Talk:Modalistic Monarchianism

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology Low‑importance 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Sabellianism was the description used to define the teachings of one adherent, Sabellius, but he does not represent the views of all modalistic monarchians. Sabellianism is predominately defined by those who disagree with it and none of Sabellius's writings have survived. After considering all these facts, I have decided that "modalistic monarchians" needs its own page. I need some more time to add citations, but feel free to add to this article. Mustardseed1 (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"God the Son," and "God the Holy Spirit" are not terms used by modalistic monarchians. More appropriate terms used are "Son of God" (or simply "Son") and "Holy Spirit." Mustardseed1 (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the fourth (last) paragraph of the Modern adherents section that had an inline "original research" tag. The section goes into detail to explain how that particular church is an example of Modalistic Monarchianism but that is unsubstantiated by any sources. The church listed is a split sect of one founded by Ahn Sahng-hong after his death. If a paragraph is going to be dedicated to a particular church as an example the sources have to support this. Everything after the unsupported claim is church advertising or propaganda.

I can see no evidence that this paragraph should be included in this article. Otr500 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheLionHasSeen has questions about new content that I added. Would like to discuss if possible to prevent edit war. The content seems relevant to the topic of Christology and Modalism. - Redvince1 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, congratulations on finally setting up a discussion after I have escalated the issue. Second, I have no questions; I merely need you to not claim my contributions as yours, just to then declare a discussion table after your grammar suggests a WP:AGENDA similar to Hoaeter and the Horn of Africa-related articles (whom I and countless others continue to find in their patterns). Third, would it not have been more feasible to employ a more high-quality image rather than this dark, hand-drawn imagery? If I receive response on these, then I may further desire to collaborate, because I despise blatant confusion. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but the information is blatantly written from a perspective that violates a neutral point-of-view. Where's citations stating that he is predicting such? Not only that, but terminology such as "logically incomplete." That's the equivalent of going to an article on Donald Trump and stating he is "logically incomplete" in a sentence without verifiable claims, etc. (and oh, the fires that would ignite in every political spectrum). - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a better and more neutral term to use to examine the Trinitarian logic doctrine where Jesus is God, Father is God, Holy Spirit is God, but Jesus is not Father or Holy Spirit? If logically incomplete is a biased term, what would be a more neutral term to describe the analysis of the Godhead? -Redvince1 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will work over the next several days on developing a higher quality jpeg of the Modalist Godhead model and posting it to replace the dark image - Redvince1 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work toward the primary issues first, which were provided in my initial response. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind specifically listing again in bullet form the primary issues that you saw, and help me work toward an editorial consensus on preserving the modalist perspective content without novel style bias. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind not ignoring your claims which could cause trouble in the long term, and stop DEFLECTING? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What claims do you find troublesome? -Redvince1 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How could the grammar of the new Modalist content be improved to not violate WP:AGENDA? - Redvince1 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read, carefully, and in this instance, very very slowly on the second sentence in my initial comment. Do not claim my contributions as yours, stating you removed something when you did not. Others may take that as WP:sockpuppetry to false-flag an edit war for the sole purpose of laughs. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I added suggest to the content to replace complain I did so because I agreed with you after reading your edit comment that a more neutral term could be used for that section. I do not claim that addition to be my idea. I appreciate your continued desire to work toward a more neutral consensus for this article. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: you did not add it to the content, anywhere...whatsoever. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I double checked the edit history. Thank you for preserving the neutrality of this article by recommending that we change "complain" to "suggest". In my later edit, I decided to preserve your word "suggest" along with the larger edits that I made. I apologize for making it seem in my edit summary that you are operating an imposter account. You and I are clearly different editors. I hope that we can maintain some of the new content and increase the neutrality of this whole article by including all perspectives from Arianism, Trinitarianism, and Modalism for improved overall coverage of Christology on Wikipedia. Thanks -Redvince1 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After you were corrected in the ANI board by another contributor, I acknowledge this comment of thanks. As for the neutrality of the article, that is not including all perspectives as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy as this article has been written in with your contributions; Wikipedia is merely about documenting the history. You did not document history, rather, polemic. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because no consensus has been reached to retain your additions. Please revert your self-edits before I or another am forced to. Only issue is, if I do it, we both may be punished unless they go back to the ANI, our talk pages, and this to gather information to the purpose; you forwent discussing further, and instead made a WP:bold edit (which is accepted, but there is also WP:NOCONSENSUS). - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the major problems the TheLionHasSeen currently has with this article as it is currently? How could the language be trained to be more neutral while including the new references and diagram of Modalism? The new Modalism content includes various evidences cited by Modalist theologians for their perspective using Scripture, a diagram, and also critical analysis is still included from Trinitarian theologians. Only including mostly critical analysis of Modalism from Trinitarian theologians in this article seems pretty biased to me. