Talk:Synergism

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Lutheranism / Arminianism / Methodism / Evangelical Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism. This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Methodism work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as High-importance). 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

VERY one-sided. 151.185.60.250 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above poster. I've flagged this article for NPOV checking. The issues are, as I can see them:

• Too much emphasis on Calvinist critique of Arminian theology, with no information about how the Arminians view the critiqued ideas
• No emphasis at all on the "important part" synergy plays in Eastern Orthodox theology, despite having a sentence about it

Could most of this article be merged into another article on Calvinism? 64.80.108.55 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a first attempt to remedy the second of the above complaints. I disagree with the other, since the Arminian (and Wesleyan) view is given more space than the Calvinist critique of it. Esoglou (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Telikalive: Wondering if it would be okay to restore a more precise location for the quote from: Horton, Michael (2011). The Christian Faith. I purposely found and added the free-to-read link because I was interested to see the context of the quote. Other readers might be too. Originally the quote was cited as "{{sfn}}Horton|2011|loc=Ch. The dogma is the Drama", but I could not find the quote in that chapter, which runs from approx. pp. 2–32 (or by Internet Archive count pp. 9–39]). I found it much further on.

Because this online edition I linked to is unpaginated (i.e. no page numbers appear on the work itself), I added both the overarching chapter title (in the reference list) and chapter section name within the cite itself. It's usually considered best practice to use locators other than page numbers in these situations. Linking to the precise point in the source is good practice too. My cite followed Template:Sfn § Additional comments or quotes and Adding a URL for the page or location. Currently there's no link included in the article directly to the quoted material (and the use of |ps=. for inclusions of quotes is deprecated – or at least that's my understanding from Template:Sfn, which may be wrong!) It's not compulsory, of course, but could be handy. What do you think? AukusRuckus (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AukusRuckus I restored your way of doing though I don't like it. In your way of doing there is one url in sfn, and one url in the sources chapter. In my version there is only one url in the sources chapter. I prefer it for the purpose of maintainability. If the url changes, it changes only in one point. ---Telikalive (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]