Talk:Nontrinitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Unitarian Universalism / Latter Day Saints / Witnesses (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Unitarian Universalism work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article was nominated for deletion on 05/12/05. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nontrinitarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources STILL required[edit]

Comment made by "Fyzix": "(and fixing this to be in accordance with Abrahamic religions, where many reliable sources are provided that support this)"

Just because an article is "in accordance" with another article, does not therefore mean that the referenced article is accurate, either. That, too, shall be addressed. It is a myth of Islam, an attempt at "dawah" (that is, proselytizing), to claim that Islam is an "Abrahamic religion", and the sources included prove that. They are valid sources, in accordance with Wiki policy, which, as noted, does not rely on Truth, so much as verifiability. Therefore, this information has been verified, is in accordance with Wiki policy, and should not be undone AGAIN. The neutrality of "Abrahamic religions" will be addressed as well. Timber72 (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you have provided satisfy the criteria of WP:RS. Both are self-published internet blogs, which fails specifically WP:SPS. A reliable source in this case would probably be an academic source, such as a textbook, on philosophy of religion or religious studies or history or something similar from a publisher and/or known scholar with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For example, The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions clearly identifies Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as "Abrahamic religions". Similarly, other academic sources follow the same categorization: [1],[2], and so on. If you have a non-self-published reliable source that specifically excludes Islam, please share. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Timber72 - Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and for the references you have provided. Please do not be discouraged by the behavior of some of our more notorious edit warriors and administrators. I would like to point not that the references you provide are from 2010 and allude to items that are no longer a part of Wikipedia. In fact, the Abrahamic religions page now addresses some the items discussed in the references. Most importantly, the references do not dispute that a common origin is as a definition of Abrahamic religions. The references predominately find a concern with common "values" and Wikipedia has since addressed this.49.146.170.245 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing references to non-Christian religions[edit]

