User talk:TheLionHasSeen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Oneness Pentecostalism Article

Hello, TheLionHasSeen! I just wanted to clarify my reasoning behind the removal of "(Theophilus of Antioch is the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory)" in the "Oneness views on the early church" section of the Oneness Pentecostalism article (my bad on not giving it sooner):

1. It seems unnecessary, as it breaks the flow of the sentence and the information being conveyed. This sentence gives a theory from Bernard, then provides a bit of background on the person that is key to the theory. I think that it is enough to say that Tertullian was one of the first notable Christian figures to use the term without also giving who was the first. The added information just makes the article harder to read and does not really add any value.
2. It contradicts something not being said. Bernard claims that a majority of Christians were Oneness until Tertullian, not that Tertullian was the first to use the term "Trinity." When the article said, "Theophilus of Antioch is the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory," it seems to say that Bernard claimed that Tertullian was the first to use the term "Trinity," which is not the case.

I hope this makes sense! I do want to let you know that I'm not going to remove this again unless you agree with my reasoning, so let me know your thoughts! Once again, I want to apologize for not giving my reasoning sooner. I also want to thank you for all you're doing on this article to improve it! I appreciate your diligence in ensuring this article is as good as possible!

-JParksT2023 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, in clarification, I have to posit the following: 1) Bernard would actually be suggesting that according to Chapter 11: "Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal." Therefore, I would argue that the information must remain in such a tone. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Bernard says that, which is exactly my point. He does not ever claim that Tertullian was the first person to use the term "Trinity," but only that he was the first prominent person to use it. By saying that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the term does not contradict anything Bernard is claiming, which is why it doesn't make sense to include it in the article, especially since, as I noted, it seems unnecessary and breaks the flow of the sentence. JParksT2023 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Stating he was the first prominent (synonym for notable) person to use it, Theophilus, as the truly first notable person, does contradict. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, how about we change the language to make it a little more clear. Possibly change it to this?

Bernard believes that Tertullian was the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism and theorizes as such that the majority of all believers were Oneness adherents until the time of Tertullian. (Theophilus of Antioch was the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory.)

