Talk:Pentecostalism

Recently added section on Trinitarian/Oneness Split
This user added a section under Beliefs labeled "Oneness" vs Trinitarianism". It lacks any citations, and the content it covers duplicates material already covered in the section on Statistics and denominations, which covers not only Oneness but also the other major divisions of classical Pentecostalism, namely the Wesleyan and Finished Work branches. That section seems the natural place to talk about the differences between Pentecostals, and it features reliable sources. I removed the new section for those reasons but was reverted by User:Mooters 1563 without comment. Would User:Mooters 1563 please provide a rationale for keeping this section? Ltwin (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What about moving the info on Oneness into the new section as a compromise. The split between Trinitarians and Oneness dates back to the early days of the Pentecostal movement.  I think that it's a bit more than a distinction between denominations.  For many Trinitarian Pentecostals, the modalism of the Oneness Pentecostals is heresy.  Taxee (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Orthodoxy"

 * I don't know. The new section is still lacking sources. There are some POV issues that need to be worked out. For example, we can't describe the doctrine of the Trinity as "orthodox" because it implies that WP is taking a position on what is and is not Christian orthodoxy. Plus, if we we take out the material on Oneness from the Statistics and denominations section, why shouldn't we move information on Wesleyan and Finished Work Pentecostals into the Beliefs section as well, since those denominational splits are also doctrinal splits revolving around sanctification. And early 20th century Pentecostals thought those issues came down to heresy as well. I was trying to avoid making the Beliefs section a hodgepodge of what Pentecostals disagree about rather than what they generally agree with each other on. Ltwin (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling the Trinity "orthodox" does not nessecarily mean I am taking sides. The Trinity is orthodox in the sense that it is the mainstream Christian doctrine that most major Christian groups hold to. "Orthodox" here simply means mainstream Christianity.
 * In regards to sources, I have just put in sources and am working on finding more and possibly even better ones. Perhaps others could help with this section on finding sources and/or further editing. This topic needs to be adressed on this page as it's a central issue in Pentecostalism and so it deserves its section. Mooters 1563 (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean "mainstream", why not just write "mainstream." Neutral Point of View applies here. As to addressing this topic, the topic is already addressed in the section called "Statistics and denominations". Ltwin (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, there is also an article on Oneness Pentecostalism. Ltwin (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Because orthodox means mainstream and that is a more proper terminology to use for Christianity. And yes, I know there is an article. That article is about Oneness Pentecostals specifically. This is Pentecostals in general an ought to include a brief section on this topic. Mooters 1563 (talk)
 * When we say that the doctrine of the Trinity is "orthodox", the logical step in the mind of the reader is that Nontrinitarian doctrines are heresy. Even if that is not what you mean, you have introduced a value laden term that is unnecessary and distracting. Ltwin (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nontrinitarianism is a major heresy though and is considered a heresy by most Christians and scholars of Christianity. Saying that mainstream Christianity is "orthodox" and nontrinitarian Christians hold to what is generally considered heresy does not mean I am siding with one particular side. It is the proper terminology and proper way to distinguish groups in Christianity. Mooters 1563 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't Christianity. It's an encyclopedia, and its rules are clear. Please read Neutral Point of View. It states in part, "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Ltwin (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realize that. That is why I attempted to make my edit as objective as possible. Using the words "orthodox" and "unorthodox" or sometimes "heresy" to differentiate certain Christians groups is not bias. It is the proper way of distinguishing Christian groups.Mooters 1563 (talk)
 * Wiki rules at WP:WEIGHT say editors should distinguish between mainstream and minority viewpoints, which is done here using "orthodox" = mainstream=majority=trinitarian. I do not see a problem. Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Then why not just use mainstream? When talking about Christianity, terms such as orthodox carry certain connotations. It doesn't simply mean mainstream or majority. It means correct or true. That implies that any non-orthodox opinion is false or heretical, which is not something Wikipedia should be deciding. Ltwin (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "mainstream" carries even more weight, as a refers to denominations such as the Episcopal, Methodist and Congregational Denominations, leaving out the Southern Baptists and many others. "Orthodox" does have a relationship with Eastern Europe, but that is not at issue here and will not confuse anybody, in my opinion.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary states: An orthodox religious belief or interpretation is one handed down by a church's founders or leaders. When capitalized, as in Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox refers to a branch within a larger religious organization that claims to honor the religion's original or traditional beliefs.   Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mainstream and mainline, as in Mainline Protestant, are not the same thing. It is fine to refer to Trinitarian Christianity as "mainstream" since it avoids value judgments. Orthodoxy literally means "right opinion" and that is what it has meant in Christianity. Those who have the right doctrines are called orthodox and those who have the wrong doctrines are called heterodox or heretics. I do not think it is wise to use this word when comparing religious movements because it takes the position that nontrinitarianism is somehow violating some original Christian doctrine when set against Trinitarian Christianity. As the quote you cite from Merrian-Webster shows, when we use orthodox, we are implying that nontriniatirians are deviating from the "belief or interpretation handed down by a church's founders or leaders", which since we're discussing Christianity as a whole would be Jesus and the apostles. That is a value judgement, and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Ltwin (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are varieties or orthodoxy but only a single definition of Trinity as defined at Nicea/Constantinople. Precision, as much as NPOV, determines that Trinity be used. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I see it Pentecostals are deeply split, with the Trinitarian ("orthodox" ) faction pointing to a strong continuous, unbroken record since the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D).  In opposition the Oneness faction says that Nicea made a mistake in reading scriptures. while Oneness resembles 2nd century ideas, i think we have a rediscovery here not a long continuity. The article does not take sides--These days the claim to be "Orthodox " will not carry much weight.  In my opinion, we are in an anti-Orthodox age politically and culturally and theologically.  Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Trinity was finally defined at First Council of Constantinople, not Nicea I think.Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While the ecumenical creeds do help buttress the Trinitarian Pentecostals historical case for the continuity of their beliefs, Pentecostals don't argue with one another on the basis of which council said what. Trinitarians and Oneness are basing their arguments on the Bible. From the Pentecostal perspective, this is a dispute over biblical interpretation, not an argument over historical ecumenical councils. Frankly, I"m concerned we're giving undo weight to the Oneness Pentecostal teaching in the article now. It is a small minority of Pentecostals worldwide who hold to the Oneness teaching. Ltwin (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The First Council of Constantinople mainly added additions about the Holy Spirit to the Nicene Creed in order to settle disputes between Arians and orthodox Christians over the nature of the Holy Spirit which had not been fully addressed at Nicaea since the main disputes then were focused on the divinity of the Son. It also condemned heretical or schismatic sects of Christianity as well as addressing the primacy of Constantinople in relation to Rome. The Trinity had been well defined in the minds of the Nicene fathers and the ante-Nicene fathers starting with at least Tertullian who introduced a lot of the theological terminology used by the orthodox and also further stemming back in the minds of Church fathers like Irenaeus of Lyons and Ignatius of Antioch especially. The divide between Pentecostals is bigger and more controversial than you make it seem. Oneness Pentecostals are ecumenically isolated and many Christians, including a lot of Trinitarian Pentecostals, refuse to acknowledge them as Christians. Nontrinitrianism in Christianity is more than simply a little doctrinal difference. It is a big deal! The Trinity has to be in the top three most important Christian doctrines. Oneness Pentecostals make up about 15-25 million Pentecostals out of 279 million Pentecostals. That is a sizable minority and they do have considerable influence. Mooters 1563 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2017
 * Stating it is regarded as heresy by most Christians is found elsewhere in Wikipedia. The article on Sabellianism states - "Modalistic monarchianism has been generally understood to have arisen during the second and third centuries, and to have been regarded as heresy after the fourth, although this is disputed by some." Taxee (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a difference in saying something is or was "regarded as heresy" and saying that something is heresy. WP:LABEL states: "Words to watch: ... cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, -gate, pseudo-, controversial, ..." Ltwin (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, if we are going to refer to Modalism as a heresy, we need to at least be specific in naming who condemned it as a heresy so that at least there is context for the reader. Ltwin (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there is a growing consensus that the word "orthodox" is appropriate to use for Christians who believe in the Trinity as defined at the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Councils. Mooters 1563 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Two people, myself and User:Laurel Lodged have opposed it. Rjensen and you are fine with it. If User:Mooters_1563 is the same editor as the original IP user who introduced the section and has been contributing to this discussion, I don't think that's indicative of a consensus. Ltwin (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am the same editor (I use to have an account on Wikipedia but I can't log back into it and have been lurking for the past few months and editing but made a new account today). Taxee seems ok with it being used. Mooters 1563 (talk) 1:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion by a comment left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. I would argue that the term "orthodox" carries a lot of baggage. Some groups like to call themselves orthodox and thereby imply the other groups are heretics. WP:NPOV states that we should "prefer nonjudgmental language". Rather than state that trinitarian views are "orthodox", state that "tinitarian doctrine became the accepted norm in the church by the end of the 4th century". If you need a reference, see Trinity. See also WP:RNPOV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Orthodoxy in this context refers to Christians who take after the Nicene concept of the Trinity. There is a wikipedia article, Orthodoxy, which discusses the usage of the term "orthodox" in religious contexts, and specifically in Christianity, but also Judaism, Islam, and even Hinduism. In regards to Christianity, the article states:


