Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Conditional preservation of the saints

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conditional preservation of the saints. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for improving links(talk) 12:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)ClassArm[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conditional preservation of the saints. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page size

This page currently has 421,261 bytes of markup code. That's too by by far. What's the best way t split it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are only about 31,000 characters of readable prose in the article body, per XTools, so I don't think splitting the article is advisable. The problem is all the footnotes in support of each position. I have not seen so many detailed notes in any other article. Indyguy (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the bulk is in body for footnote is irrelevant to someone on slow connection, or a metered mobile service. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Onetwothreeip, David Schroder, and ClassArm: Hello guys, I don't feel directly concerned about the size of the file itself, but the article doesn't seems to comply with encyclopedia standards (notes are too long). I'm well placed to say it because I recently tempted to translate its 421,261 bytes as is into french (it took a while). But eventually, I was asked to rebuilt the article differently. Actually, the "Biblical support" session contains correct information :
Biblical verses (primary sources) are associated with comments (in notes) made by Arminian theologians (secondary sources) showing how their own interpretation of these verses supports their view. This content has already been discussed here and is valid in itself, but not the way it is presented : The notes should be completely summarized and shifted into the body of the article which should only refers to the bible verses numbers and the references of the secondary sources. ----Telikalive (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting the notes (that have been summarized) into the body of the article seems fair enough. Of course, that will take a lot of time to do it well. I will give it a try when I am able.ClassArm (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ClassArm: Thank you for your current revision of the article. I have a remark : The way your are shaping the article right now, is really better than the former one. It presents now a better character of readability and accessibility. Presented like that your article would be extremely useful on a website like http://evangelicalarminians.org/. I encourage you to propose it to be posted there, because it's a wonderful apologetic article. An apologetic article has the purpose to give as many as possible relevant arguments in order to CONVINCE that conditional preservation is true. An encyclopaedic article has the purpose to explain in a synthetic way what is the conditional preservation and why some Arminians believe in it.
Having said that, I think there are still 2 remaining problems with your new article: WP:LONGQUOTE, WP:QUOTEFARM. As I said above, I already attempted to translate your article in French: The biblical support chapter was judged "inappropriate in an encyclopaedia" and then simply deleted. I would recommend to simply remove this chapter. I know it's very difficult, but ideally I would replace it by a chapter written with your own words, simply listing only the main arguments Arminian theologians use to justify their position. In the notes you would just mention the passage reference in the book of your Arminian author (secondary source), and the bible verse reference only (primary source). The chapter apostasy also should be suppressed or summed up because it is in double with Apostasy in Christianity. On the other hand, Apostasy in Christianity on which you contributed has exactly the same characteristic problems. For your information I re-opened the Wikipedia:WikiProject Arminianism in order to increase the number of assessed articles and to improve those requiring it. ---Telikalive (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Length/structure of "Biblical support" section

I just added Template:Very long section to the "Biblical support" section. I see the discussion from last year, which explains (I think) why so much of the text is in the article body rather than in footnotes. But @Telikalive's comments from that discussion are still relevant - we should replace the long paragraphs of quotation with encyclopedic prose that summarizes the arguments made for this position, with references to the relevant Biblical passages and theological/scholarly sources. Ideally this process will also help to focus the section on the most notable passages/arguments on this topic - I don't know which those are, and the fact that at the moment this section has, e.g., almost 8,000 words on the Epistle to the Hebrews alone, the vast majority of which are quotations, makes it difficult to come away from the article with a good understanding of which the salient points are. --Opus 113 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints