Talk:Nontrinitarianism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit summary

• 'namely' closer to 'videlicet' than 'specifically'
• Gk. text does not capitalize "Father", etc.
• removed POV "explicit"..."of sub-ordinance to the Father"; also, "sub-ordinance" is not a word
• Nicene creed was in fact (not in opinion or statement) adopted approx 300 years after...
• took out 'on earth': seemed a bit 'theological'
• reinserted "completely" as this is an important theological point: for example, Arius seems to have thought of Jesus as sharing the divine nature to a degree, but not completely (God, but not as God as God)
• substituted "essence" for "substance"
• "each others'"-->"each other's"
• "doctrine of the..." instead of plain "Trinity"
• Removed reference to Rastafarians as per flag by Jeffro -- JALatimer 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Developing a set of guidelines to help us proceed

Retran, while I agree that this article is not a place to draft ecumenical joint statements and that our purpose should not be to "please different editors", I think you may underestimate the importance of "specific phrases, terminology, and whether such-and-such idea is conveyed" in an article that concerns religion, not despite POV concerns, but especially in light of NPOV. It seems to me what we want is to accurately (but also concisely) "describe the Alternate Views of Modern [nontrinitarian] Christians"; we want to do that, as you said, in a way that is neutral, verifiable, and non-original; and we want to keep the article free of anything that is not directly relevant. There is going to have to be some hemming and hawing over terms (for example, the debate a while back over "first" and "direct", etc., approached silliness at times, but I believe it stemmed from a genuine concern to accurately convey JW belief), but hopefully we can do that here on the talk page.

I don't think there should be much hemming and hawing over terms; we should be using plain language to describe beliefs/practices, and we can get that from 3rd party source material. If its not in 3rd party source, and it's notability as a practice/tenent is not established in 3rd party source, it can be challenged and removed. I think the hemming and hawing should be over clarity. The times we include terms with special meanings to denominations should be rare and be justified in the text itself (based again on source). While it may be challenging to be concise while avoiding these novel terms and customized apologetic points, that's the whole purpose of the editing process. I'm just saying, if we include a term, we have to be darn sure it doesen't appear as if the article is stating the term is the best one to use, and if we include an apologetic point, a biblical citation, etc, that likewise need to be certain the text doesn't read as if it's establishing those ideas as fact. It's extremely hard in THIS section to include those apologietic references and novel terms without introducing POV problems; that's becasue the length each major religous group gets is a few sentences at most (and that's probably a good thing noting the snaking length of the article already). Maybe another point of talk here should establish the goals we want for the Modern Christian subsection? For example: Do we want to take the effort to make a list of the notable apologetic positions each group uses, and go through the effort of backing up the fact they are indeed used and notable in 3rd party sources, and if we were able to do that, would it give any one religious group undue emphasis due to lack of info on the others?Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that therein lies the problem; it would be fascinating to explain each nontrinitarian group's particular apologetic emphasis, and explain their terms, but maybe its not needed for the article?Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And feel free to pound me if you feel I'm STILL off track regarding the novel phrases.Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The kind of hemming and hawing I support is this: If I say, 'Baptists believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol,' a lot of issues immediately arise. Firstly, words have denotative and connotative meanings. 'Eucharist', frankly, has high church connotations, so its use in a statement about Baptist belief is suspect. On the other hand, if I replace 'Eucharist' with 'the Lord's Supper' (the normal Baptist term), perhaps we miss that 'Eucharist' and 'Lord's Supper' are historically and practically related. We also mangle what appears to be the point of the original sentence, an implied contrast between people who believe the 'Eucharist' is 'only a symbol' and those who don't. The phrase 'only a symbol' is itself loaded, as it implies certain things about the meaning of 'symbol' that a lot of Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians would have a problem with. Historically, you had Berengar of Tours saying the Eucharist was a symbol and therefore not real. Then you had the Roman Catholic Church saying it was real and therefore not a symbol. And then you have the Eastern orthodox saying it's both a symbol and real.

I'm not going to say my hypothetical sentence was a bad one or a good one, or offer a proposed 'solution'. The point I'm trying to make is just that language itself is inherently complicated and muddy (and fascinating), and that especially in religion it's sometimes downright controversial. Philosophically speaking we worry that our words can never true-ly express the objects we are seeking to describe. What I think is cool about wikipedia is that we have this process whereby we "edit" each other, and thereby we hope to get a little closer to the truth. That's the sort of hemming and hawing I like. It will have to happen, occasionally, if we want to accurately and neutrally describe people's beliefs. I hope that makes a little (if not a lot of) sense. -- JALatimer 04:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel I now understand the kind of terminology discussions we should be having thanks to your explanation... in WP:NPOV#Religion"Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.";... the real bugaboo (besides hashing out what term is relevant in a particular context as you say in the hem-haw) is that "conversely, should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy". I really would like to find these reliable and notable sources. Is it appropriate to use 1st party in the terminology case (if we did, how could we avoid the undue sympathy editors are cautioned against?)?

It is my hope that everyone who is currently engaged in editing this article can collaborate here on a set of 'guidelines' or some such to help us proceed.

Here are a few possible ones to start:

1. Positive statements about a group's beliefs should generally be preferred to negative statements/comparisons. For example, "X believes Y" not "X rejects Z".

2. We should err on the side of blandness and avoid disputative language. For example: "X believes Y" or "X rejects Z" but not "X believes Z to be heretical".

a)(Plagiarizing Retran) Information that might only be relevant to adherents or from a promotional/apologetic angle should generally be omitted.

3. What should be preferred to how (tendency toward the apologetical) or why (tendency toward the speculative). See Retran's comment above: "that it's 'pagan' adds little understanding to Oneness's beliefs and practices, and simply places undue emphasis on how they promote their viewpoint" (emphasis mine). -- JALatimer

Thanks again for the constructive contribution to this discussion! Also, maybe we can get ideas for the goals of section: (what kind of info should be contained regarding each group, how long each section should be, if it's okay for one group to have longer treatment than others due to availability of info, etc)Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help me out. Everyone usually has some idiosyncratic principles, little maxims, opinions about style, etc., your own little operating manual. What I'm suggesting is that we air those out here so we can all get a sense where we're coming from and work together better. (And avoid edit warring!) -- JALatimer 04:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias can state how a group views a certain doctrine IF THE WHOLE ARTICLE IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ITSELF IS DEALING WITH THAT VERY SUBJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The article ITSELF is not taking sides about what is "pejorative" or not, but it's IMPORTANT AND EVEN NECESSARY to state why a certain group (per the section in the article) is rejecting that doctrine in the first place.

Leaving out the "WHY" of something is irresponsible and incomplete. And that's where the "groups themselves state this" point comes in as important, because it's only giving the REASON why a certain group may either accept or reject a certain doctrine or position.

Without taking sides as to whether the specific position is true or valid or not. Did you even see, for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses article? As just an example... Did you see ALL the stuff in there that's stated of how JWs reject things like hell-fire and Christmas BECAUSE THEY THEY THEY THEY view those things as "pagan and unscriptural"? And it's WARRANTED, because JWs DO view those things as pagan, etc........and so the REASONS (documented reasons) for the rejection of certain things should be clearly unambiguously stated. WITHOUT TAKING SIDES AS TO THE POSITION IS CORRECT OR NOT. And that was NOT done in the Oneness Pentecostals part at all.

you dismiss the "groups themselves" point and conflating when it's not warranted to go by that and when it isn't...(double face-palm), sloppily, FORGETTING THAT THE CONTEXT IN THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE CALLS FOR THE "how the groups themselves state it" is important.

How the "groups themselves" state it IS less important compared to what 3rd party notable experts write about the groups expression of the belief. While the section may deal with describing that group, to avoid promoting that group/group's belief's it's important to take a critical view of their assertions; relying instead on 3rd parties. In consideration of WP:RSUW, perhaps the purpose/goal of the article's text should be to describe the beliefs/background/context, the article does not have a responsibility to list a groups apologetics, unless you can support a particular inclusion is crucial to understanding some aspect of the groups beliefs/motivations/background/etc in the first place. Retran (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Those things that were recklessly uptightly removed were IMPORTANT DETAILS AND SIMPLY OBJECTIVE DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EXPLANATION.....end of story. Sweetpoet (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"The article ITSELF is not taking sides about what is "pejorative" or not"... How can we be sure from an editing standpoint its not, when we include contentious terms and use them the same way they are used in apologetics? It seems like that IS taking sides when the use of the inclusion of the label is not justified in the text. This article is about Nontrinitarianism, but we still should exercise caution that we don't promote it (or any one groups particular expression of it). Retran (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline # 2

'no valid reason to remove "unscriptual and pagan" as that IS how Oneness Pentecostals view the "trinity" doctrine, (I have the books that clearly say that) and this article is "Nontrinitarianism"'

Which of the following sentences is best?

