Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism

message: I provided a more direct link concerning Tim Blixseth. As for as I know he is still alive, with an article (WP:BLP) on Wikipedia, so the criteria is more stringent. While it is evident that the entry concerning abandoning his faith is probably correct, the reference does not state this (I did not see it), so it shouldn't be worded as such. I reworded the entry, along with corrections, to be more accurate according to the reference. On another note I am looking to see how this information is relevant and/or needed in this article. His parents went to a specific church but I have not seen where he espoused those beliefs in the first place let alone abandoned them. I think that if this information is actually important it should be in the article on him. Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: The use of the word tritheism to describe Trinitarianism is not NPOV, as it reflects only the opinion of some. Nontrinitarian is an accurate term, and is NPOV. While it is not unique to Oneness, and thus isn't fully explanatory, it doesn't need to be. The rest of the article explains the doctrine. BroWCarey (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tritheism? 

message: What about our/my organization which is nation wide and formed in the early 1900's.  AOH (Apostolic Overcoming Holy church of God) headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.183.189 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it? Nutster (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oneness or Jesus Name church's.   

message: per WP:BLP I have removed the entry for Tim Blixseth as a notable member of the church. The source cited makes no such claim in fact the source quotes Blixseth as saying he has no religion and the source does not link his parent's cult to Oneness.
*Source:  Tim Blixseth was raised in the Jesus Name Oneness church in Roseburg, Oregon, where his father was a minister........................... "There's one member in my religion, that's me,"......... "Based on what I went through as a kid, I don't belong to any organized religion. I'm spiritual, but I don't belong to a group." (Blixseth on religion- Accessed and Retrieved; 2011-10-20. Club Med for the multimillionaire set, New York Times Magazine, March 5, 2006.) [Comment made by User:Keithbob 19:47, 30 January 3013].
*Yes, that's my entry, sorry I forgot to sign :-(  -- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tim Blixseth

message: This article is very useful in its current form.  I'm not saying it can't be better, but I was glad to be directed here from patripassionism. Witnessforpeace (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise for article

message: I find this article to lack a lot of clarity. Even as a former UPCI, I found it difficult to navigate and understand, so I wonder how those who are researching this topic will react. The article also seems biased. Just my thoughts. 
Would someone be able to clarify the following for me: "PCI tradition" and "PAJC tradition"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastornar (talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment. Over the years, there have been editors committed to getting this article up to snuff, but as you are probably aware Oneness Pentecostalism is a controversial topic. Often, editors with good intentions quickly suffer burn out on this article simply because it is overrun by editors who make disruptive and unverified changes to the article to suit their own personal point of views. It might help us better if you gave more information on what you think is biased. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: The last couple of comments added to the talk page look like the kind of thing that could be accommodated using the WP:AFT5 feedback tool.  I am wondering what others think of adding this tool to the bottom of the article. Nutster (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have turned on the AFT5 for this article. Nutster (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, it looks like AFT5 was discontinued in 2014.  Oh, well.  Nutster (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Feedback tool AFT5? 

message: When using a Multiple issues template in an article, it is incumbent on the editor to explain details about these points in the talk page.  I do not see anything from January 2013 or more recently that points out specifics about the noted topics:  Where are extra citations needed?  Which page references are too broad?  Where in the article are the citations unclear? 
We have already had a major discussion on NPOV last year.  If you feel that the above discussion did not clear things up, please be specific about how the article is not neutral and what can be done to make it more so.
Again, this has been sitting here for almost a year.  If the discussion does not start soon, like a couple of weeks, I will clear the template from the article and be done with it.  Nutster (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments as to why this big tag has been applied, so I will remove it. Nutster (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues from January 2013 

