Talk:Nontrinitarianism/Archive 5

Weasel words tags?
Hi User:Esoglou mind if I ask what's the reason for these 'weasel words' tags I can sort of understand the second, which seems redundant and First seven Ecumenical Councils might be better, but "currently" only reflects that prior to Nicea Trinitarianism wasn't "mainstream". Not that "mainstream" or "currently" is particularly good wording re the 2nd 3rd 4th Centuries. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ..which reject the currently[weasel words] mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, namely..
 * ..According to churches that consider trinitarian[weasel words] ecumenical council decisions final,..
 * I don't mind in the least your asking about the tags. On the contrary, I am happy that you have done so.  You may even be able to inform me if "weasel words" is the wrong tag and what tag I should use instead.  I couldn't just delete the words, since my doing so was reverted.
 * The text speaks of belief systems that "reject" (not "rejected") the "mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity". It is thus speaking of the present day.  What purpose does the addition of "currently" to "mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity" serve, unless it be to suggest that the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity is either going to become a fringe view or that it was once a fringe view?  No reliable source has been cited for either of these suggestions.  Is raising these questions with no source to support them either necessary or useful?
 * You are right in saying that "trinitarian" attached to "ecumenical council" is redundant. Worse, it suggests that there are also non-trinitarian ecumenical councils.  There aren't.  Esoglou (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * re 1. "currently" shows that the Trinity wasn't always orthodoxy. I don't think anyone could read "currently" as saying anything about the future, but if another adverb is substituted, then "traditionally"?
 * re 2 I think it is simply redundant no weasely, you deleted the source as it didn't check out. But presumably the source must say something? I thought all 7 ecumenical councils affirmed the Trinity in one form or another. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * re re 1. What is spoken of is the present, and there is no ambiguity about that.  If, for some reason, a different topic, such as what was mainstream in some other period, is to be introduced, it should be done otherwise than by adding the word "currently".  The word "currently" does not "show" that the Trinity wasn't always orthodoxy.  To "show" that, you need to cite a reliable source.
 * re re 2. You are mistaken in thinking that the statement that I removed a quarter of an hour after questioning the propriety of making the distinction "trinitarian ecumenical councils" had anything to do with that questioning.  The claim that I removed was that trinitarianism was defined by the First Council of Nicaea (which defined nothing about the Holy Spirit), instead of by 4th-century councils of which that council was only one.  The invalidity of the source cited for that claim was pointed out as long ago as October 2013.  If you think the Council of Nicaea on its own defined trinitarianism, then put the claim back in, but with a valid source.  "Presumably the source must say something", you say.  Of course it does.  But it does not say whatever you imagined it said.  Only yesterday was the word "trinitarian" inserted on a distinct matter, adding it to the mention of the belief of churches concerning ecumenical council decisions.  You are right in thinking that all ecumenical councils (whatever their number, even if fewer or more than the 7 you claim them to be) "affirmed the Trinity in one form or another", so that adding the word "trinitarian" to "ecumenical council" is simply redundant.  So do you agree that the addition should be undone?  Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User IIO says ""currently" shows that the Trinity wasn't always orthodoxy.". This is not true. The doctrine could not have been infallibly defined had it not always been so held by the faithful. The Council only expounded in formal terms which Tradition had always affirmed, even if Scripture was more ambiguous. That no such word as ~"Trinity" had been used does not mean that the essence of the word had not always been taught as true teaching. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's up to Wikipedia users to decide whether or not that is the case, unless a large number of scholars have come to a conclusion, if so the source would be required. "Currently" shows that it is a present orthodoxy and that Wikipedia isn't stating whether or not it has always been orthodoxy. It is the most NPOV language given that ambiguity of the subject. Fordx12 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the addition of the word needed in some way? Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources required
It would be ridiculous if, after inserting statements that lack a reliable source, I were to declare that it is up to others, not myself, to find reliable sources for them; if I were to declare untouchable questioned statements left for months without valid support; and if, with a "spelling fix" edit summary, I were to remove question tags and declare that any negative reaction to their removal was proof of bias. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken about "reliable source" and "self-published", but in context of how certain groups or people view the matter of John 1:1 with "theos" versus "person" and distinctions, the point was made well from that source, albeit not the best one since it's considered "self-published".  But WP policy and recommendation (as mentioned in my edit comment) is NOT to delete statements but rather to find better sources.   Not only did you remove the pointed statement about "distinction not just in terms of person, but in terms of theos" but REMOVED WHOLESALE ENTIRE SENTENCES that were not even from that source.   I found an arguably better source for the statement in question though, per WP recommendation, and restored all those sentences that were removed that were the very heart of the section!!   The very reason why non-trinitarians (mainly of Arian or Unitarian bent) reject the notion that John 1:1 second occurrence of "theos" is stating that the Logos is the "absolute God".  Totally unwarranted to remove all of that.    Agreed that the original source (for just one or two of the sentences) may have been questionable or not the best (dogmatically because of "self-published", which I don't see how that makes any real difference, because a book is a book and a position is a position...regardless of the publishing company...sighs), but there are other sources that make the same statement that are not necessarily "self-published".  Again, WP policy is to look for other refs, that support the view, and not remove entire paragraphs because (as it comes out) "I don't like" reasons, and bias.   That's all I was saying.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can write a book and pay AuthorHouse or the like to print it and to get it, by judiciously availing of Google books algorithms, to appear on Google. My book would not thereby (on the grounds that "a book is a book") become a Wikipedia-reliable source.  For information that does not really depend on such a book, surely you are quite capable of finding a proper source, even if you have to adjust somewhat the wording of what you want to insert.  As you know, Wikipedia says that unsourced material may be deleted – if only to stir the inserter, whose duty it is, to seek a proper source for what has for too long been left without reliable support.  Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The nontrinitarian view of John 1:1c is well known. Once Gabby finds a suitable source, I would have no difficulty with its inclusion as well as the surrounding detail. The restof the article can say why Trinitarians disagree with the view. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Was found and put in.  It was taken care of already.  But the inclusion of the "questionable source" (which I contest as being "unreliable" simply because of the publishing company, as a book is a book regardless of the publishing agent, and per context can be used to make the point of the position in general) has been removed, by Esoglou, and has NOT been restored by me.  But removing so much material from the John 1:1 counter-argument position might as well be removing the entire section itself.   And was not really necessary.   Huge chunks of stuff that was in that section for literally years now. (And some of the stuff that was in there I don't even necessarily totally personally agree with, but I would not remove for that reason.)  Reliable sources are found and more are gonna be put in.