JParksT2023 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Or, in keeping with what you have, it could be changed to, "Bernard theorizes that the majority of all believers were Oneness adherents until the time of Tertullian, who he believes was the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism (Theophilus of Antioch was the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory)." JParksT2023 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Those two recommendations negate that being the first notable person, Tertullian still applied the word alongside Theophilus; so it would have to be "Bernard theorizes that the majority of all believers were Oneness adherents until the time of Tertullian, who he believes was the first prominent exponent of Trinitarianism (though Theophilus of Antioch was the first prominent figure, against this theory). - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with this. I'll put it in! JParksT2023 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that you seem to have this article on your watchlist, and have taken some sort of responsibility in ensuring that no one makes any changes to it that you disagree with. However, let me remind you that we all own wikipedia, and we all get to make edits. I understand that according to your user page, you affirm the Nicene Creed, which would definitely put you at odds with the Oneness Pentecostal beliefs. I myself am a Oneness Pentecostal, and therefore have my own biases. However, I'm attempting to make a correction that is neutral. The part I'm trying to edit is written as Wikipedia's voice, and is very biased. I removed it at first because it is also redundant. There is a neutral sentence that says the same thing in the section "View of the Trinity". Instead of using "most" it uses "some", and it clearly states that is is an accusation by "some". I can agree with that. The other statement seems to be located in the incorrect section because the statement has nothing to do with "Accusations of Modalism". It also appears to be a quote from a Trinitarian pastor and should be placed in a blockquote or reworded to not be in Wikipedia's voice. It probably should also be moved to another section if I'm honest. I've tried to make those edits, but you seem to have taken full responsibility to leave it written as is without reason (other than accusing me of vandalism). This would leave me to assume is has something to do with your bias. We are all biased. I get that. I'm fully aware that "SOME" Trinitarians accuse Oneness Pentecostals of being a cult. However, to say that most do is not true even if it is quoted from a "reliable" source. I would argue that most Christians do not even know we exist. I could further argue that we do not meet any of the requirements of a cult since Oneness Pentecostalism is a theological movement comprised of many organizations around the globe that anyone can freely join or leave. There is no central cult leader, communal living, or forced membership. No one is manipulated into hurting themselves or drinking Kool-aid. We have a different opinion on the Godhead and then we are accused of being a cult. I disagree with the accusation, but am willing to admit that, yes, we are accused by a some of being a cult. However, you can't put a quote from one Trinitarian pastor stating that most protestants view all Oneness Pentecostals as a cult, and call it fact. It needs to be quoted in someone's voice besides Wikipedia's. Not just cited, but blockquoted. That is 100% an opinion of someone with obvious bias, and should be written as such or removed. Also, edit warring is not vandalism. You and I both have a difference of opinion, and it is clearly in your favor for people to read the those lines as they are written now even though I have stated reasons why they should be changed. I'm willing to compromise, but it needs to be rewritten in a neutral voice, or blockquoted. I can't blockquote it because I'm not buying the book to do that. Removing it is probably the best solution since the same idea is already stated in the article in a neutral voice, but I'm willing to discuss other options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordsWithFriends (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WordsWithFriends, you notice how commenting on a discussion on over a year ago is a hilarious mistake? This isn't about changes I "personally" disagree with too, so do not make unfounded and silly accusations, nor have I claimed WP:OWNERSHIP which none of us have for Wikipedia. Further responding to your commentary, it is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. I suggest you read about them. Your contributions, while appreciated, didn't really contribute much to the article other than verbiage which was unnecessary and trying to semantically WP:ADVOCATE. Most of Christendom adheres to Nicene Christianity, which is guess what, Trinitarian. To the largest Christian denominations—Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, anyone that doesn't teach the Trinity is an anathematized heretic. As for you personally, I don't care what your religious or political beliefs are, but do not come and suggest that I am some crusader knight. Let me also add, not every cult is centralized, and some Oneness bodies are cults as much as some Trinitarian bodies are according to the Federal U.S. Government and Southern Poverty Law Center. So, let's not go there. And also an edit war, that was between you and that random IP address. Try again, and I'll have this escalated. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm sorry for the accusations. I do agree that "some" Oneness and Trinitarian "bodies" are considered cults. However, applying that label to an entire theological movement is illogical, and unfounded. Nevertheless, anyone can hold that opinion if they want. It should just be stated as an opinion, and not written in Wikipedia's voice.

Being labeled heretics is irrelevant to this discussion. That is very different from labeling an entire movement a cult. WordsWithFriends (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I forgive you. Now, Wikipedia doesn't have a voice; the information isn't even written by verbatim stating, "Oneness Pentecostalism is a cult." The verbiage used has been neutral and stood as such, even before I began my involvement with the article, if I am correct by memory. Nonetheless, it stands there through reputable sources, properly cited. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's voice" is referring to any statement that is written to sound as if Wikipedia is saying the words. You can do this if the statement is neutral, but this statement is clearly biased and should be written in the voice of the person that holds that bias.

Biased Statement in Wikipedia's Voice:

Today, most conservative Protestants view Oneness Pentecostalism, in all of its iterations, as a theological cult akin to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (i.e., Mormonism) or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses).

1. One (or 3 or 4) Trinitarian pastor(s) cannot speak for all conservative protestants, but he can state this as an opinion.

2. We both agree that there are "bodies" of cults that are both Trinitarian, and Oneness, but to say that all Oneness Pentecostals are in a cult like all LDS and JWs, is an opinion.

For these reasons, the statement is a biased opinion, and Wikipedia can't have a biased opinion. The Trinitarian pastor can have a biased opinion, which is why it should be blockquoted.

Also, there is a neutral statement that expresses the same sentiment without bias in the section "View on Trinity":

Acceptable Statement with Redundant sentiments

The Oneness position as nontrinitarians places them at odds with the members of most Christian denominations, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as cultists.