I've removed the sections on Judaism and Islam from the article, and replaced them with a hat note directing the reader to the Monotheism article for the viewpoints of these, and many other, religions. I recognise that excising whole sections from an article is a fairly major revision, which, in general, should follow discussion which, hopefully, leads to a consensus. I'm going ahead anyway here because the case for doing so seems fairly clear, and because in any case, the current content of these sections would need quite a bit of cleanup to meet Wikipedia's standards, if they were left here. As for why this should be done: (1) It is inconsistent to have sections on these two religions and not on the numerous others which also don't include the Trinity in their beliefs. (2) As all the rest of what is a pretty long article deals exclusively with Christian doctrine, these two sections look out of place. Also, it is listed as "part of a series on Christianity", etc. (3) Etymologically, the prefix "non" implies a specific focus on the opposite of what follows it. Judaism and Islam are nontrinitarian only in the sense that they are also non-dualistic, non-polytheistic, non-atheistic, etc. Davidhof (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I also removed the sub-section on Judaism from the section on the Holy Spirit, for essentially the same reasons as above, e.g. there would also need to be a subsection on Islam, etc. , and I added a hatnote directing the reader to Holy Spirit, where this concept is discussed for a number of religions, including Judaism. Davidhof (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose: these religions specifically address, and in the case of Islam, condemn the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam also has special relations with non-trinitarian Christians. Non-trinitarianism is a movement that begin in part in reaction to rabbinical Judiasm, and Islam, and the perspective of these faiths are directly relevant. --Zfish118talk 03:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the lead states that Trinitarism does not exist in other Abrahamic faiths. This is appropriate to note, and it thus becomes necessary to briefly address the beliefs or shared histories of the other faiths in response to nontrinitarian Christianity. --Zfish118talk 18:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I added two sources and trimmed some content. This article is still in low state of development, but a GA-quality article would have to address the Judaic and Islamic links to non-trinitarian Christianity. Scholarly material exists to develop these sections further in a relevant manner. --Zfish118talk 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I very strongly oppose including this material in the article, for the reasons I stated above. However, in the interest of not escalating an incipient revert war, I've left it in for the present. I did add templates alerting the reader that there's a dispute on this issue. I also tagged the sub-section on Judaism, which is unencyclopedic in the extreme, as relying too much on faith-based primary sources. It has quite a lot of other problems, but I didn't want to overburden the section with tags. Regarding the section on Islam, there may well be similar issues, but I'm less knowledgeable in that area, so I left it be.
As I see it, there are two issues here: (A) Should this article discuss the viewpoints of non-Christian religions on the Trinity at all? (B) Assuming that the answer to the first is "yes", should material that does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards be used as a "placeholder"? My answer to both would be "no". Regarding the first, this is not to say that the views of Islam or other Abrahamic (or, for that matter, non-Abrahamic) religions about the Trinity shouldn't be covered, only that this article is not the place to do it. The article on Islamic view of the Trinity is probably perfectly fine; I haven't reviewed it for quality, but the concept seems unobjectionable. Similarly, the article on Shituf would be the place to send people for the Jewish view of the Trinity. Listing those two articles under See Also would be quite reasonable. But the topic of this article is Christian theology. Drawing in non-Christian religions, and, as it were, forcing them to defend themselves on the other side's home field, does them a disservice. As for the second question, it's a matter of degree. Most Wikipedia articles have room for improvement; less than 1 in 150 are GA quality or better, and we don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. But when the quality of the "placeholder " is a low as it is here, it seems very clear to me that leaving it blank until some more suitable material can be prepared would be the better choice. Davidhof (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to build a consensus around the following idea? (1) Add a sentence to the last paragraph in the introduction, referring the reader to the separate articles on Jewish and Islamic views.(I did this already.) (2) Keep the structure of the current Section 2 (Other Abrahamic faiths) as is, but remove the polemical material, that is (a) in the subsection on Judaism, from the words "This view is espoused..." to the end of the first paragraph, and (b) in the subsection on Islam, from the words "Belief in all of the aforementioned..." to the end of the first paragraph. In both cases, the second paragraph (referring, respectively, to Montefiore and to Arianism) would remain the same. (3) Remove the subsection on Judaism from the section on the Holy Spirit, as it is historically incorrect to conflate the Hebrew phrase ruach hakodesh used in Rabbinic Jewish sources with the Third Person of the Trinity in Christian doctrine. The head note at the beginning of the section should suffice to alert interested readers where to go for information about the use of variations of this name or phrase in non-Christian religions. (4) Remove the templates on relevance and faith-based sources. Thoughts on this, anyone? Davidhof (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with this proposal if it buys some peace Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal by Davidhof - the inclusion of non-Christian religions on the Trinity, without any context, is IMO beyond the scope of this article. I would make a few suggestions with regards to the proposal. With regards to (2), most of the "Other Abrahamic faiths" section is essentially scope creep. The main parts that are within the context of this article are the 1897 source that comments on the connection between Judaism (perhaps summarize the quote rather than hiding it in the footnote) and the second paragraph of the Islam subsection, based primarily on the cited web article. These parts need to be moved into the primary position as the main claims, and the remaining material needs to be used to support those claims. I would also move the material down to Nontrinitarianism#Inter-religious dialogue where we already of a few sentences on this aspect. The "inter-religious" subsection does seem out of place under "Points of dissent" - maybe elevate it to its own section or put it under History? (3) Absolutely - but I would go further and reduce the size of the "Holy Spirit" section entirely making it a couple of paragraphs summarizing what is covered in more detail at Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations) (this suggestion is of course beyond the scope of the original proposal, but it's been bothering me for awhile). As it is now the amount of detail for this aspect seems undue weight with regards to some of the other parts of the article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (non-admin closure) Music1201 talk 21:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)



