Talk:Sosthenes

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Saints Low‑importance

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars 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.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Untitled

Is this entry necessary for a general interest encyclopaedia? Just because Easton's public domain 1800s Christian encyclopaedia has thousands of entries doesn't mean that this encyclopaedia needs to do so. If we followed this kind of micro-entry format, we'd end up with thousands of tiny entries for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I totally agree that Wikipedia needs many comprehensive articles on religion, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a religious dictionary or encyclopaedia. All I am asking is that we make sure that our entries are comprehensive, and not unnecessarily fractured into micro-entries. Sub-entries should only be created when there is a compelling need to do so. RK

Wikipedia is an excellent source of "information" and in some of the instances I have used it for, "knowledge". However, how can anyone objectively determine how much information is too much information on a given subject? Only the person seeking that information can decide that. FE.

What larger article should "Sosthenes" go into? Not "Acts", not "Corinthians", not "Paul". Sosthenes is a discrete historical figure. Even if he is deemed to be fictional, there are plenty of articles on minor literary characters from books read by far fewer people. matturn 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Eastern Christianity Series?

Is there a reason this minor New Testament figure should be part of the Eastern Christianity series? Thank you --64.56.107.126 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. If he has a special meaning in Eastern Christianity that he doesn't have in other traditions, this should be mentioned in the article. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why the article attributes the attack on Sosthenes to the Greeks when the passage of Acts 18:14-17 does not lend credence to this statement. It seems that in the context of the verses cited that it was the Jews who brought their complaint against Paul to Gallio and were ultimately rebuffed took out their frustration on Sosthenes. Jreynozo (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sosthenes. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519214016/http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20021207/003367.html to http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20021207/003367.html

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) 12:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]