To me this is acceptable because:

1. It is true that we are at odds with most Christian denominations

2. It says "some of whom have accused", instead of "most Conservative Protestants view". This is a more accurate statement. WordsWithFriends (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If a few people's opinion, rightly cited as reliable sources with them having the backing of the majority of conservative (Evangelical) Protestantism, as can be seen with WP:COMMONSENSE, the statement isn't biased. You merely do not like it, no more than an Independent Baptist aligned with Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't like to be called a fundamentalist, from these observations. Nonetheless, I digress yet do see your reasoning behind redundancy for something just stated before. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you propose the redundancy issue be resolved then? If not removing it, then what?

Here's one idea, we move it up to the previous section since it has nothing to do with Modalism anyways. Then word it in a way that flows with the other statement.

Example:

The Oneness position as nontrinitarians places them at odds with the members of most Christian denominations, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as cultists. Some conservative protestants hold the opinion that Oneness Pentecostalism, in all of its iterations, is a theological cult akin to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (i.e., Mormonism) or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses). Oneness clergy consecrated into the Joint College of Bishops are also at odds on grounds of their claims to apostolic succession (being that documented consecrators in succession were Trinitarian from the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern churches, alongside contradicting records). WordsWithFriends (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, while you were typing I already did that. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It still sounds redundant to me.. but maybe you have an idea. WordsWithFriends (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant, what I wrote on this page sounds redundant. Not what you wrote on the article in question. WordsWithFriends (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jean Lafitte, Louisiana logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jean Lafitte, Louisiana logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Vague MOS mentions

Please be more specific when referring to the MOS than this. The main Wikipedia MOS page (MOS:LAYOUT) does not give specifics for arranging main sections in the body of articles. Certain Wikipedia projects may provide a recommended order for main sections, such as Aircraft project at [[WP:Aircontent]. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read

Talk:Mount Ebal about the inscription. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I've had a chance to read through this discussion and research the further policies and guidelines. Thank you for your correction; I do add that I misunderstood the "lol" at the beginning, however. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Learning our policies and guidelines can be a real learning curve, especially for certain types of articles. The "lol" was in reaction to the first link I saw that was pushing the Creationists who found it and the comments about "Bible deniers". Doug Weller talk 07:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice

Hey! During your moving of Talk:State church of the Roman Empire, you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the |archive= parameter in the {{User:MizaBot/Config}} template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about ratings of states

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Vermont#CNBC rating of states. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Lafayette, Louisiana flag

Hi, I see you undid my removal of the flag from the Lafayette, Louisiana article. As I explained in the talk page [1], this flag is entirely ficitious, and it's pretty rude to just revert something like that with no rebuttal. I'm removing it again because, to the best of my knowledge, it's misinformation, but feel free to explain why you want it included in the talk page. 128.59.179.15 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

I resized most of the images at Pennsylvania, as nearly every one was oversized. I removed a few as well. The photo captions could use a trim as well. Thanks for pointing out the photo issue. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll have to be on the lookout however, as it appears one of the main article contributors reverts some contributions like this which may interrupt their flow of work; they see to be working in entirely good faith, however! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Coptic Catholic Church. This edit summary is unacceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, however I have been known for engaging against a plethora of WP:POV cases throughout the years—all of which have led to actual conflicts of interest per my archives, etc. I merely responded in good faith, perhaps, however, with a "Wikipedian PTSD" from having dealt with patterns of alleged advocacy confirmed in others. Am I blaming you for this in discussion now, no? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Mississippi. The edit summary[2] for this revert is simply unacceptable. You may indeed be correct about the content dispute, but that's not an excuse for accusing editors of bad faith. In the future, if a change is reverted attempt to discuss the issue. Nemov (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Has the other user likewise been warned, Walt Yoder? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen is in good faith, @Walt Yoder. But there's no need to merge together Protestantism + Catholicism + Mormonism into a general "Christianity". We don't do it to other religions because PRRI doesn't ask the question. It's also likely that their % of their population makes an accurate sample size hard/impossible to get with PRRI's methods. KlayCax (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, then is there another survey that would be better suited? The Pew surveys are all over the place and a complete mess, so it's down to PRRI, and ARDA, but ARDA misses the irreligious population and generally only measures by adherents reported and attendance per 1,000. This is so complicatedly annoying since religion isn't on the U.S. census. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No, Public Religion Research Institute is (to my knowledge) the only one to do it at the state level frequently, and is generally considered to be the best. It's almost impossible to get a proportional breakdown (in %) branches of other religions. (e.g. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, et al.) They don't compromise enough of the U.S. population for most surveys to include a proportionally representative sample. That's why it's left as "Judaism" instead of "Orthodox/Conservative/Reform Judaism" in the PRRI American Values Atlas.

