Talk:Theopoetics

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notable Books

Added Rubem Alves' book "The Poet The Prophet The Warrior". One of the most crucial and imaginitive books in theopoetics imo. Do others agree with addition? Parsleysoup 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Have also added Stanley Hopper's collected essays "The Way of Transfiguration". The list seemed crying out for this key text. Parsleysoup 09:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As well as some others which I'll add since I see others are interested in fleshing the entry out some. Glad to see the interest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCKeefe (talk • contribs) 11:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment on whether John O'Donohue, Irish author of Anamchara and Divine Beauty should also appear on booklist? I'm undecided - it's sometimes difficult to determine where *theopoetics* as a classification ends and certain authors who might popularly be classified under general *spirituality* begin. Theopoeisis by its nature is partly concerned with liberation from constraints of conventional theological academe. And so, are there any philosopher poets who could also be classified as theopoets? Too many questions...sorry. I'm a newbie at Wiki. Parsleysoup 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki warning

Don't get the "warning Label" on this article. What is the problem with this piece, not dumbed-down enough for the typical Wikipedia reader? Or for one editor, perhaps with a theological axe to grind? It's four paragraphs long, for God's sake, and anyone who looks up an article entitled "Theopoetics" is going to expect some meat. I ,for one, would like to see it developed further and (gasp!) even at a technical level beyond the grasp of the average american high school student.156.99.40.14 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? Definition! Lead is a mess.

Piling up lots of obscure specialty terms on top of names of scholars unknown to anyone outside the field is anti-encyclopedic and dumb. I arrived here from Sarramago, with little interest in going in-depth, and got little to nothing about what the term means from the lead paragraph. And that is and remains the benchmark by which an article is measured in a general-interest encyclopedia. Arminden (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]