 * "In classical Christian usage, the term orthodox refers to the set of doctrines which were believed by the early Christians. A series of ecumenical councils, also known as the First seven Ecumenical Councils, were held over a period of several centuries to try to formalize these doctrines. The most significant of these early decisions was that between the Homoousian doctrine of Athanasius and Eustathius (which became Trinitarianism) and the Heteroousian doctrine of Arius and Eusebius (called Arianism). The Homoousian doctrine, which defined Jesus as both God and man with the hypostatic union of the 451 Council of Chalcedon, won out in the Church and was referred to as orthodoxy in most Christian contexts, since this was the viewpoint of the majority." Mooters 1563 (talk) 2:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have an article on Orthodoxy to explain how Christians (and other religions) have defined the word, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia gets to assume a religious viewpoint and label some religions as orthodox and others as heresy. We can describe what the majority of Christians believe without using loaded language that implies a religion or doctrine is true whereas another is false. The example you use proves the point I'm making. It provides context, beginning "in classical Christian usage" and uses words such as "was referred to" and "in most Christian contexts" because "this was the view of the majority". The article is explaining what orthodoxy means in a particular context. It is not using this as an encyclopedic label for particular Christian groups. Ltwin (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But as I have said time and time again, labeling a group as orthodox doesn't mean taking a religious point of view. This article shows how the majority point of view rightly ought to be called orthodox because it is the majority. It doesn't just have specific religious connotations as to what is right, but it means the traditional beliefs of a particular groups. Surely, nobody would consider Mormons "orthodox" Christians would they? Mormons clearly deviate from orthodoxy is multiple ways. The article proves my point. Truth is, those with the traditional and majority point of view are rightly and properly called "orthodox." Mooters 1563 (talk) 2:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mormons would consider themselves orthodox, and they would consider everyone else unorthodox. And who are we to say that Mormons are wrong about their own religion? Yes, we can say that Mormons are regarded as having heretical beliefs by the majority of Christians, but when Wikipedia says Mormons are heretics and Catholics are orthodox, we've crossed a line. Ltwin (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the article says:
 * "Outside the context of religion, the term "orthodoxy" is often used to refer to any commonly held belief or set of beliefs in some field, in particular when these tenets, possibly referred to as "dogmas", are being challenged."
 * They use "outside the context of religion" in the sense that when labeling certain groups as "orthodox" and others as "heterodox", they are not doing it based on a religious bias, but rather from an objective point of view, so this doesn't exclude religion from an objective neutral point of view. Indeed, it even says "any commonly held belief or set of beliefs in some field." Mooters 1563 (talk) 2:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting aside that that section is completely unsourced, the context we're talking about is religion. You cannot escape the religious connotations of the word "orthodox." In religion, when something is "orthodox" that means it is true and anything contrary to that is false. When Wikipedia calls a religion orthodox, it is making a value judgment and taking a point of view.
