Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine)

message: Well, I guess I found that list of doctrine!  But still, what is left on the Oneness Pentecostalism page is insufficient. . .Spiritanointed 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled section

message: The Oneness vs Trinity article solely discusses the oneness doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism.  It is quite obviously a subset of this article.  As "Oneness vs Trinity" is not an appropriate title (it's not a court case), I considered simply renaming it Oneness (Oneness Pentecostalism), but a merge here, which is needed, makes the name change unnecessary. Neelix (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Oneness vs Trinity]] 

message: Oneness deserve their own page to present the Apostolic doctrine, faith, practice, conduct, and order, we hold. While we may differ on some issues, a general statement and some historical facts should present to a seeker who we really are. I am opposed to making this page a place of debate between Oneness and Trinitarians. I have grown weary editing out trinitarian falsehoods already that are placed in the page. If there is a need, which I do not see at the present, this page should remain informational. And if trinitarians or others do not like what they read they can go make their own page. If we change this page to a debate forum there will be no real place someone seeking the truth about Oneness Pentecostalism can find it on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acts0412 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Acts0412 Pastor Reckart Response

message: What is the purpose of this page? The second sentence of the opening paragraph begins, "These doctrines are UPCI specific," (emphasis added). Furthermore, a "Note to Editors" has been written to offer guidance to editors: "This section isn’t very editable.  The 'elements' are predefined in official doctrine.  Language used conforms to same as sources as much as possible.  This article is/was under watch for Neutrality violations.  So, watch for edits here that edit or remove parts of quotes from cited sources as well as taking 'liberty' with personal views/edits." 2 points:
:#If this is about UPCI doctrine why is it entitle OP (doctrine)?
:#Should this be:
:::a)merged with either the OP or Oneness vs Trinity articles, or
:::b)remain but substantially changed. Ltwin (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah this probably should be merged, as long as it doesn't make the OP article too long. Ltwin (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a preliminary "rough draft" saved, and am presently working on polishing and further revising it.  I'll let you know when I'm done with it.  I don't think it'll be too long, and it will eliminate the need for a separate article on Oneness doctrine--while improving THIS article immensely, in my opinion at least.  Take a look when I finish, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This page's purpose?

message: I tried to provide a "Wikified" lead for this article, and also tried to edit it stylisticly to eliminate redundancy (parts of it were repeated three separate times!), break up longer sentences into shorter ones, and make it a bit more comprehensible to the "average" reader--especially non-Oneness readers.  Whether I have succeeded is anyone's guess, so if anyone sees things that need changing in my revision, please go ahead! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest, though this doesn't have to happen instantly it can be worked out over time, is the conversion from a list format to more prose. Ltwin (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent idea, and my ultimate desire/intention.  I will see what I can do on this in the next few days, God-willing! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rework 

message: I've taken the liberty of merging the contents of this article into the Oneness Pentecostalism article, after converting them from the outline form presented in this article into prose form for that one (but retaining all the copious and valuable references used in this article).  I am thinking that with this merger (if it stands!), there is no longer any need for this separate article, as everything here has now been stated in the main "Oneness Pentecostalism" article.  Thoughts, anyone? - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. I didn't see this when I looked on here. But yes I agree, this article is redundant now. Ltwin (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible deletion of article; merging with "Oneness Pentecostalism"