• 'Baptists believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol.'...............or.................
• 'Baptists believe that those who adhere to the real presence are carnal minded.'

Both are technically true. -- JALatimer 05:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to follow what the argument here is, but of those two statements, the first is best. It is more appropriate to say what a group's own beliefs are, rather than what the group thinks about others.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The (rhetorical?) question was meant mostly for Sweetpoet, but I'm glad you answered. Obviously, I agree. The second sentence clearly is not NPOV, even if it's true. And the fact that the first sentence is technically less 'informative' than the second in no way lessens the first's comparative desirability, in my view.

This is directly analogous to Sweetpoet's contention about "unscriptual and pagan" above. In my mind, that it's true, and that its removal constitutes a (technical) net loss of information, is not a valid argument for its inclusion.

Here's another hypothetical. What if multiple secondary sources reported that Berengar of Tours suffered from bad body odor. Should I then change the opening sentence of his article to "Berengar of Tours (c. 999–January 6, 1088) was a very stinky French 11th century Christian theologian..."? -- JALatimer 05:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Set A says Concept B is pagan" is not quite the same as "Set A says Set B are pagan because they believe xyz". Your first example above simply asserts that Set A (Baptists) believes something about a concept, but the second example asserts Set A's opinion about Set B because of their belief. The first usage is fine, the second isn't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I like where you're headed with this, I would just like to emphasize (as I did below) my feeling that the contentious nature of the label would need to be discussed closely to its usage in the text in order to avoid having a reader unknowingly take in POV.Retran (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What the sentence in question says is "Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity doctrine as pagan and unscriptural". And what I am suggesting is that this sentence is essentially giving "Set A's opinion about Set B because of their belief". But let me change the original hypothetical to be more clear (I acknowledge the original analogy was imperfect):

Which of the following sentences is best?

• 'Baptists believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol.'...............or.................
• 'Baptists reject the doctrine of the real presence as carnal minded and unscriptural.'

Option 2 is still bad. -- JALatimer

Better presentations of option 2 would include:

• Baptists reject the doctrine of the real presence, which they believe to be carnal minded and unscriptural; or
• Baptists believe that the doctrine of the real presence is carnal minded and unscriptural.

To extend this to the phrase in question, it would be more appropriate to say something like, "Oneness Pentecostals consider the Trinity doctrine to be pagan and unscriptural."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your second hypothetical would be easily dismissed as an irrelevant ad hominem attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it should be, but someone could say 'but it's TRUE and there is no VALID REASON FOR REMOVING IT and you are in clear violation of POV by trying to hide the FACT that he was STINKY to suit your own pro-Berengarian tendencies. how can you unilaterally remove something TRUE and FACTUAL!!!!!!!!! why don't you just remove "French", huh? I mean, that's not RELEVANT how is his ethnicity RELEVANT anymore than his STENCH!!!!!!!!' -- JALatimer 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! That appears to be a great summary of a line of reasoning we've had to face in the discussion here.Retran (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this hypothetical, it should be clear why we would not need to pander to such an obvious lapse of relevance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, in a discussion about a concept (or its antithesis), a notable group's view of that concept (e.g. that the concept is 'pagan') is directly relevant to the discussion, whereas your second hypothetical example makes a completely irrelevant statement outside the context of the hypothetical subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that relevance is just one criteria to be weighed. Contextually relevant statements may still be problematic in other ways (though if it's irrelevant it's pretty certain to be inappropriate). Just like the factual basis of a statement is only one criteria. Relevant and true statement's can still be NPOV violations.Retran (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Would WP:WTA#Contentious_labels apply here to "unscriptual" and "pagan"?Retran (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

'Not a word' would apply to "unscriptual". Aside from that, it depends on what is actually stated. It is not contentious labelling to say "Set A considers concept B to be unscriptural and pagan", but it may be contentious to say "Concept B is unscriptural and pagan."--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lexicographical issues aside, I feel strongly that the hypothetical statement "group A considers group B to be "unscriptural and pagan" is problematic per WP:WTA#Contentious_labels. That's because, it's written there on the screen, to be read, without any critical treatment of the label, and a reader without knowledge on the topic would likely never realize the contentious nature of the label (making it a POV problem). I see the possibility for specific times when it would be okay for the inclusion, so long as the text includes the critical treatment of the contentious label for the reader.Retran (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It also seems to me that if we don't generally banish this kind of language we have little defense against someone who wants to come in and add 'but group B denies this, citing...' and so on. I just really hate the whole everything-must-be-a-debate-to-be-neutral thingy. -- JALatimer 06:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a great point you've articulated there, indeed. And all that back-and-forth would make the article even more snaking and unorganized.Retran (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is phrased according to a group's belief (since the entire concept is about entities whose existence is unproven and thus far unprovable anyway), there is no need to say that group B denies group A's belief, because it is a plain statement of fact that group A believes something, and group B's belief can similarly be stated as a plain fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WHY THE BAPTIST EUCHARIST EXAMPLE FAILS....

This is the problem that you and Retran, I believe, keep missing, and how your example of the Baptists fails a bit. You're forgetting (in a way) that this article ITSELF by its very nature is about ANTI-TRINITARIANISM. ("Nontrinitarianism" just being a nicer way of saying it.) Meaning that your hypothetical example is not telling us where such statements would be located. If the article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT TRANSUBSTANTIATION etc...then giving a more elaborated reason as to why may be helpful and even needed.

If this article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE, simply naming the church and simply saying they do, without giving that specific church's own contention and reasons for it would seem a bit lacking. Information would be missing. This article is not about "Churches" in general, but specifically the angle of why certain groups oppose the Nicean Athanasian Trinity doctrine, and their claims against it. In other words, Retran and you, in my opinion, are ignoring overall context of the whole point of the article, to some degree. Sweetpoet (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Can we put a MiszaBot on here? The talk page is rather long. -- JALatimer —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

"Groups themselves say it" does not mean promoting that group's position (and why in context it's NOT "POV")

Simply stating that JWs or Onenesss Pentecostals reject the Trinity doctrine without giving SOME explanation as to what their own reasons for rejecting it are would seem irresponsible, half-baked, sloppy, and incomplete. POV does not mean that THEIR OWN VIEW can't be stated objectively, as long as there is no tone that WP is agreeing with that specific view.

I'm VERY careful in articles to remove POV. I've done it many times, like in one article (that I will NOT name), recently, where someone was obviously promoting, by his wording, the Greek Orthodox Church. You should have seen me...You would have been PROUD of how I removed or re-worded his BLATANT POV wording with it. Meaning that it went beyond stating what the Greek Orthodox church believes or teaches, but was putting the spin that that church was correct and good for believing it, or claiming to hold to something.

The point is that REAL "POV" in articles and phrasings I have NO tolerance for on WP articles. But I have to say, with all due respect, that what you removed from the Nontrinitarianism article was NOT technically actually biased "point of view" or promoting anything.

It's not WP's fault that Oneness Pentecostals view the Trinity doctrine as "pagan and unscriptural". And in the context of an article that is supposed to be DEALING with why there even IS "Nontrinitarianism", it's obvious and logical that giving the REASONS (whether you like the wording of the reasons or not) why those specific groups reject the doctrine, THEIR OWN STATED REASONS, is something that kinda needs to be done.