 * But even if we applied that standard, what you are essentially saying is that any religion that reliable sources indicate is the most common would have the right to be the orthodox form of the religion. So, essentially the Catholic Church gets that label and Protestantism and Mormonism and any other form of Christianity would be heterodox. Ltwin (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From an objective point of view it's easy to see that Mormonism is unorthodox. The word "orthodox" has come to mean traditional mainstream belief in certain context's and that is what it is being used here for. It is synonymous with those words. Generally, from the broadest point of view, any Christian denomination that holds to the Trinity is orthodox. The scope can be narrowed, but when we do narrow it, that's when we start getting into religious points of view. The term "orthodox" here is being used in the broadest possible way it can when it refers to Christianity. And the article I have sited proves that the term "orthodox" can be used in non-religious point of view ways. It can clearly be used in neutral ways. It also shows that Trinitarianism is Christian orthodoxy. Mooters 1563 (talk) 3:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says nothing about it being used "in neutral ways." Even if it did, the Orthodoxy article is not Wikipedia policy. In regards to what it says about the Trinity, all Orthodoxy says is that Trinitarian Christians have described themselves as orthodox, and since they are the majority of Christians this is what the word has meant in most Christian contexts. This does not mean that Wikipedia has to call them orthodox when there are neutral terms available.Ltwin (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says it can be used to refer to any belief system, in non-religious context's, implying that mainstream groups in religions can neutrally be called "orthodox." Mooters 1563 (talk) 3:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, words can be used in a variety of ways. But how should we use words in Wikipedia? And what does policy have to say about this? Ltwin (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context, and in this article, the context is fine because we are referring to mainstream Christianity as orthodox from the broadest point of view which is also the neutral point of view.
 * The online dictionary definition of "orthodox" implies it can be used in neutral ways:
 * "(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.'the orthodox economics of today'" Mooters 1563 (talk) 3:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't get to decide what is true. Ltwin (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm telling you what's true. Mooters 1563 (talk) 3:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The term "orthodox" is accepted in names of denominations (Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox) but should otherwise be used with utter caution. Replace it with "in accordance with the Council of Nicaea/Church father X/Y" - you may as well add "which Pentacostal clergy Z considers 'orthodox'" - but please refrain from introducing value wording. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I have not voted to retain"orthodox". I just quibbled with the dubious logic used by an editor to get rid of it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Chicbyaccident I have already shown that the use of "orthodox" to describe traditional/mainstream Christian doctrine about the Trinity is appropriate.Mooters 1563 (talk) 8:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Compromise
As a way to move forward, I have revised the paragraph, see this edit. The words "orthodoxy" and "heresy" are still used, but I've tried to establish a more neutral context in which they are used. Ltwin (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I edited it slightly but fine, I'll go with it. Mooters 1563 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I made my own slight tweak of your edit. Ltwin (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Template Image?
There has been a recent push by IP editors to replace this longstanding image with this image. Personally I prefer the former image as a template image because it is of higher quality, however when I undid the edit my own edit was undone on the rational that the first image was taken in Mexico which is not a predominantly Pentecostal country. I find this rational a bit faulty as the second image was taken in Slovakia in which Pentecostals make up even less of a percentage of the population. Either while it is pretty silly to debate over an image, I was hoping to discuss the issue rather than start a meaningless edit war over this. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Inerrancy/Infallibility
User:Ltwin, you reverted my removal of text implying that inerrancy and infallibility are the same thing.