message: I restored the deletion made by user:Musdan77 to the section Notable Adherents. The stated reason for the removal was "unsourced or non-notable content." Sources were included, so it can't be called unsourced. And I don't see how the founder of a denomination that has since grown into a worldwide movement of denominations can be considered non-notable.
Prior to future edits/revisions, can we get some feedback from others? BroWCarey (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, per WP:BRD#Discuss, don't add something back that was reverted until consensus is found for it. (2) The main problem is that it appears to be a conflict of interest. (3) A list like this should not have names of people who don't have their own WP article (WP:NLIST). (4) When you added it, you didn't give an edit summary. (5) The style is incorrect. Notice how the others have inline citations, while you used external links and a list of publications. Neither belongs there. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other people listed there who do not have their own WP articles. I notice you didn't delete any of them. Agenda? WP:NLIST does not say persons must have their own WP article to be included in a list. It simply says they must be notable. I believe notability was established. I researched conflict of interest carefully before editing, and do not believe one exists. Lack of an edit summary does not justify automatic reversion. If you didn't have the time to review my edit carefully, why not leave it for someone who does? Incorrect style  also does not demand reversion. At best, incorrect style would require simple correction, or a note on the talk page asking me to correct it. BroWCarey (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Look again. I did remove others as well. But, if you want to remove the others that don't, that's fine with me. And I didn't say "must have their own article"; I said "should". Having an article is the main way to show notability on WP for a list like this. I basically listed them in order of importance. Most of those alone would not not be a good reason to revert, but all together is definitely valid reason to. You are the one who added it, so it is incumbent on you to find consensus and/or make corrections (or ask for help if you don't know how). --Musdan77 (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced or not notable? 

message: Would someone fix a statement in Holiness standards subsection? The statement "According to standards written in the late-1990s...", might be correct as "rewritten" standards but the sentence makes it appear that Oneness standards began or were first written in the late 1990s. Otr500 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't say "rewritten" unless there's a mention of when it was "written" before. The way it is now is accurate for what info is available. But, unfortunately, unless we have the book(s) used as source(s), we can't know how accurate the text is. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate wording 

message: Many Christians baptise in Jesus name,tthis does not make them adherents to oneness pentacostalism.MMany Christians believebbaptism is critical for salvation, as is receiving the Holy Spirit.. This does not mean that they are onenessppentacostals.  Many Christians wear pants, so doooneness pentacostals.  . Notaallccorrelationsppoint to causation.
While some of these things are features of oneness pentacostal cchurches they are not that which uniquely defines their beliefs. To start downtthis road would require a very largellistof doctorines held in common with many other churches
---It has been my experience as a Pentecostal minister that, other than Oneness Pentecostals, very few Christians practice baptism in Jesus' name. The overwhelming majority of Christians baptize using the formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Although I have known a very small minority of Trinitarian Pentecostals who baptized in Jesus' name, by and large, baptism in the one name is a hallmark of Oneness Pentecostalism. As far as wearing pants, the majority of Oneness Pentecostal women do not. There are some smaller Oneness groups and individual churches that allow more freedom of dress, but the largest Oneness organizations do not.
By the way, I don't think this article intended to imply that any Christians who believe baptism is essential for salvation, or that receiving the Spirit is essential, are automatically Oneness Pentecostals. Rather, while it does contrast the Apostolic (Oneness) beliefs with those of most other Christians, it does so particularly in respect to Trinitarian Pentecostals, a great many of whom no longer believe water baptism is essential, some of whom don't believe receiving the Spirit is essential, and some of whom no longer believe that the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit is speaking in tongues. (I say "no longer," because when Pentecostal churches began to proliferate in the early 20th century, all of them believed water baptism was essential, all believed that speaking in tongues was the initial evidence, and with the exception of those denominations that had already existed as part of the holiness movement, all believed receiving the Spirit was essential. For the most part, only Oneness Pentecostals retain all of those beliefs today.)
Also, I would recommend that you check your spelling and grammar before posting. An occasional error is no big deal; we all make them. But you've got a minimum of 24 errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar in just that short passage. It makes it very difficult to read and understand. BroWCarey (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening text - baptism in Jesus Name etc 

message: Gospel singer Vestal Goodman and her family have roots in the Pentecostal Church of God, not Oneness Pentecostalism. The PCG is Trinitarian, not Oneness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.177.176 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a reference that confirms this one way or the other, please?  See WP:Reliable sources. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestal Goodman  

message: In multiple locations in the article, some recent edits have included a third parameter (Version) of 9.  e.g.  { {bibleverse|Acts|8:12|9} } The use of 9 in the Version parameter is not in the documentation for the Bibleverse template.  What is that supposed to do?  I recommended changing that parameter to match one of the documented values.  Nutster (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Bibleverse usage 

message: Modalism has long been recognised as a heresy. They can call themselves what they want, but they are not Christians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.129.6 (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they can call themselves what they want. That is the whole point, isn't it? On Wikipedia, pretty much any group that chooses to self-identify as "Christian" is accorded that label. Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints and Oneness Pentecostals alike, we give the benefit of the doubt, and group them here as Christians. Elizium23 (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