 * And to Esoglou, I understand your point, but I wasn't saying that the publishing situation of said author was necessarily the best or so "reliable", but that the author himself was contextually (at least in a sense) "reliable" to make the argument of what most non-trinitarians are saying about John 1:1's second occurrence of "theos".   This author (Patrick Navas) is obviously not some dude down the street, who slapped a webpage or book together, who runs a pizza place down the block with no knowledge of the subject or philosophical or doctrinal points regarding this.  He obviously is.  Also, in his book, he REFERENCES many sources that would be considered very "reliable".   Wikipedia is not considered "reliable" by many uptight teachers and schools, but the references in the Ref section definitely would be.   But Wikipedia itself IS reliable, overall, not perfect, but overall, and most people deep down know it.   Why?   Using reliable sources, is one big reason.  And so does Navas.   Try reading the book.   One example of his many copious references in his book, that would be considered reliable:   The Doctrine of God, a Historical Survey.  I have it. As well as many deep pro-Trinitarian books as well.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can publish a study, with lots of footnotes, either as a self-published printed book or on the web, a blog. I may state objectively reliable facts in my study (and not be merely giving opinions bolstered by my personal interpretations of the footnoted sources), but something more (for example, peer review) is required to make my printed or web publication a Wikipedia-reliable source.  Wikipedia, Gabby Merger says, is reliable.  But it is not itself a Wikipedia-reliable source.  I of course agree with Laurel Lodged that what is stated by a Wikipedia-reliable source may be put in Wikipedia (even if, as in the present case, it may badly need copyediting).  And I am sure that Laurel Lodged agrees that Wikipedia's original-research rule means that material that lacks a Wikipedia-reliable source may be deleted from Wikipedia, while an indication of the uncertain reliability of a cited source should not be removed under pretence of making a spelling correction.  Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I already said you had a point about it, but that I think it's over-done, as there is such as thing as context and "WP:IGNORE", also.  That you seem to forget sometimes, to be frank.   Also, I was doing general edits, and had noticed that tag there, and was wondering why it was put there, and removed it.   I don't always put every single thing in the edit comments, sometimes I put "clean up" or the word "etc"...   Also, to repeat...there's the point of "Wikipedia Has No Rules". Or "Ignore".  WP:IGNORE.  There are only general POLICIES.  Not firm dogmatic "rules" per se.   So this "self-published" issue needs alto be taken in context, was my point.   And arguably that book by "Navas" made the point of what nontrinitarian Arians say about John 1:1b.   And if you ever saw the book, it does not look like some cheap slap-together, but very scholarly researched and footnoted.    But regardless, you went WAY OVERBOARD in your subsequent chop-job, removing HUMUNGOUS amounts of text and wholesale things, that were not even really part of that specific source issue.   You mistakenly (apparently) thought that ALL of those sentences were in regard (necessarily) to the Navas ref, when it wasn't.   But just needed sources in general.   And to remove the very heart and substance of the sub-section argument (remember, the name of this article is "Nontrinitarianism" and NOT "what Trinitarians think about non-trinitarian arguments"), is so unwarranted and over-done, it's like not funny.  You may have had a valid point, I said that already, about the not the best source because of not liking the publishing house that was used by said author, but the very statement itself (plus all the other ones you removed) should not have been deleted quite like that.    Anyway, there are other sources (more reliable) that state the argument.     And again, I don't always put every jot and tittle in my edit comments.  But anyway, there's the point too about guarding against over-scrupolosity and "wiki-lawyering" etc.   And battering.   That's a tendency we all have at times.  (Just being honest.)   And remember again, WP has no etched-in-stone "rules", like you (and Laurel and others) seem to think.  Some things are firmer than others.   Consensus is a firmer standard, I believe, as an example.   But in general, there's a measure of flexibility in WP depending on context.   General policies, not actual "rules".  (As far as the "self-published" thing goes...because there were other variables regarding that.)   But now there are better sources for the statement.  Gabby Merger (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Should you therefore remove the no longer needed citations that are not Wikipedia-reliable? Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Wikipedia does have rules, guidelines, and policies. WP:Ignore does not state that there are no rules. It states that you can ignore the rules when appropriate. WP:IAR defines exactly what that means, including such policies as, "'Ignore all rules' is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule" and "'Ignore all rules' does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule." This clearly points out that there are rules. The rules, however, are not "hard-and-fast rules" as defined on WP:PG: "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." As stated, there are times when you should ignore the rules, but you need a valid reason to do so.