If these two are the same, why are the two terms wikilinked to two different articles? In Inerrancy, it is noted: "Some equate inerrancy with infallibility; others do not." If we are going to equate the two in this article, we should also note that not everyone accepts the equation.

As I understand it (I am an outsider, not a believer) 'inerrancy' is the doctrine that the scriptures (in the form in which their authors composed them) do not contain errors; they are accurate and true, even in matters of science and history. Indeed some advocates of inerrancy apparently assert that a particular translation of the Bible into English is the only inerrant edition.

'Infallibility' is the doctrine that the scriptures are a completely reliable guide to salvation, but are not necessarily a reliable source of truth in other matters.

If the two terms mean the same, then one article should redirect to the other, no?

I don't think that we should gloss inerrancy as infallibility in the lede, because these distinctions seem to be an area that has been disputed for centuries. Move it to the body, and take the trouble to explain properly. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the discussion MrDemeanour. There are two points I'd like to make. First dealing with the cited source, and second dealing with meaning and use of inerrant and infallible. To the first point, the source that is cited, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, uses infallible in their definition on page 16: "The inerrancy of Scripture means that in its original autographs the Bible contains no mistakes. In the original languages in which it was written, it is absolutely infallible–without error whatsoever."


 * To the second point, inerrant and infallible are not quite the same thing in modern theological discussions due to shifting use of terms, but those who believe in inerrancy also believe in infallibility. This article from The Gospel Coalition (an evangelical organization) makes the point:
 * "The word inerrant means that something, usually a text, is “without error.” The word infallible—in its lexical meaning, though not necessarily in theological discussions due to Rogers and McKim—is technically a stronger word, meaning that the text is not only “without error” but “incapable of error.” The historic Christian teaching is that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible. It is without error (inerrant) because it is impossible for it to have errors (infallible)."


 * The Wikipedia article on Biblical infallibility makes this same point:
 * "From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrancy". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'"[2] Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[3] ... In this sense it is seen as distinct from Biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated."[5]"


 * Therefore, I think the insistence on observing a strict distinction between inerrant and infallible to the extent that we're not even allowed to use infallibility in the definition of inerrancy is misguided. However, I take your point that it could be confusing, so I replaced the term "infallible" with the phrase "without error". Ltwin (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The two terms are decidely different in terms of what they mean from a theological standpoint. One cannot use dictionary definitions as a guide.  There are currently two views within the evangelical community: (1) The Inerrantist View: meaning the Bible is without error of any kind  and (2) The Infallibilist View: meaning that the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice (from Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 15.).  As such, I agree with MrDemeanour.   Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 18:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Ltwin, I am quite content with the text after your edit. Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * However: it remains my understanding, based on reading Infallibility and Inerrancy, that inerrancy is a stronger claim than infallibility. The remarks of User:Darlig Gitarist seem to confirm that.


 * As I noted, I do not have a dog in this race. I'm just a copy-editor. This isn't a drive-by - I've invested time in reading these articles; I am just trying to get Wikipedia to present an internally-consistent position, so that a naive reader (such as myself) doesn't find different stories in different articles.


 * My personal view is that these questions are bizarre, and I can't see how anyone with half a brain-cell can take either position. I have just been trying to elucidate the nature of Evangelical beliefs, and ran into this contradiction/conflict.


 * Do I need to take this matter up on the talk pages of those two articles? MrDemeanour (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that is the correct approach. I took a quick look at both articles and don't think they express the two differing views in evangelicalism.  I don't have time to get deal with the issue but will put both pages on my watchlist and will try edit them when I have time.  Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Category Evangelical movement
Pentecostalism was removed from that category by a bot assisted editor because "Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity" is already listed, and clicking on that link takes you to Pentecostalism. These categories are a navigational aid only and so anyone could drill down to Pentecostalism through that navigation without need for the duplication. Removal of the category in no way implies that Pentecostalism is not within the evangelical tradition of Protestantism. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
An IP editor created a new criticism section, and then populated it with information that may well be correct, but the reference didn't go anywhere. I have deleted the information as it is therefore unsourced, but given a proper source, it could perhaps go back in. The ref was just using a name, as though expecting the source to be there, and plenty of wikilinks were included - I am slightly concerned it could be a copy direct from another page. The WP licence does not allow copying from page to page without attribution, and there would also be a question as to why the information is being duplicated if it were. However I have no proof at this point that it was copied, so for now the only thing preventing its insertion is sourcing.