Giving the "why" in that context especially, as neutrally yet as factually and boldly as possible, without agreeing with said reason, is important to give a thorough account to readers of what's going on. Simply stating controversial things objectively contextually is NOT "promoting" anything. That's what I meant by saying "hyper-sensitive". Going too far with the scrupulosity of "POV" even when it's not REALLY there will actually detract from articles. And readers will be left lacking, as to the "why" of certain matters, controversial or not..........and I have a right not to like that kind of thing if I'm trying to contribute effectively to Wikipedia. I'm against REAL "POV". Not the imagined kind, that is simply stating reasons for things given by the groups in question....peace out. Sweetpoet (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In articles, it is of course appropriate (and often necessary) to add why a group believes or doesn't believe a particular thing after making a plain statement that they hold such a belief, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise. What is problematic is asserting a group's negative view of a different group's beliefs, or asserting opinions as if they were establish facts. E.g. Non-trinitarians reject the Trinity, which they consider pagan is ok, but The Trinity is a pagan teaching or Non-trinitarians say Catholics are pagan for accepting the Trinity are unnecessarily confrontational.

It is very odd that someone would so adamantly refuse to name an article where they did something good.

(By the way, one space after a period is fine, though two can be used for monospaced fonts; there's not really any reason for four or more.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WHY THE BAPTIST EUCHARIST EXAMPLE FAILS.... This is the problem that Latimer and Retran, I believe, keep missing, and how Latimer's example of the Baptists fails a bit. They're forgetting (in a way) that this article ITSELF by its very nature is about ANTI-TRINITARIANISM. ("Nontrinitarianism" just being a nicer way of saying it.) Meaning that his hypothetical example is not telling us where such statements would be located. If the article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT TRANSUBSTANTIATION etc...then giving a more elaborated reason as to why may be helpful and even needed. If this article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE, simply naming the church and simply saying they do, without giving that specific church's own contention and reasons for it would seem a bit lacking. Information would be missing. This article is not about "Churches" in general, but specifically the angle of why certain groups oppose the Nicean Athanasian Trinity doctrine, and their claims against it. In other words, Retran and Latimer, in my opinion, are ignoring overall context of the whole point of the article, to some degree. Sweetpoet (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Closing Sweetpoet's redundant block duplicated from #Proposed Guideline # 2. Please don't paste the same blocks in separate threads.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) yeah, I know. I wasn't sure where to put that thing. I guess it's more suited in that other thread then. Sweetpoet (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It clearly belongs in the same section as the example that it specifically addresses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrationality

Jeffro77, please see my edit summary above concerning "completely". I will also clarify myself here: "Share" and "share completely" are not logically identical. 'Sharing' implies distribution, but not necessarily equal distribution. I do not think the clause "the persons of God are claimed to share a single divine essence" is significantly less 'awkward' than "the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine essence"; so I would put the concept back in. But perhaps the best thing would be to simply leave it at "...irrationality." Would this work:

"Trinitarians say that "the doctrine of the Trinity is [...] a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind."[7] Nontrinitarians counter that this "mystery" is actually an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share a single divine essence (Gk. ousia), and yet not to partake of each other's identity." ? -- JALatimer 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The word order, "to share completely a", seems like an awkward way of avoiding a split infinitive. Aside from that, the presumed irrationality is already clear in that something can "share a single [thing]" at all and yet not "partake of each other's identity", so completely becomes redundant. I'm not sure I agree with striking it out the phrase altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'm just too tired and lazy to think about this right now. That's probably more than half of why I cravenly advocated cutting out the whole clause. I'll just let you deal with it. -- JALatimer 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's what I'm thinking, just leaving these clauses out unless what they convey is so crucial to understanding an idea, that its worth the time it would take to make a brief critical treatment/explanation/background regarding the contentious label taking the effort to use 3rd party notables, etc. I think that's along the same lines as what you're saying?? Again, thanks for your efforts and time on this. Retran (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The section Irrationality must have an external secondary source analysing the concept of Aristotle exactly the way presented in the aforementioned section, otherwise it is private thought (WP:SYNTH) in an encyclopedia.

The argument used is besides flawed, because it tries to analyse a clause which is an approximation of an alleged perceived spiritual knowledge. (Elsewhere a private editor have noted that 1 = 1·1·1, which is another clause). So the argument attacks one perceivedly defect formulation not the concept in itself.

I'm going to mark it as undue, some way. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Systematic removal of the word TRINITY and other vandalism

24.78.167.139 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Trinity" removal

• The title of the article is non-TRINITARIAN and there should be no effort to simply remove the word TRINITY
  with some duality formulation simply to tone down the anti-trinity theme.

Apologetics is the article

• I would say the current tactic of using the excuse "removed apologetics" appears to me to be a vandalism tactic.
  The whole article is about a belief and therefore apologetics apply.
  

no, it wasn't a vandalism tactic. check my edit record. they were edits made in good faith which resulted in an edit war, which I did not participate in the least. Nobody owns this article. I'm wondering who is writing his anonymous accusation? Stating "apologetics apply", and "apologetics is the article" is simply not true. This is a collection of information about nontrinitarianism. It's not an a placeholder for apologetic claims different nontrinitarian groups might publish/promote/etc. When notable, relevant, and not placing undue weight material from a primary source might be the only way to convey a certain point... but per WP guidelines, editors are to avoid primary sources. -- Retran (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments read like some irrational rant given that you ignore the fact that this "collection of information about nontrinitarianism" is supported by famous people and religious organizations that believe it. You are dead wrong that it is only information anyway, this is like religion, something that people believe, and the idea that it is mearly information shows you have no business editing here because you evidence that you don't understand the whole point of the article, to represent a real belief, "Nontrinitarianism." There is no article without references because the encyclopedia does not allow articles on an opinion, and you think people are so stupid as to let you remove the references so you can then say there is no point in the article. It is a laughable joke that you have edited and been allowed to edit here at all; You are another subversive trinitarian trying to undermine this article, that's all. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"I've found it interesting to remove POV entrenchment from an article," - I pulled this from your profile and I hope this is not the BS excuse for your edits here. The idea that this article is a POV under the Wikipedia policy is insane because this article doesn't represent one persons POV is represents an belief system of many individuals and organizations. It is your view that this article and its references are not notable that is the POV. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while you mention "anonymous," as if you personally are really the anime character "Retran." 24.78.167.139 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegation by User:208.87.197.82

I print this a proof that this editor has been subtly undermining this article for a long time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nontrinitarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=373942348&oldid=373941645
Saying that Jehovah's witnesses have "NO TRACTS" is a BOLD FACED LIE!!
They have a multiude of tracts on a large variety of topics.

• "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,..."
  

I see this users edits as an attack on this article!
I see this users edits as an attack on this article!!
I see this users edits as an attack on this article!!! 208.87.197.82 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez, you said you had retired from Wikipedia, but now you're just editing 'anonymously'. But aside from that, I did not say JWs have "NO TRACTS". I corrected a spelling error from Track to Tract and said JWs do not have TRACKS. You may now apologise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My Editing

After getting fed up with how poorly this article was written (the 2nd worst I've ever seen!) I had to fix it to the best of my ability. In so doing, I've tried my best to remain unbiased (I am Catholic, not Non-Trinitarian). Here is a list of my bigger fixes:

Fix 1:

Under "Forms" I moved a rather lengthy discussion about Constantine and persecution to the "History" section. I did this because Constantine and persecution is irrelevant to the various sects/forms of Non-Trinitarianism.

Fix 2:

I renamed the section once-named "Origins" to "History" to broaden it. Now you can add information about the entire history of Non-Trinitarianism, instead of just its beginning!

Fix 3:

There was a misrepresentation of the Athanasian Creed which I fixed. The wikipedia article said that the Athanasian Creed taught that the Father and Son are "co-equal", in contradiction with John 14:28 "For the Father is greater than I". This misrepresents the Athanasian Creed because the Creed also says "Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood". So there is no contradiction here, just a misrepresentation.

Fix 4:

I renamed the section once-named "Jesus as Almighty God" to "Jesus as true God", to avoid the weird-wordedness of the first sentence. I also moved a large section of information from "History" to "Jesus as true God", because the information wasn't about origins or history, but rather about Bible quotes apparently against the Trinity.

Fix 5:

I removed an invalid citation in "Supporting Scripture" which didn't verify the sentence. I replaced it with a citation needed tag. The sentence itself was non-confrontational, and basically said Non-Trinitarians don't believe the Trinity is biblical. Of course this is what they believe, nobody can doubt that, but the source was invalid.

Fix 6:

I shortened a rather lengthy discussion about the LDS Godhead concept, keeping an explanation of their beliefs, and keeping a D&C and BoM quote to verify it. I also added a 'see also: Godhead (Latter Day Saints)' tag so people could learn more about their Godhead, if they want to.