text: "After the way which they call heresy so worship I" was a badge of honor for Paul, whereas "Christian" was originally a label of derision and mockery for the early believers, not a title they chose with which to self-identify. So labels of 'orthodoxy' mean little when classifying doctrinal beliefs as biblical or not, especially when those terms are defined by Roman Catholicism. And in this case, Wikipedia is an arbiter of neither. - JGabbard (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , actually Wikipedia does decide who to categorize as "Christian", it's just a broader classification than most Christians would use. Wikipedia does not call ISKCON followers Christians, nor does it call Jews Christians. So I would say that Wikipedia is indeed an arbiter of "Christian" (as for "orthodoxy" we try to stay out of that argument, although we, of course, allow Christian Churches to self-identify as "Orthodox" as much as they like.) Elizium23 (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the broader schema of world religions which do not follow the New Testament, that is correct. My comments, however, are addressed only within the narrower framework. Individuals will always have biases, but editors should maintain an overall neutrality in doctrinal debates. - JGabbard (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

text: We had this discussion 8 years ago (see way above) with the conclusion being that if a religion or denomination self-identifies as Christian then it should be recognized in WP as Christian. Nutster (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modalists are not Christians 

message: Hello fellow editors! I am a newbie here. So go easy on me.
If you will please review the most recent edits that I have done to the Intro section I would appreciate it. I know that one fellow contributor has already voiced concern and reverted to the prior version. However, I feel that the edits are not so extravagant, nor guilty of the allegations proposed, to merit full reversion. 
Two points stick out to me:
1) The Intro section should briefly answer the question: "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe?" This can even be re-worded as "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" However, the aforementioned question is implied within the latter, in my opinion.
2) Concerning the specifics of the Oneness doctrine, it seems logical that summaries of such should come from a Oneness Theologian and not from the doctrine's opponents. In a reply to one of the critics of the edit, I used the analogy of asking a Democrat to describe the Republican Party's platform. I think we can all imagine how that might turn out and how a Republican might disagree with the word choices and presentative of the facts. 
When I stumbled upon this article I was a bit flabbergasted by the lack of accuracy and inability to answer the fundamental question of "What is Oneness Pentecostalism?" This is what led to my edit. It is the reason I made a Wikipedia account. However, I am not unaware that the doctrine has its critics and these critics are well-learned scholars. Still, there is scholarship on either side of the debate. Furthermore, when it comes to academics in the realm of theology and religion, the debate is always ongoing. The consensus on topics changes from generation to generation. One cannot be ridged with presuppositions and expect adequate representation of the facts. I have read the contention concerning whether or not Oneness Pentecostals are or are not Christian. This is the case and point. Scholarly presentation requires objectivity.
--Timboact238 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding, it already states what Oneness Pentecostals believe. That is what the lead of all articles are purposed for. Further, this analogy is horrible as Democrats and Republicans may define each other's platforms without the use of erroneous bias, yet reliable facts through historical precedence. This is trying to define all Democrats and Republicans into one, as if they have no civility between each other; please refrain from making further comments such as this; it may agitate various parties utilizing Wikipedia. The contents within this article are quite accurate, and as you have made it known, you are a Oneness Pentecostal alleging the desire to revise it in favor with no competing sources. Doing such a thing would render the article unreliable, and provide undue weight. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  For further evidence, Googling "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe" the result was the following from Wikipedia: "Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Trinitarian doctrine is a "tradition of men" and neither scriptural nor a teaching of God, and cite the absence of the word "Trinity" from the Bible as one evidence of this." As for what Oneness Pentecostalism is, the result is this: "Oneness Pentecostalism is a movement within the Protestant Christian family of churches known as Pentecostalism. It derives its distinctive name from its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the 'Oneness doctrine,' a form of Modalistic Monarchianism." From there, the person desiring to know more in good faith would often, per psychology, research more into the movement. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Consensus determines it as a form a Modalism, and critiquing Modalism and Oneness viewpoints, they both work hand-in-hand; even through dictionaries this may be established. Your comment may be termed as unfounded, as per academic consensus and research, it is indeed a form of Modalism, to clarify once more. Yes, Modalism in its essence has some variations, however Modalism itself is denominated into various perspectives; Oneness theology is a variation of Modalism according to textbook definitions. Next, you misunderstood the context of the allegation once again. The whole article provides undue weight, with sources from those for and against Oneness theology, and those who maintain a sheer unbias toward the matter at hand. These conversations are getting nowhere, and all that is occurring is a consistent rehashing of verbage; I also deem this as stale due to again, overt self-references from a proclaimed member of this movement; if you desire to be an arbiter of information with an advanced purpose such as this which has been observed thus far, haven't you considered becoming a editor of Oneness theological encyclopedias and forums? I am not trying to sway you, rather, providing an alternative in addition to contributing. On your talk page, you have stated: To clarify, I am somewhat saying bias presentation as in the order of presentation. I'm not disputing that opposing views have their due weight. Just that the lead section should summarize the facts of Oneness Pentecostalism and not summarize the academic opinions of the group. Once again, it is essentially "what do Trinitarians think Oneness Pentecostals believe." and not "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe." If that is not evidence of Dunning-Kruger or confirmation bias pertaining to academic consensus from multiple parties, I do not know what to tell you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me then add this: overwhelming sources from Oneness parties would serve as undue weight, and the majority of such sources, including yours which forgo those competing sources from other non-related parties would culminate in the article attaining another importance level for bias pattern, and sources from those related to the movement thereby making the article unreliable. All articles work this way. No one is exempt. - TheLionHasSeen (talk)
My apologies, as they quotation is riddled with autocorrect mistakes. It is supposed to say "academic opinions of other groups." and not "the group."
I do apologize, but I am a bit confused by your sentence structure in the past reply. Please shorten you sentences into succinct points to be better understood. 
However, if I didn't understand. You seem to bounce back and forth between focusing on the entire article and the lead and what constitutes undue weight in your interpretation. Is undue weight a paragraph-by-paragraph issue, section-by-section, or the article in its entirety in your interpretation of Wikipedia's style guide? 
Academic consensus? This is only because Oneness is a minority. Therefore, every opposing view will be the consensus. It's a numbers game. There are more opposing theologians writing source material. The guidelines seem pretty clear that minority groups require special care. This right here seems to be the reason for the endless rehashing. Proponents of the Trinity claim academic consensus and proponents of Oneness say it's a NPOV. Which I concede it is NPOV as a whole. I simply disagree with the accuracy of the condensed explaination of Oneness doctrine and they allegations of modalism be reserved for coverage in a separate sentence with langauge that explains the important point that it is not exactly like ancient modalism but similar to and compared to such by modern scholars. That's a more accurate statement. Also, if it is called modalism by a formal dictionary, then is that dictionary the citation?  Timboact238 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  There is no bouncing between the entire article, and the lead, rather clarifying points. There is also no personal interpretation; Wikipedia is not the place for such things. In accordance with undue weight, purging information from the opposing parties, which authenticates venerability and reliable sources, will establish undue weight, and create a bias as if there is no competing information available. I'll say again, and again, and again: Wikipedia is not a soap box. In sum, opinionated and biased sources from opposing parties, if they verify the information upheld and have further backing, are to be deemed reliable. Read the Oxford dictionary; it ties in hand with the further definitions of Oneness Pentecostalism. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Just for reference I counted the sources, and there's from 40 to 50 sources from pro-Oneness sources. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Good day. Thank you for reading the Oxford dictionary definition; I would however have to clarify that according to the updated dictionary the italics portion further clarifies the aspects of Oneness theology. Please refer to this URL: Modalism, defined by the Oxford Dictionary via Lexico. It is good that you have acknowledged the article is written according to a neutral point of view, however if academic consensus is forgone the neutral point of view would lack. In academic consensus, scholars for and against, and just studying Oneness Pentecostalism have led to these precepts being formulated. In translation, perhaps I have lost you: Bernard is a member of that scholarship, evident in the citations. Simply forgoing others, in apparent contradiction to acknowledgement on the basis of being a minority group is detrimental to this conversation; it continues to occur often, along with claiming a "numbers game". Special attention has been granted to this article, leading to this article's present state. Regarding the Shema, I believe such references are already established in some citations of Bernard where he writes on the Oneness of God and Oneness in the history of Christianity, pertaining to lines mentioning a strict monotheism or Judaistic monotheism. There is no stonewalling here whatsoever, rather, an apparent complete disregard for context and the pretenses I have already iterated which have been established before I was ever here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edits to the Introduction Section 

message: no, LDS thought is not a version of Arianism.  In Arianism Jesus was a subordinate creature.  In LDSism, Jesus was begotten, not made - just as every other human being is a literal natural child of God, and God and his wives and his brothers and sisters and his cousins and his aunts are all natural children of other gods before them, ad infinitum.  Far from Arianism or JWism. --142.163.195.18 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does not state that. It merely states one's insistence in defense of their movement. Context is key! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS version of Arianism?