Contents

Talk:Verbal plenary preservation

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

Christianity: Bible / Theology High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance).

voluminous and inappropriate at times[edit]

For a wiki page marked 'low importance', the content here is voluminous and inappropriate at times: the first half is written like a journal paper, while the second half seems to deal with the history of a localised incidence in Singapore, losing focus on the doctrine itself. Might I suggest summarising the first half of the content, while splitting off the second half into another wiki page specifically to address the incident? Also, I noticed there is only one main contributor to this page. It is easy to see that he disagrees with the 'Life BPC' position described in the second half. If it is difficult to maintain a neutral tone, might I suggest asking a representative from that church to help? Sagatreecity (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest summarizing the first half of the content, while dropping entirely the second half as local trivia. tahc ^chat 17:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.truth.sg/evidentialreview.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators willbeblocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any coverage of why this is unrealistic, using independent sources. —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]