Those sources might be interesting to those working on the Unitarianism and Trinity articles, but in general I agree that it's a little much for this one. The manner in which it's presented is also problematic-it would appear the statements are being made "in Wikipedia's voice", not in the source's voice. This could be solved by properly attributing the claims rather than stating them as simple fact-"X, Y, and Z conclude that ABC...", not just "ABC is how it is." I think that the texts, being sourced, are worth a short mention here, but with more NPOV work done to them.