The other smaller concern I have is that it is a very specific incidence of criticism, and that a criticism section should be fuller and more balanced, or else this criticism should not have its own section but be inline against the part of the article it is most closely related to (Latin American churches in this case). Please consider balance of the article as a whole and WP:DUE before reinserting the material.

For now it can be retrieved from the diff here.[] -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

ETA: GIYF! The information was copied directly from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God page with minor tweaks to make the text a more general criticism. I was also able to find the ref, which is here. I don't think, reading this ref, that this can be seen as a criticism of Pentecostalism as a whole. It is specifically Brazil based, primarily about one congregation, and not clearly talking about Pentecostalim as a whole. It says:

"The CCIR, which documented 15 cases of religious intolerance in four Brazilian states, accuses pentecostal churches, especially the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus, founded in 1977 in Brazil), of attacks and harassment against people of other faiths, and of spreading religious intolerance."

So 15 cases of intolerance, primarily from one church but also criticizing some other Pentecostal congregations in the country, but clearly referring to a very small number. This is WP:UNDUE for a criticism section for the movement as a whole. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Numbers
An IP editor changed the number of Penetcostals from 279 million to 600 million. I reverted as this source in the article does not say that. They have now reverted me but WP:BRD applies. The challenged material should not be reinserted without editor consensus. Thus I am opening this talk section to discuss the numbers.

The source reads:


 * According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, there are about 279 million pentecostal Christians and 305 million charismatic Christians worldwide. (Charismatic Christians belong to non-pentecostal denominations yet engage in spiritual practices associated withpentecostalism, such as speaking in tongues and divine healing; see Defining Christian Movements on page 69.)

The editor claims the source says something else although I can only find 600 million in the source as the number of all Christians in 1910. Could you tell me where you are finding the higher number, and then we can evaluate which figure is correct. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a sourced figure presently in the article. The burden of proof is on the IP editor to provide reliable sources backing up the 600 million number. Otherwise, any changes should be immediately reverted once again. Ltwin (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

 * Reassessment of the article. It has been marked as having "unsourced statements" since 2020 and fails the B-class criteria. --  Otr500 (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reference in the article to unsourced statements. Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 18:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply: WOW! I could have added a bunch, which I didn't want to do in an article having involved 2,138 editors (and 554 watchers), figuring it should be well-watched.