Fix 7:

Under "Claimed Pagan Origins" it talked about John 20:28-29 and the Comma Johanneum. I moved the discussion about the former to the "Views on Allegedly Trinitarian Passages in Scripture" section, and deleted the latter. I deleted the latter because everybody who is anybody knows the Comma Johanneum is absolutely irrelevant, so why even bring it up?

Fix 8:

I significantly shortened "Hellenic influences", while trying to keep its most important points. I also re-arranged the points so that they made more sense.Glorthac (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Things I think we should consider changing

Under "Forms" the article says Mormonism is not Non-Trinitarian, but rather is Non-traditional Trinitarianism. If they're Trinitarian, why are they on this article? Listen, this is a matter of definition. If we're going to play with definition, we could say the Modalists are Trinitarian. After all, there are 3 modes in 1 God. It is obvious that Mormonism is Non-Trinitarian in the standard sense of the term. So I suggest we change the article to fit with the truth.

Under "History" there is a H.G. Wells quote I think isn't important. I suggest someone remove it.

Under "Scriptural Support" there is a reference to Michael Servetus being burned at the stake. I suggest this is moved to the "History" section. How it would fit in there, I don't know. Perhaps add a little section in "History" about Medieval and Renaissance Non-Trinitarianism.

I suggest we merge "Alternate Views" with "People" and "Groups", to shorten the length of the entire article.

Under "History" it is really lacking in information, especially Medieval Non-Trinitarianism. Someone needs to add information to it.

I suggest we merge "Supporting Scripture" with "Points of Dissent" somehow, to shorten the article. Like merge Points of Dissent's "Holy Spirit" with Supporting Scripture's "Holy Spirit".

I suggest we completely remove "Controversy over Status", it doesn't even seem to have a coherent point. Why keep it, ya know?Glorthac (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

--- This article seems to imply that a large part of "Evangelical" Christianity is non-trinitarian (I've not met an self-identifying evangelical who accepts the anti-Nestorian anathamas. "Mother of God" is not acceptable language in an Evangelical Church.) While I'm personally ok suggesting that Evangelicals are not trinitarians -- I think it would be good to elaborate on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.155.66 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Propose to change the article name to "Non-Trinitarianism". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have changed this back to the original name, as it appears you have not waited for any actual discussion. The discussion about Category:Non-Chalcedonianism (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 1#Category:Non Chalcedonianism) does not directly apply to this article. For a start, it related to changing from the words separate by a space (which is entirely non-standard) to separating with a hyphen. Additionally, as has been stated previously, Non-trinitarianism is not automatically and directly comparable with Non-Chalcedonianism as one relates to a doctrine whereas the other relates to a Church Council. I am not entirely opposed to changing the name to 'Non-Trinitarianism', however consensus among editors is required before it is changed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Nontrinitarianism → Non-Trinitarianism — Per the decision on Category:Non-Chalcedonianism which was to substitute a hyphen for a space. By this logic a hyphen should substitute for a non space. Only extreme hair splitting could claim that the one does not follow the other. Similarly, it is usual to capitalise the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore Trinitarianism is also capitalised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Using a space instead of a hypen at the Category was entirely wrong, rather than a valid alternative presenation as is the case here. Changing the space to a hyphen in the Category name does not automatically mean that "a hyphen should substitute for a non space".

When a term that is ordinarily capitalised is prefixed with "non-", it is proper to retain the capital on the original term ("non-Trinitarian") but the prefix itself should not be capitalised unless at the beginning of a sentence (or an article title). However, when a term that is ordinarily capitalised is prefixed with "non", no part of the term is capitalised ("nontrinitarian").

"Non" is more common in US English and "non-" is more common in British English. In an article that is not centric to a particular country, Wikipedia usage can be either, so long as it is consistent within an article. Usage in quoted sources should never be altered to match a particular style.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I note the existance of the category Category:Converts to Non-Trinitarian Christianity from Eastern Orthodoxy which spells per the proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Against move. It seems somewhat obvious that a former adherent of Eastern Orthodoxy was formerly a Trinitarian (in that he adhered to a particular form of trinitarianism). In his case, his "non-Trinitarianism" is a subset of all "nontrinitarianism". To elaborate...
The reason many (most?) nontrinitarians do not capitalize the T is that they do not merely reject the most common idea about a triune Trinity (or "Godhead"), they reject other triune theologies as well. It is easy to cite hundreds of published works which consistently refrain from capitalizing "nontrinitarian" and "nontrinitarianism". Works which capitalize the T typically refer only to one particular form of trinitarianism. There seems no reason for such granularity here. For comparison, editors may suppose that both "unitarians" and "Unitarians" accept the oneness (non-duality, non-triunity) of God the Father, yet Unitarianism is merely a subset of unitarianism. --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request. If the category explicitly states that it is only concerned with one particular form of trinitarianism and the main article also states that it is only concerned with one particular form of trinitarianism (and explicitly excludes Hindu, Animist etc forms of trinitarianism), would it then be possible for the move to proceed as proposed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is nothing wrong with the current name, as nontrinitarianism and non-Trinitarianism are both standard forms. If it were to be changed per your suggestion, to the exclusion of other forms of nontrinitarianism, then those other forms would need some other fairly arbitrary category, which is currently unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request 2 Does it necessarily follow that unusual forms of trinitarianism would have to have their own categories? Would they not be happy in their own categories of Hindu, Animist etc? In which case, could the exclusive definition of both the article and category be permitted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonchristian forms of nontrinitarianism would be a fairly ambiguous subject.

The current name is fine, and there is no compelling reason to change it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, nontrinitarian should not be capped (unless at the beginning of a sentence or in the article title) regardless of whether it is being used in reference to trinitarianism in a general sense or the Christian Trinity specifically. The T in nontrinitarian should also never be capitalised for the same reason. Unless the hyphenated form non-Trinitarianism is used, then the term need not have any capitalisation regardless of the sense intended.

When Christian nontrinitarians refer to Trinitarianism it is generally in reference to their objection to the Christian belief rather than the broader sense, and their objection to entirely unchristian godheads would be shared by Trinitarians, but this distinction is moot.

Because the hyphenated term is more specific than is necessary for the article scope, I therefore also oppose the move.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Further, the category 'Category:Converts to Non-Trinitarian Christianity from Eastern Orthodoxy' mentioned above is badly named, as "non" should not be capitalised regardless of whether the hyphenated term is used. I will fix it.I won't fix it at this time because it is currently the subject of a proposed merge.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So user Jeffro77 would not oppose the move if it could be demonstrated that "the hyphenated term is" correctly "specific" and is "necessary for the article scope"? Have I interpreted your position correctly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My position is opposed and I'm not interested in playing word games.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose requested move and recommend discussion be centralized at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 10#Category:Nontrinitarian denominations. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Entry to category:Nontrinitarian denominations.

Is there any reason why this article should not be a member of the Category:Nontrinitarian denominations? Another editor seems to think that it would involve a circular reference. Personally, I think that it's more of an eponymous inclusion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems rather obvious that nontrinitarianism is not a denomination.
But...should the category be named "Category:Nontrinitarian denominations"? Consider what is done for other "Categories" of Christianity.
Consider Category:Protestantism which includes Protestant denominations and other articles related to Protestantism.
Consider Category:Eastern Catholicism which includes Eastern Catholic denominations and other articles related to Eastern Catholicism.
It seems to me that there may be good reason to rename the category to "Category:Nontrinitarianism"; perhaps that 2010-11-27 discussion should be revisited...? --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's precisely because of that very discussion that the present article has become an orphan. I thought that as a result of the merger, all the articles and categories would be merged. This seems not to have happened. Was this an oversight? Either way, the article needs a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism is actually has a broader topic than either Antitrinitarianism or a list of Nontrinitarian denominations.
Category:Nontrinitarianism should encompass denominations, theologies, and other "isms" such as antitrinitarianism.
Recommend 1. Rename "Category:Antitrinitarianism" to "Category:Nontrinitarianism"; 2. Retain Category:Nontrinitarian denominations; 3. Move specific denomination articles into Category:Nontrinitarian denominations.
See Category talk:Antitrinitarianism#Candidate for merging.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself in this talk page also, I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with everything that you have written above but having to oppose your oppose. Basically, that was my argument in the whole "merge Trinitarianism into Trinitarian Denominations" debate a few weeks back. I lost that debate. This proposal seemed like the least worst option given the way the vote went. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AuthorityTam. This is essentially what I stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 20#Category:Nontrinitarian denominations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 10#Category:Nontrinitarian denominations.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#Category:Antitrinitarianism.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Move denominations

Editors may have seen Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 10#Category:Nontrinitarian denominations and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#Category:Antitrinitarianism#Category:Antitrinitarianism; that accomplished step 1..
Now, it seems advisable to proceed with steps 2. and 3.:

• 1. Rename "Category:Antitrinitarianism" to "Category:Nontrinitarianism";
• 2. Retain Category:Nontrinitarian denominations;
• 3. Move specific denomination articles into Category:Nontrinitarian denominations.
  