 * As for the inclusion of the disputed material, I agree with Laurel Lodged that it can't hurt to have the material here, assuming that it references a Reliable source. However I think that Esoglou's edit to the John 1:1 page may be sufficient. It gives more information on the interpretations of the verse than is possible in a paragraph or two we could include in this article. Dromidaon (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree basically, and that's why I elaborated in my comment about "ignore all rules".  But it's also been stated elsewhere that there are no HARD-FAST FIRM "rules".  As you also stated in your comment too.  And that's really what I meant by "no rules".  Meaning not etched-in-stone dogmatic all the time, as I also stated.    And also, anyway, the edits were taken care of, better refs found, and also Esoglou's modifications, as they are valid at this point.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Nontrinitarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723224453/http://noemon.net/noesis/The%20word%20Homoousios%20from%20Hellenism%20to%20Christianity.pdf to http://noemon.net/noesis/The%20word%20Homoousios%20from%20Hellenism%20to%20Christianity.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007071544/http://www.unitypaloalto.org:80/beliefs/twenty_questions.html to http://www.unitypaloalto.org/beliefs/twenty_questions.html

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

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

Reliable sources STILL required
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: ,, 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)

Requested move 8 June 2016

 * 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. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism → Antitrinitarianism – 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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:


 * 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)
 * 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:
 * WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. Nomination is the clear winner.  See again the NGrams in the OP.
 * WP:NATURAL: a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English Nomination satisfies this.  See again the NGrams in the OP.
 * WP:PRECISE: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. The nomination clearly satisfies this—no difference.
 * 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.
 * 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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. --Zfish118⋉talk 03:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing references to non-Christian religions
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. --Zfish118⋉talk 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. --Zfish118⋉talk 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. --Zfish118⋉talk 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 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)
 * Agree with FyzixFighter's elaboration of my suggestion. But not in any rush; remember, there's no deadline. Let's see if a consensus develops. If so, FyzixFighter or anyone else is free to go ahead and implement it. Davidhof (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Organization
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nontrinitarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118003323/http://www.biblelight.org/trin/trinind.htm to http://www.biblelight.org/trin/trinind.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216034825/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm to http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007005450/http://isaac-newton.org/heretic.pdf to http://www.isaac-newton.org/heretic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Second Great Awakening
The intro says "Nontrinitarianism was later renewed ... in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century." Is this covered in the main body of the article? If so, where? Nurg (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Unitarian
Unitarian's were a non-trinitarian religion, until 1961, with the merger with the Universalists. They then became the Unitarian Universalists. There were a few few individual churches which resisted, notable, the Greensboro chapter, what still believed in Non-Trinitarianism until 1975. For the record, there were lots of presidents and famous people whom shared this religion, but the religion died a slow death with the merger in 1961. By the 80's the UU's shorted their name to Unitarian, basically Usurping the name, by volume of followers.

Upon looking at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbertwarwick (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Second deceptive paragraph suggests article is worthless
"According to churches that consider the decisions of ecumenical councils final, Trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils,[1][2][3] that of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which declared the full divinity of the Son,[4] and the First Council of Constantinople (381), which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit.[5]"

This first line should read something more like... "According to churches that consider the decisions of (the schism filled and largely ignored) ecumenical councils final, Trinitarianism was definitively declared..." As it is this paragraph is very deceptive in its suggestion that the Trinity has some official stamp of approval. When in fact many of these councils annulled and where themselves annulled by other councils, and it was the false Christian Roman Emperor Constantine I who called for this First Council of Nicaea, to basically demand for the trinity. You should not have such a slanted second paragraph so deceptively supporting the trinity in the nontrinitarian article. 50.70.226.21 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• John 1:1 section slanted
The mention of Greek theos without the mention of theon is also deceptive. There is a completely different word used at this verse and to hide that is to suggest that nontrinitarians are just misinterpreting theos. https://www.google.ca/search?client=opera&q=John+1%3A1+Theos+Theon 50.70.226.21 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Greek θεον is the accusative form corresponding to nominative θεος according to ordinary principles of Greek case inflection. These are not at all "separate words" in the sense that they would be given separate entities in a normal type of dictionary... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Why is this a separate article from Unitarianism? 110.174.77.204 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Unitarianism is a type of nontrinitarianism but not all nontrinitarians are Unitarians. Jasoninkid (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)