As the vast majority of religious Americans are Christian: it's much easier to get a proportionate sample. I realize why that might seem "strange" at first glance. But it would be a disservice to artifically blend together all branches/denominations into "Christianity". Utah and Alabama's pie charts would look pretty similar... And you'd lose a lot of information by doing so.

I think the previous version is fine. KlayCax (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How would it be a disservice to artificially blend together all of them into "Christianity" when by common-sense measure, they are all Christian? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Because you lose a significant amount of information surrounding religious affilation that way for no reason. (e.g. Utah and Alabama would show similar statistics.)

Branch/denomination is overwhelmingly used as well in other articles. See Hungary, Poland, Canada, Mexico, France, Italy, Germany, et al. KlayCax (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better explained for denominational affiliation through the body of the text, right? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki consensus has always been that it should be in both. (Pie chart and body of the text.)

Pie charts almost always include branch (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) as well. If PRRI releases new data showing breakdown by other religions: then we add it.

As you said: There's no official U.S. census data. PRRI's information is the best we got for the moment. KlayCax (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Demographic history

Why are you systematically removing demographic history from entries? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, hello FloridaArmy!! Information removing demographic history from entries is in accordance with keeping demography up to date, especially when most Wikipedians updating demographics tends to be incredibly lazy and mess up the format of articles for settlements according to manual of style; I also recall information on one Wikipedia guideline for settlements somewhere that denoted, information from 2000 U.S. census should either be adjusted and brought up to format, or removed. As no one truly cares to do so for every single article, it would be better to remove them altogether and maintain the most up to date statistics. This is prevalent in many articles which even I have no relation toward. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How does removing history make something more up to date? For these entries we can no longer see how the demographics are changing. This is not an improvement. Please restore the demographic histories you removed. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, this has been done by over 10 editors on articles for majority of the 50 U.S. states articles, and is an improvement which many of us have collaborated on in accordance with instruction we've seen to cull 2000's census information for articles and bring them up to date with 2020 census information; if they want a full catalog, that's what the U.S. Census Bureau's websites are for as Wikipedia SUMMARIZES information. It should be a given by common sense to even denote that most articles still have 2000 census information, which is long out of date. Now, begone before you are addressed administratively for trying to push others around as if I and others are nothing more than simpletons, with your passive-aggressiveness as seen by your talk page's logs and other logs. Go hound at someone else with aggressive and unnecessary foolishness, F-L-O-R-I-D-A. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you summarize the historical information or just remove it? You think only current census stats are significant in understanding a community and it's history? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't discuss anything with me until you can check your attitude with those you demean whenever your Wikipedia articles are not accepted in drafts. Go apologize to UtherSRG, since I called you out and you reverted me calling you out, yet you want to try and call others out. Begone, your belligerency. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I also recall information on one Wikipedia guideline for settlements somewhere that denoted, information from 2000 U.S. census should either be adjusted and brought up to format, or removed. Can you please provide a link to this guideline you're citing to make all these changes? That would be a step in the right direction. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Who are you? Also, I responded after it seems you two chose to WP:HOUND at me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll ignore the WP:ASPERSIONS. Are you interested in answering my question? Nemov (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Checkmate. Re-read the above, and go look where you've recently tagged me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a barnstar for doing this and bringing articles up to date. Go elsewhere with these trivial matters showing the increased DIVERSTY of population. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)