That discussion is at: Category talk:Nontrinitarian denominations#Move denominations.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC) --

Listing Quakers as non-trinitarian is problematic... but there are enough Non-Trinitarian Quakers that I don't wish to remove the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.155.66 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct Usage

Hey all. I know this may sound minor, but there is a grammatical correction which needs to be made to the usage of the term 'nontrinitatian'. As the Trinity is a religious concept or construct it is usually capitalized. So it is more appropriate to punctuate the term as follows, 'Non-Trinitarianism'

I know this may be a little annoying in the need to reword in a few spots, but I notice there is alreday no citation for the term in the lead anyway, and suspect it is because it is only common jargon and not established both definitively and grammatically.

If Trinitarianism is a belief or philosophy it is to be capitalized (think Socialism). And if we are referring to a movement or collection of people who do not ascribe to that philosophy then it too is a proper noun and should be written either 'NonTrinitarian' or better, 'Non-Trinitarian'. I prefer the last option as it does not constitute Original Research but is merely adding a hyphenated qualifier to the common term 'Trinitarian'.

This improvement would provide greater clarity (i.e. is a 'nontrinitarian' one who does not believe in three gods, or one who does not believe in three gods according to the Trinitarian tradition? It would also correct the erroneous grammar usage which fails to recognize the Trinitarian concept as a belief or philosophy which clearly it is.

Any thoughts? --Canadiandy talk 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But there are powerful editors ranged against this sensible move. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LL. It's puzzling as to why there would be opposition, though nothing surprises me here at WP. Again, the proposal is actually one of clarifying what is now a confusing term. It is not creating a new word, merely a clarifying usage where there is a need. Adding a prefix to an original term is not changing anything. If I were to use the term 'Non-Wikipedian' would it be a problem? How is it different than simply stating a person is "not a Wikipedian?" To say a group is 'Non-Trinitarian' simply says they are not Trinitarian in their beliefs. But the term 'nontrinitarian' with absolutely no capitals is so vague that it could apply as easily to individuals who disapprove of the movie "The Three Musketeers". I believe that since WP is designed as encyclopedic with a general audience, it makes it our responsibility to undo the jargon where it can be easily done and this is clearly such a case. For the cost of a hyphen the common reader will be able to see that we are simply referring to those not in agreement with the traditional Trinitarian ideology. I would be disappointed to see anyone argue against such a simple correction, especially when it is with a mind to clarity.--Canadiandy talk 15:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion above I do see one tweak which is to allow the term 'non-Trinitarian' where the 'n' is lower case. This would be used to describe the term as a position of belief (i.e. Jim's dogma favors a non-Trinitarian understanding of God."). However the terms 'Non-Trinitarianism' (the belief) and 'Non-Trinitarianist' (n: one who believes 'x')should be capitalized midsentence. It looks like this was actually discussed a year ago, but I raise it again as the best way of addressing the alternative which is even more problematic.--Canadiandy talk 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One additional point. Jeffro points out that "Non-trinitarianism [sic] is not automatically and directly comparable with Non-Chalcedonianism as one relates to a doctrine whereas the other relates to a Church Council." In fact this seems to be the sticking point otherwise he suggests he would be comfortable with the change. What is not identified in his position is that the doctrine of the 'Trinity' is not a global doctrine. Not a matter of 'a' doctrine, but 'which' doctrine. For example the doctrine of transubstantiation needs no capital because with very few exceptions all who believe in the doctrine believe in it in the same way. However, the doctrine of the 'Trinity' should not be lower case for two reasons, not the least of which is that it is a title for a deity (i.e. the Holy Trinity). But that said there is one greater point, that when the doctrine of the Trinity is referenced, it is not a doctrine which is universally agreed upon in meaning. While I do not believe in the traditional sense of the Trinity, yet I believe in a Godhead composed of a trinity of beings and so would consider my belief trinitarian. So to sum up Jeffro's point, it is true that 'trinitarian' has been used in the past (in my mind erroneously) to identify a particular belief in the father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But 'trinitarian' beliefs differ. I argue that 'Trinitarian' is a proper noun as it refers not to any trinitarian belief, but a particular trinitarian belief; that of the First Council of Ephesus. While many of my faith may not believe as I do, I believe in a trinitarian godhead, but I am not Trinitarian in my beliefs. And the French can speak french. And the White House is a white house. And while I am being a bit of a capitalist, I am also a bit of a Capitalist.

Please note that the uncapitalised "t" in my quoted statement regarding "Non-trinitarianism" was unintentional. As I also quite clearly stated in an above section, nontrinitarian and non-Trinitarian are both the correct forms. I apologise for any confusion the lowercase 't' in the hyphenated form might have caused you. However, "non[-]" does not need to be capitalised (mid-sentence), just as non-Christian or unamerican are also properly not capitalised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary: 'Trinitarianism' (specific) is a doctrine identifying the nature of a 'trinitarian' (general) deity.--Canadiandy talk 06:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The term Trinity is conventionally capitalized. Trinitarianism is sometimes capitalized, but usually not, and nontrinitarianism is almost never capitalized. We must follow scholarly convention. Wikipedia follows and reflects scholarship, and does not lead scholarship or push it in a new direction. COGDEN 18:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is highly debatable whether the term 'nontrinitatianism' is a scholarly convention as COgden has suggested. In the searches I have done it is not very common or standardized at all. In fact the term is usually used to refer not to theology, but to opposition towards opponents of Trinitarianism (i.e. not opposed to the theology, but those who believe the theology). I propose a qualifier (disambiguation) so that the term is used as either 'non-Trinitarian', 'nonTrinitarian' or 'Non-Trinitarian'. If not the article will need a major overhaul to reflect the common scholarly convention in which the term 'nontrinitarian' or 'nontrinitarianism' reflects primarily on the topic of individuals or groups who oppose individuals or groups who adhere to the Trinitarian creeds, not merely those who do not adhere to the theology or doctrine of same.--Canadiandy talk 20:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is used by those who believe in a Trinity to describe those who do not. It is completely based in theology and not based on personalities. (Belief in a Triune God or not.) If you believe there is a scholarly consensus otherwise, you will need to provide sources to that effect. The term Trinity is capitalized because it is a reference to God, much like saying "His Will" instead of "his will". The qualifier you propose will only serve to confuse the reader as to why we seem to arbitrarily be switching our spelling and is not in line with scholarly opinion. -- Avanu (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A slight correction there—the reason for capitalising Trinity is because it is a proper noun referring to the name of a doctrine. It is not capitalised merely as an honorific, as is done (twice) in the example of "His Will"; Wikipedia's Manual of Style precludes capitalisation for such religious honorifics (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, yes, I understand that Trinity is also capitalised when used in reference to the godhead it is said to represent, which is also a proper noun, and not just as the name of a doctrine. My point is that the capitalisation is not analogous to the common capitalisation of honorifics used for characteristics, pronouns, or possessions, such as in "God's Grace" or "His Will".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no dispute as to what nontrinitarianism means in this context: it is simply the opposite of trinitarianism. Nontrinitarianism is to Trinity as non-denominational Christianity is to Christian denomination. We should not expect it to be distinct, trademarked ideology like Communism, because there are many nontrinitarian theologies, all vastly different and unrelated to each other. But because nontrinitarian religions presently constitute a very small minority, it makes sense to have an article that discusses them all in one place. I see this article is simply a sub-article of Trinity. It's just a place to note the other Christian theologies besides the dominant trinitarianism. COGDEN 07:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You state that, "There's no dispute as to what nontrinitarianism means in this context: it is simply the opposite of trinitarianism." Sorry, COgden, I disagree. You don't get to choose what gets disputed. As to your claim that, "...nontrinitarian religions presently constitute a very small minority", again, I disagree. Are you seriously arguing that the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons... are a small minority? The research you referred to actually suggests that the most common use of the term seems to be in identifying groups who historically dared to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity creed. In fact it is a very ethnocentric term. To suggest that Buddhists are nontrinitarians is kind of like calling Sikhs nonchristian. Correct, I guess, but blatantly ignorant, offensive, and insensitive. New academic courtesy suggests we focus on what a religion is, not how it doesn't fit the ethnic or religious social trends. Why would we say Jews are nontrinitarian, when we could instead say they believe in one God whom they refer to formally as YHWH. Curiously, there is not one single reference that I could find on the article on Judaism that used the term nontrinitarian. Is this a double standard, or just poor usage of the academic terminology? Interestingly I did a Google search for the definition of the word nontrinitarian. The majority of hits (not just the first few) were from Wikipedia (supporting my hypothesis that the term is mainly original research). The first hit that was not WP stated the definition as "One who rejects the doctrine of the Holy Trinity". Notice that the emphasis for the term is on the rejecting of the doctrine. I don't believe the religions above (Mormons included) focus their religious efforts on discrediting the Trinity creeds. It is completely possible for a religion to have differing doctrines without actively "rejecting" the beliefs of other faiths. Not every fan who cheers the Toronto Maple Leafs boos the Montreal Canadiens.--Canadiandy talk 06:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