NontrinitarianismAntitrinitarianism – Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY/WP:COMMONNAME; see this NGram and this NGram. Neither "nontrinitarianism" nor "non-trinitarianism" even shows up, and the adj. form "nontrinitarian"/"non-trinitarian" is a distant second to the adj. form "antitrinitarian"/"anti-trinitarian". The prefix-hyphenated forms are also less common all around and consequently should not even be considered. Note also that the article already acknowledges "nontrinitarianism" and "antitrinitarianism" as synonymous, and that there is no practical difference in meaning between the two. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC), edited 00:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose This would actually change the meaning of the title, rather than just use a more widely-recognised word with the same meaning. As described by the Cambridge Dictionary, non- indicates the absence of something, while anti- indicates opposition to it. For that reason, I am not in favour of the change. While all the persons, movements, sects, etc. discussed in the article do not embrace the trinitarian viewpoint, only some of them can be characterised as being in active opposition to it. Davidhof (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the article already acknowledges that the two terms are synonymous. There is no practical difference in meaning. Anyway, if they don't accept the doctrine, they're automatically "against" it in at least some sense. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
True, the article already acknowledges that the two terms are synonymous. However, the article's acknowledgement of this statement doesn't make it correct. It may just mean that the article itself needs correcting. Unlike an opponent in a debate or a witness for the other side in a lawsuit, the article is not something we want to wring admissions from in order to prove our point.
As for your other assertions, with respect, this is precisely what we disagree on. I claim that there is a practical difference in meaning, and that there is enough divergence among the subjects of the article, both in how strongly they are "against " and, more importantly, the degree to which this opposition is central to their identity, to make "nontrinitarian" the more accurate description.
There appear to be relatively few stem words used with both the prefix non- and the prefix anti- in ordinary discourse. The few examples I found at the moment may help to clarify the difference in meaning:
non- anti-
nonarthritic antiarthritic
noncompetitive anticompetitive
nonimmigrant antiimmigrant
noninvasive antiinvasive
nonnuclear antinuclear
I'm leaving aside the issue of whether a hyphen is or isn't required in each of the cases above. Davidhof (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Davidhof: Thanks for your considered reply. But, with respect, of the article naming CRITERIA, which of these does the proposed title not satisfy? I'll offer my views after a quick summary of each:
  1. WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. Nomination is the clear winner. See again the NGrams in the OP.
  2. WP:NATURAL: a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English Nomination satisfies this. See again the NGrams in the OP.
  3. WP:PRECISE: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. The nomination clearly satisfies this—no difference.
  4. WP:CONCISE: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. No real difference between current title and nomination—the 2-letter difference is easily negligible.
  5. WP:CONSISTENCY: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles. Again no difference.
I see a category that is a clear winner for the nomination (COMMONNAME), another that is not quite as strong but still favoring the nomination (NATURAL), and three areas of indifference (PRECISE, CONCISE, CONSISTENCY). We might disagree over PRECISE, but the the vast and decisive disparity in usage shown by the NGrams outweighs our lowly opinions as editors (we, of course, are not RS). Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The NGrams are helpful only if we think that the two words have the same meaning. I do not believe that they do. An NGram of nonnuclear and antinuclear shows that the latter is somewhat more common than the former, but one would not argue on that basis to rename the article on Japan's non-nuclear weapons policy to refer to "anti-nuclear weapons" since nonnuclear and antinuclear (with or without hyphens) do not mean the same thing. The first modifies something like weapons (as above) or energy or medical imaging: things which could, in a different case, have a nuclear character, but in the present case do not. Antinuclear, on the other hand, would modify something like protesters, or arguments, or a documentary film, that is, something which is actively trying to suppress or abolish some nuclear thing (electricity generation, or submarines, or whatever). In our present context, I think the article is more about Christian movements that don't include a trinitarian doctrine, but also don't necessarily have opposing or suppressing trinitarianism as their primary mission, so nontrinitarianism is more accurate. And I don't think the criteria were ever meant to be applied at the cost of accuracy, but rather only where it's not an issue.
Perhaps it would be helpful to get some additional viewpoints on this issue from people who are looking at it with a fresh eye. Davidhof (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per rationale above. Would have supported a move to hyphenate per BR Eng. Advice to proposer: please please please resist the temptation to do another premature close on this proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Laurel, like I said in our previous discussion, that was a bona fide accident, and I apologize again. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per rationale above. In fact, I think the first line of the article needs to be corrected. Now, it begins:
  • Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to belief systems within Christianity which reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity...
There are some belief systems that cannot be said to reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, including those that were in existence before the idea of the Trinity came into being. See the second-to-last paragraph of the lead.  – Corinne (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Very strongly oppose should this discussion reopen. The article discusses both historically anti-trinitarian, as well as contemporary non-trinitarians that have no such historical ties. It would be inappropriate to group Mormons and others as anti-trinitarian, as they developed much later. --Zfish118talk 03:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

Upon looking at this article, it seemed to me that the organization could be improved. I thought, in the Beliefs section, that the various items varied too widely in length. There are several very long items and many very short items. I realize that for some topics there may be fewer sources, or less may be known than for others, but I don't think it looks good when there is such a wide disparity in the length of the various bulleted items. Also, and I may be wrong, but the organization in Hellenic infuences seems a little odd.  – Corinne (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)