in Talk:Actual sin#This Article is written from a Non-objective veiw-point. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 02:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Without comment on the idea that the Colonel believes the article has some sort of unstated "merit" of some kind or another, this article is a vague regurgitation of segments of Roman Catholic thought dredged out of the previously mentioned encyclopedic articles and given a name. The Colonel removed the prod. Nothing notable there or in the article. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Actual sin. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)