nontrinitarian is an inherently Christian-centric term. When you talk about Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims above, you know you are using nontrinitarian out of context. I wasn't really sure what you were trying to say about Buddhists and Sikhs, but if you are comparing religions with vast differences you have to use terminology that is appropriate to the situation. No one calls Jews by the term nontrinitarian because Jews aren't Christian. If you're in a long discussion about the nature of God, it might come up to help people understand, but generally Trinitarian and nontrinitarian are reserved for use in describing Christian beliefs. As far as your claim of original research, I find the term nontrinitarian used often, but of course, being a minority view, not nearly as often as Trinitarian. If you want a different term, you could try unitarian or Arian, but those two are going to mislead people. Your opinion on the word 'reject' makes it sound like you think that people have to actively act against whatever it is. Vegans and vegetarians reject meat, but that doesn't mean they are out at the butcher shop protesting. They just choose vegetables instead. You really really want to see this whole thing as more conflicted than it really is. Its super simple though. A huge majority of Christianity is Trinitarian, so how do you easily describe the rest? They are not Trinitarian. Since we know the terms refer to Christianity only... we can immediately tell, "ah ok, these people are Christian somehow, but they don't believe in a Triune God." Specifics come later. -- Avanu (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing Mormons as Christians, Avanu.--Canadiandy talk 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is original research to conclude that, Andy. Not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. -- Avanu (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who wrote, "Trinitarian and nontrinitarian are reserved for use in describing Christian beliefs." So the question follows, are Mormons a Christian religion? If not, then by your own logic 'nontrinitarian' would need to be dropped.--Canadiandy talk 23:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism is a religion that inarguably comes from a base that is found in Christian tradition. However, this does not necessarily mean it is inarguably Christian. "By my own logic", those things derived from a Christian-centic base might have a legitimate need to be found somewhere on the spectrum of beliefs that are Trinitarian and not. Those things that have no connection whatsoever to a Christian basis need not necessarily concern themselves with whether they are Trinitarian. Jews have no such debate because there is one and only one God, and there is no Christ and no need to reconcile Monotheism as a result. Hindus have no need to reconcile such things because their beliefs do not really overlap with Christian or Judaistic beliefs. Andy, you want to fit things together to meet your new definition but that simply isn't the way they fit. Mormons have a need to reconcile against the concept of other Christian traditions and the Trinity because they claim to be Christian. That is enough for why they would have a place on the spectrum of Christian-centric beliefs. It does not mean they have or do not have the 'one true faith' or anything, it just means that it is a relevant concept. -- Avanu (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as you understand what you're saying I'm happy. But you state that "Mormonism is a religion that inarguably comes from a base that is found in Christian tradition." You know, just by saying something is inarguable doesn't make it so. Actually, according to Mormon theology, Mormonism comes from a restoration of authority and not merely an extension or adaptation of the Christian tradition, so the point is definitely arguable. I understand you not having a complex understanding of LDS theology, but as long as you try to force out those within the faith by labeling them as pushing pro-LDS issues, you will continue to be left in the dark on these things. So as I read what you are saying, when arguing for whether Mormonism gets a theology textbox like other Christian faiths, Mormons don't qualify because they're not Christian. But when I suggest the term nontrinitarian is as inappropriate for Mormonism as it is for Judaism all of a sudden we are a Christian tradition. I'll assume in good faith that I am missing something here. Your last post was a little confusing but it is very possibly just me.--Canadiandy talk 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I'm not sure how else to explain. It seems you want to push a viewpoint. I'm not trying to push you or anyone else out of this, but like I said several times before, this is all about 'reliable sources'. You are asking for an innovation in the definitions here, and in order to make such changes, you need to provide sources that support them. My personal beliefs are not relevant, neither are yours. What is relevant is the perspective that our sources bring. I did not say Mormonism = Christianity, but I did say that Mormonism has a clear connection and roots in Christianity. Some of our sources make the argument that Mormonism is different enough from 'mainstream' Christianity as to be considered a new religion, much as Christianity itself was different enough from Judaism to be a different religion. However, such an interpretation of Mormonism is not necessarily the majority point of view. This debate is best had back at the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, but for some reason you wanted to debate it with editors here. Unequivocally "The Trinity" is a Christian concept, and this article is a content fork of Trinity. I suggest you either go back to the LDS article, or you go to the Trinity article and make a debate there. Either way, this article is somewhat down the chain and is probably the wrong place to have this debate. -- Avanu (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You can have last word, Avanu. I'm done.--Canadiandy talk 07:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad Grammar!

I can't believe that I have to provide references for grammar! When compounding a word, where the root word is capitolized, it must be hyphenated. You have this huge discussion above and have accomplished nothing in that dialogue! This boils down to simple grammar.

References:

• Anne Stilman. "Grammatically Correct: The Essential Guide to Spelling, Style, Usage, Grammar, and Punctuation", 2010 (ISBN 1582976163, 9781582976167), pg. 30, 31

• Barbara Ann Kipfer. "21st Century Grammar Handbook" (ISBN 0440614228, 9780440614227), See (H) Hyphen. Prefixes

• Hyphenated Words- A Guide; See "Do not hyphenate words prefixed by non"

Also, try looking up "Nontrinitarianism" in the Oxford Dictionary at Nontrinitarianism... then compare with non-Christian.

Please move this page from nontrinitarian to Non-Trinitarian, so it doesn't look stupid.

Thanks,

Jasonasosa (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't insult people in edit summaries by calling them tards. It violates WP:NPA and will eventually get you blocked. BTW: you misspelled capitalized which seems ironic given the context. 98.248.194.216 (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither form (nontrinitarian[ism] or non-Trinitarian[ism]) is 'bad grammar' at all. Both are perfectly valid forms. (On the other hand, "capitolized" isn't a word anywhere.) I provided a clear explanation of this in December 2010.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument attempted above concerning the Oxford Dictionary (deliberately?) ignores the fact that neither non-Trinitarian nor non-Trinitarianism are listed at that site.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I made several mistakes. I'm sorry:

1. I misspelled capitalized.

2. I found that the first "T" in trinity is NOT always capitalized in usage... thereby making it interchangeable as Jeffro indicated.

3. I'm sorry if anyone took offense to the use of "tard"... I didn't think anyone really hung out on the edit section of a talk page.