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated the article is written with an intentionally Modalistic perspective, only after being reported once more (that is not WP:NPOV; following additions which used inherently biased terminology and the revision of contributions which can be reviewed by more experienced contributors than you and I via edit history, this appears to be blatant WP:AGENDA). It is quite simple here, and I refuse to be in an edit war; your contributions were reverted by someone who had experience in editing, and they reverted on the pretense that consensus was not reached. Let's take this step by step before asking further questions: 1) stop being blatantly biased, as your tone is indicating; and 2) do not revert uninvolved editors who understand the procedures of the encyclopedia, just for me to slide in and revert your aversion of their reversion. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you even restored a spurious source which was removed by another involved editor just now. You disregard policy with sheer rejection of understanding others' precedence. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article with the additional content I added includes both a Modalist and Trinitarian perspective. I did not delete the original content. Feel free to add more Trinitarian perspective content yourself if the new Modalist content seems to make the article excessively biased toward Modalism. I am going to revert again so that hopefully more editors from the Theology Workgroup join this important discussion to improve coverage on this article so we do not have two editors, one of which being myself, endlessly switching versions without having more people involved on actually improving the content of the article. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read again, they can do so through viewing the conundrum of this article's contentious edit history as of late (as they have so done indeed). We know you did not delete the original content, but you are merely using Wikipedia for WP:advocacy as you have stated. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your contributions cannot be upheld de facto as there is no consensus reached to maintain them. That's why the other contributor got involved and restored pre ante, alongside the other contributor getting involved. Do not revert just because you didn't like their observations of peacekeeping and understanding spurious content. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not achieved by one editor debating with just one other. We need a good 4 or 5 editors involved on this article to improve it. I am hoping through bold reversion and defense of this new relevant content to get some more editors involved to come to a better and more well rounded article on Modalism. Although I am being accused of WP:Advocacy, I believe both the TheLionHasSeen and I are acting according to while holding to our own perspectives - Redvince1 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Others appeared to have been getting involved by reverting your contributions; perhaps, they would have gotten involved too if it weren't for such a swift disregard of them on the pretense of your boldness. As for ownership, I claim no ownership of this article and neither would I ever attempt to. I want nothing to do with any claims of ownership whatsoever, unlike you who blatantly stated such while trying to tie me in with you once more (remember the last time, you were rebuked by another contributor for identifying me with you in the ANI board). As for your consistent boldness, WP:POV railroad, and stop with the WP:BAIT. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to continue to a healthy Modalism content debate per WP:BOLD and WP:OAS with TheLionHasSeen for this article in order to encourage a broader theological perspective on Modalism that is not just written from a Trinitarian, secular, or Arian critical editorial perspective. I will revert as necessary to keep editors motivated to join the discussion we are having. All viewpoints I believe should be reflected in this article in a pro/con neutral writing style. I look forward to more editors getting involved on this article rather than just myself and TheLionHasSeen debating over our favored content. Censoring content that goes against our bias is not encouraged. I am trying to make it my policy not to delete content as TheLionHasSeen seems to be encouraging us to do. - Redvince1 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you jumping the gun and going on a WP:POV railroad against me now? There have been at least two editors other than us which have gotten involved. You reverted their removal of spurious information, and forgot that Wikipedia is not about writing from perspectives, rather upholding a WP:NPOV. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, I am not a critic of Modalism, as you stated in reading your edit summary. Do not personally attack me now. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at ANI, you two need to stop arguing over behavioural issues here. I suggest a mini reset of this discussion perhaps under a sub-thread or even a new thread. In this thread, please do not bring up behavioural issues, instead please discuss some specific change and why you feel it improves or does not improve the article. While I only skimmed through this discussion since it doesn't particularly interest me, I remain confused what specific changes are actual at issue here. I looked at the article history and edits like [1] seem to be making so many changes it's difficult to parse what's being changed so that doesn't help either. I suggest someone propose some specific more restricted change as a starting point for discussion. If the two of you still can't come to consensus, use some form of WP:Dispute resolution to seek more feedback. Edit-warring is not the way to seek more feedback. IMO since I have made no comment on an actual content issue, it would be fine to seek a WP:3O if it's still only the two of you. But as I said, please make sure there's something clear for them to weigh in on, but a massive change or a long unclear discussion like this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the information on Thomas Jefferson and Arianism seems to be highly disputes, so I would suggest it may be better to start any discussion on improvements about something else since working in good faith on resolving more minor issues will hopefully help reduce tension and help develop and understanding between you two. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]