4. I'm sorry about my persistence in this matter... I should not have been so abrupt. I went about this all wrong.

Jasonasosa (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have move protected the page for two weeks to give time for a concensus to develop here. LadyofShalott 13:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern Christians

Oneness Pentecostalism is not the same as Modalists however this section makes it clear that they are; contrary to the mane article on Modalists. Wile both are non Trinidadian Referring to Oneness Pentecostalism as "Modalists" or "Sabellians" or "Jesus Only" is only commonly done so derogatorily. Jasoninkid (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Forms of Christian nontrinitarianism

The para that concludes subsection 1.1 has the sentence, "Nontrinitarian doctrine often generates controversy among mainstream Christians as most trinitarians consider it heresy not to believe in a co-equal Trinity.". I think that it is more correct to say, "Nontrinitarian doctrine often generates controversy among mainstream Christians as most trinitarians consider it heresy not to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity." (my emphasis). The former would lead one to conclude that only dissent from the "co-equal" part of the doctrine is heresy; this is not the case. For mainstream Christians, dissent from any part of the doctrine is formally heretical. The full doctrine is stated in the lead and it would be superfluous to restate it in subsection 1.1. So to cherry pick just one part of the doctrine as being the basis for the heresy in general is wrong. Certain groups, e.g. Arians, have particular problems with "co-equal". There is a section on Arianism; that's where that fine point ought to be made. As this is a general conclusion for 1.1, it ought not to rely on just one group; the point relates to the doctrine as a unit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Revert

moved from own Talk page by In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't explain your revert except to say "edit warring" which was not really a valid explanation of anything specific. Because if that's the case the other editor was "edit warring". And I did NOT violate 3RR, by the way, so your comment was actually inaccurate and bogus. Now if you disagreed with my edit, and that's why you reverted, then that's another matter, but you didn't state that, or go into anything. You didn't go into any detail. I said that this matter should be taken to article talk...and you didn't do that. And I said that I'd abide by consensus on the talk only. Once the particulars and the cases are actually clearly made (if it gets to that point). Your edit comment was inaccurate, non-explanatory, and singled only one person out... hence why you will be reverted tomorrow. (And if you yourself revert again, without going to article talk, or really explaining anything, regarding the actual merits itself, etc, then arguably YOU will be "edit-warring".) Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim. No, but I see you have discussed on Laurel Lodged's Talk page and I added a comment there to the effect that the other editor appears to be maintaining sourced material. In any event comment should be here. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that you were moving it...I thought you were just blanking it because you didn't want to talk about it, for some reason. Ok... Anyway, this is not that major of a deal, but I feel it's wrong to revert or undo something simply because one "does not like it"...even though it's A) valid, b) accurate, C) good-faith, and D) more clear. Arius also believed in a "trinity", but of UN-equal members. So it's not just a "trinity doctrine" in general, but more specifically a CO-EQUAL Trinity that many believe if one does not believe, it is "heresy". So? Why is that a big problem, to simply make it that a bit more clear, and specific? I'll say it again. Arius believed in a "divine three" ALSO. He said as much, that he believed in a "trinity". But just of un-equal members, who were NOT "co-eternal"... I don't see what the big issue is in the context of that sentence. It's only more clear and more accurate. Many people don't even know that Arius held to a divine "trinity" too. But in a more unusual and "unequal" sense. It's whatever. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is there are plenty of RS (in the article itself) that it's a CO-EQUAL "trinity" that is at issue. "Co-equality" (as well as "co-eternity") are what are CENTRAL to the point, in all "RS". Not simply a "three" in general. Yes, we kinda know that the phrase "the Trinity" refers to the Nicean/Constantineapolitan Athanasian "co-equal co-eternal" trinity, but the point arguably should be made clear that it's not just a "divine three" that is at issue, but that they are thought to be "co-equal". And it's obvious that the RS is stating that point. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim,

Sorry, but to whom is the above section addressed?

In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim, a couple of pointers; (1) Please see WP:EW and WP:3RR and note that they are not the same thing. (2) Also, please see WP:ES although it is good to use the edit summary to summarise edits, the edit summary is not the place to conduct Talk, see WP:REVTALK, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Groups

Groups should not part 7. Are groups current ones only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) In the information about Christian Science why is Key not quoted, no wonder some the information on the page is so inaccurate, especially around the nontrinitarian=jews mistakes. "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" has sold millions and is used by all Christian Scientists. Why are Worldwide Church of God (Armstong followers) not on the list when even their Wikipedia article says that they believe in a family of Gods. Church of Christ do not use the Old Testement and are definitely not nontrinitarian=jews. As over half the groups list is fake why have it. Stop edit wars, Wikipedia is shit.

Pruning the group and people lists

I am shortly going to start removing groups for which there is no citation, and likewise for the people. I also think that anyone who isn't a religious leader shouldn't be listed here. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

History section split early church / post reformation

Seemed a major gap that the "History" section actually had nothing in it about history apart from 4th Century. Added the following stub paragraph.

Following the Reformation

Main article: History of Unitarianism

Following the Protestant Reformation, and the German Peasants' War of 1524–1525, by 1530 large areas of Northern Europe were Protestant, and forms of nontrinitarianism began to surface among some "Radical Reformation" groups, particularly Anabaptists. The Italian humanist "Council of Venice" (1550) and the trial of Michael Servetus (1553) marked the clear emergence of markedly anti-Trinitarian Protestants. Though the only organised non-Trinitarian churches were the Polish Brethren who split from the Calvinists (1565, expelled 1658), and the Unitarian Church of Transylvania (1568-today). Nonconformists and Dissenters in Britain were often Arians or Unitarians, and the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed nontrinitarian worship in Britain. In America Arian and Unitarian views were also found among some Millenialist and Adventist groups, though the Unitarian Church itself began to decline after the 1850s.

Yeah I know it's not sourced, anyone who feels anything there is remotely controversial add some inline, but it's all such white-bread commonplace material the main point is to provide an umbrella of wikilinks to people to trail off to the relevant articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's a very good start. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it for s in a couple of weeks in case anyone does ask for them.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection request

Please change "After hundreds of years of being suppressed nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians." to "Civil authorities in Christendom suppressed nontrinitarians in their realms. Today, nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians.". See discussion below: "After hundreds of years of being suppressed" and long list of attacks by 2 unregistered IPs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we haven't talked before but I've noted the good job you've done in keeping this and other articles clean. I have reverted IP to your last edit. If you go for page protection you may cut paste this sentence as being a seconding voice. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this into a section to maintain the organization of the talk page. Celestra (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is not the way to request protection for the page. You need to go to WP:Request for page protection and follow the directions you will find there. If you would like help with that, let me know on my talk page. Regards, Celestra (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Celestra. Laurel, will wait on page protection for a moment, pending on whether things settle down. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

After hundreds of years of being suppressed

This is in danger of entering a war and so needs to go to the talk page. Reverters of the text to the current version have consistently referred to the Pope in justifying their reversion. This despite the fact that neither this nor the alternative version mentions the Pope. The current sentance has 4 citations. The first 2 cite Byzantine Emperors who suppressed nontrinitarianism in the Empire. The third cites the Calvinists of the City of Geneva. The fourth, while mentioning the Pope, makes it clear that it was a secular matter for the King of France: "Although the Crusade did not eliminate Catharism, it eventually enabled the French king to establish his authority over the south." All of these tend to support the alternate phrasing of "Civil authorities in Christendom suppressed nontrinitarians in their realms. Today, nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians.". I move that this phrasing be used instead. Additionally the current one is not neutral enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with stating that civil authorities crushed the religious faction would hide and mislead the reader to think that civil authorities were the reason that the nontrinitarians were destroyed. The same forces that would incite a purely secular government would today cause our own American secular government to weigh against a religious faction, like nontrinitarianism, which simply does not happen (unless the government is being controlled by a trinitarian religious group). The reality is that the trinitarian Roman Emperors worked in lockstep with their trinitarian politico/clergy counterparts in crushing nontrinitarian forces. To state that the crushing was simply secular would be a huge insult akin to stating that the Jewish holocaust was simply the effort of a few inhumane and deranged guards. The reality is, both the Jewish holocaust and the nontrinitarian holocaust were controlled by leaders who had a keen religious and political bent, with a common benefit in crushing opponents to trinitarianism. The article should not mislead one into thinking it was simply a secular force. This would be more appropriate: "Secular governments working under the direction of the trinitarian church succeeded in crushing nontrinitarian Christians, such that today nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians." Otherwise not mentioning secular is fine; 64.20.197.115 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing is the implication that the small numbers of modern non-trinitarians is due to this suppression. At the very least we would need a solid citation for that analysis. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hitler argument already? Time to walk away from the "debate". Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok how about Kim Jong IL? If you are a Juche follower of North Korea, it is highly insulting to say that there was anything bad about the Kims, that they killed millions of civilians, etc. However, it is true, despite the fact that Juche followers would be highly insulted to have that written. In the same way you are insulted that anyone would list history that does not paint the Trinitarian church in a positive light, even though it is very real and very documented. 64.20.197.115 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be more that you are unwilling to allow for the possibility that modern non-trinitarian numbers are small because most people think that the doctrine of the trinity is superior. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and a North Korean follower of Juche would say the same thing -- everyone in North Korea spouts Juche philosophy because it is 'superior', despite overwhelming evidence that the opposition was systematically crushed. In this case, we have hundreds of years of trinitarians proudly discussing how they crushed nontrinitarians -- whether it was a series of crusades, purges, enslavements, burnings at the stake of people or documents, etc. 64.20.197.115 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So find a source and cite it. Sure, you'll have no problem getting sources to say that the Bogomils and Cathars and JWs were persecuted. It is a lead-pipe cinch, however, that Hitler persecuted the JWs not because they are Arians, but because of their dogged lack of cooperation with the state. And you'll find lots of scholarly sources who will say that it's difficult to tell exactly whether the Cathars were hunted down because they were heretics, or whether their heresy was made attractive as a sign of their rebellion against the authorities. That happened hundreds of years ago, in another country, and in the present I'm sure that the parking lot of the local Kingdom Hall is a fraction of the size of that belonging to the neighboring Protestant megachurch because many more people want to go to the latter than the former. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a zillion sources -- just search for the word 'heretic' in the Catholic encyclopedia, or in the list of 'Saints' who were sainted because they helped eradicate trinitarian 'heretics'. The Maya script was lost for hundreds of years because of the standard Catholic practice of burning opponents religious writings. The nontrinitarians ('Arians' as the Trinitarian Athanasius coined them) used to be found in half the Meditteranean countries -- until over several centures the trinitarians enslaved Vandals, crushed, or converted their kings to their side. If the local trinitarian church is packed, most of those people had parents who went to the trinitarian church, and the whole line of nontrinitarians, as has been pointed out many times, was crushed by trinitarians such that they did not leave children to go to church -- until the modern times, when our country pioneered separation of church and state and protected them from violent control. Here is a link to a map of nontrinitarian countries before they were overtaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_526.jpg (everything west of Italy and in North Africa)64.20.197.115 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Only 1 IP supports the current phrasing. Reverting to NPOV phrasing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's meaningful to provide the article with WP:RS sourcing that makes the point that between the alleged poisoning of Arius to the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 the numbers of non-Trinitarians in Europe was supressed by means varying from ethnic cleansing to financial penalty, however I would think that after 1813 the search for sources as to why the total number of non-Trinitarians failed to increase (and probably declined as the Unitarian movement fizzled out) would require a long search in a well equipped university library. Good luck to anyone who can find a source that even comments on the phenomena. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

How can you say that nontrinitarianism has fizzled out? It has grown from 1813, being a suppressed and attacked religion, such that today every community has Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons on bikes, etc out in the public view. In contrast, since America's separation of Church and State has come into force, they have in fact blossomed. And as more people become aware of the holocaust that trinitarians perpetuated on Christians, they will have the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. 24.176.58.127 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

hey Laurel, did your check from the Church come in yet? Many rational people on here acknowledge that nontrinitarianism was crushed by a combination of secular and church trinitarians working together, but for some reason you want to conceal that or make it into something it was not. Censorship belongs in the waste-bin of history -- cut it out! 69.51.152.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Peddle the holocaust theories elsewhere. Or support them with sources. Either would be fine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

They are listing 4 sources, a mix of Popes and Emperors that attacked nontrinitarian Christians in various ways. If that is not sourced then nothing is - any rational person would recognize that there are secular and Trinitarian Church partisans that participated in crushing their opponents. However, you for some reason want to conceal the role of the trinitarian church in that. 24.176.58.127 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have restored to Laurel Lodge's last edit and left a welcome-anon and a link to WP:3RR on 24.176.58.127's talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow your leaving a note on someone's page skirts the issue here? 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 69.51.152.180 there are a number of issues here. Another issue would be WP:NPA. The basic standards of WP:etiquette and - in this case - WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS should also be applied. As regards the basic premise - that there was persecution and discrimination of Arians and Unitarians 300-1700, that is a historical fact and can be documented by WP:RS in the article. But the edits have to start being done in a way that follows the basic norms of an encyclopedia. I hope you'll understand this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Octu, I appreciate your attention to etiquette and will attempt to refrain from personal comment. However, it is difficult for some of us who uphold the idea of a free (open) encyclopedia to act as a medium for the censorship and concealment of ideas, as this case appears to be. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 69.51.152.180, thanks, okay well maybe we can put the above as water under the bridge and actually start to look for sources that support the immediate disputed edit. The problem with the edit as 24.176.58.127 made it, and the legitimate reason why Laurel Lodged reverted to WP:Status quo, is that the sentence as it stands is (a) unsourced, (ii) WP:Synthesis, in that it takes verifiable fact A (there was persecution of Arians) and verifiable fact B (that there are few Unitarians today) and makes synthesis conclusion C, that B is a result of A. There might actually be some truth in the conclusion in many countries. The reason why there was never a large Unitarian movement in Spain and Italy, for example, is evidently related to full religious equality for non-Trinitarians having come a lot later than 1813 (Britain), but in the context of Boston for example, where in the 1850s non-Trinitarian Protestants nearly outnumbered Trinitarian Protestants suppression is no explanation why Boston only has a handful of non-Trinitarian churches in 2012. So you need to look for WP:V sources if that conclusion C is going to be in the lede. Do you have any books on Unitarian or Arian history after 1800? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ictu, I think the issue that I would see with Laurel Lodge's edit, where I would prefer 24's edit, is that the LL edit clearly states something that is misleading, that nontrinitarians were suppressed by secular forces. It is clear to all who study the matter, and the citations listed demonstrate, that secular and religious forces worked together in those pogroms that basically eradicated nontrinitarian Christians in Europe and North Africa. A modern anecdotal study of Boston et al without looking at the larger picture of nontrinitarianism which has sprung forth (including Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, etc.) would perhaps give an incomplete picture as well. Perhaps we should say that 'Early nontrinitarians' were supressed by trinitarians, but have in the past few hundred years been given freedom in Western countries and have slowly grown? 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi 69.51.152.180, just as an aside, have you any particular reason for 24.176.58.127 and yourself not registering? It makes life easier for everyone, it makes your edits less likely to be reverted, and it hides your geographical location.

• A second thing - I am sorry but I personally would choose not to continue discussion if the terms "pogrom" (yourself) or "holocaust" (24.176.58.127) are going to be used on Talk. There is no comparison between the (alleged) poisoning of Arius, crusade against the Cathars, trial of Servetus, expulsion of the Socinians, etc. and the Tsarist pogroms or genocide perpetrated by the Third Reich against the Jews. I take it you have not physically stood in the suitcase room at Auschwitz? If you want to use emotive language please use the term "crusade," which is at least relevant to the Cathars, but better still, find WP:RS sources and use the terms there.
• As far as the numerical decline of Unitarians in Boston and elsewhere in New England and America that is well documented in the standard histories of Unitarianism, see the History of Unitarianism page. According to those historians persecution was not a factor, if anything, according to some, the removal of discrimination may have been a factor.
• As far as Laurel's choice of words, I'm not sure that "civil authorities" is correct in view of the lack of separation of church and state till the 1800s, however academic sources on persecution of Cathars (who were only accused of nontrinitarianism), Bogumils (who in the main may not have been nontrinitarian), give socio-economic and political reasons for their persecution. Socinians, yes, it was mainly a religious reaction of Calvinist and Jesuit elements in the Sejm, though the expulsion of 1658 was not fatal to most Socinians as they found sanctuary in Amsterdam and Cluj-Napoca.

So in sum - what books do you have access to which will provide sources to the question you have posed, is there a causal relationship between persecution/discrimination and the small numbers of nontrinitarians today? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated question 24.176.58.127, out of interest, when a message is left on an unregistered talk page does the user get an orange box saying "you have a new message" or do you have to manually check your talk page to see? I'm just curious, I assumed the orange message notification appears, maybe it doesn't? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, such a message does appear it appears :) 24.176.58.127 (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. I think the IP address should stop it already, and move on. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)