 * The last sentence in the third paragraph of the "Background" subsection states. "Edward Irving's Catholic Apostolic Church (founded c. 1831) also displayed many characteristics later found in the Pentecostal revival.", is unsourced. A "comparison" between any two organizations should be sourced.
 * The two-sentence paragraph, the second paragraph in the "1930–1959" subsection, "Some Pentecostal churches in Europe, especially in Italy and Germany, during the war were also victims of the Holocaust. Because of their tongues speaking their members were considered mentally ill, and many pastors were sent either to confinement or to concentration camps.", sports a January 2020 "needs citation" tag. This would be a reference in the article to unsourced statements, yes? The citation tag, I am fairly sure, placed the article in the Hidden categories, "All articles with unsourced statements" and "Articles with unsourced statements from January 2020". This alone would preclude a B-class assessment. However, the criteria states The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., so I will list a few more.
 * The last sentence in the third paragraph of the "Salvation" subsection, "A notable exception is Jesus' Name Pentecostalism, most adherents of which believe both water baptism and Spirit baptism are integral components of salvation." is unsourced. The sentence can be true but verifiability does not hinge on truths or lies.
 * The last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Spiritual gifts" subsection states, "Pentecostals see in the biblical writings of Paul an emphasis on having both character and power, exercising the gifts in love.", and is unsourced.
 * Third paragraph, last sentence of the "Tongues and interpretation" subsection states: "One school of thought believes that the gift of tongues is always directed from man to God, in which case it is always prayer or praise spoken to God but in the hearing of the entire congregation for encouragement and consolation. Another school of thought believes that the gift of tongues can be prophetic, in which case the believer delivers a "message in tongues"—a prophetic utterance given under the influence of the Holy Spirit—to a congregation.", is unsourced.
 * The last sentence of the fourth paragraph in the "Worship" section, "Another spontaneous manifestation found in some Pentecostal churches is holy laughter, in which worshippers uncontrollably laugh. In some Pentecostal churches, these spontaneous expressions are primarily found in revival services (especially those that occur at tent revivals and camp meetings) or special prayer meetings, being rare or non-existent in the main services.", is unsourced.
 * The last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Ordinances" subsection and the entire second paragraph is unsourced.
 * The "Rural Pentecostalism" subsection swings another direction with --except-- for the last sentence of the last paragraph, "This identity shift corroborates the thesis that the peasant Pentecostals pave their own ways when facing modernization.", is unsourced.
 * Some of these may just have references misplaced, and some may be WP:original research, but all of these would be reasons not to promote an article.
 * A separate issue is the "External links". There are six entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.


 * ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
 * LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
 * WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
 * My concern is that the article is not bannered as B-class when it doesn't meet the criteria. Everything after that is up to the article regulars. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! Why didn't you just remove the unsourced content? - Verifiability/Removal of Unsourced Material  Darlig &#127928; Talk to me 07:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing the unsourced content is not always helpful. If the content is correct, much better to find and add the source. For instance, the comparison with the Irvingites goes back to Warfield's "Counterfeit Miracles", and earlier, and an article on Pentecostalism is improved by noting the Irvingite similarities. Otr500 was concentrating on the page assessment and is entirely within their rights not to get involved in the detail editing of a page that should have plenty of editing support now that the problem has been brought to our attention.
 * Here is the ref for Counterfeit Miracles (see pages 125-154):
 * Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added an appropriate reference for the Irvingites. Page 131 of Counterfeit miracles has Warfield explaining their doctrine of persistence of the charismata and also referencing their own literature. If we can deal with the other issues raised, it is a simple enough matter to have the page re-assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks u|Sirfurboy. I do not usually remove article body content without good reason. Yes, I am reviewing article classifications. At a point we had a bot running rampant "equalizing" all WikiProject classes. While the intent was noble the results were many articles that were wrongly assessed. Sometimes I will make maintenance improvement edits but this article has more than a few so I would have to stop what I am doing and redirect. Many times there are article regulars that are more familiar with a subject. I also (for years) have taken interest in article appendices. These sections are often overlooked and sometimes have a large amount of bloat. An example is Eucharist which has 83 links in two sections and a very large and overly explanative "Notes" section. See:Talk:Eucharist. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks u|Sirfurboy. I do not usually remove article body content without good reason. Yes, I am reviewing article classifications. At a point we had a bot running rampant "equalizing" all WikiProject classes. While the intent was noble the results were many articles that were wrongly assessed. Sometimes I will make maintenance improvement edits but this article has more than a few so I would have to stop what I am doing and redirect. Many times there are article regulars that are more familiar with a subject. I also (for years) have taken interest in article appendices. These sections are often overlooked and sometimes have a large amount of bloat. An example is Eucharist which has 83 links in two sections and a very large and overly explanative "Notes" section. See:Talk:Eucharist. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Zora Neale Hurston?
The subsection on Zora Neale Hurston states that she did research in the 1980's.

This is obviously impossible for the simple fact that she had been dead for 20 years by 1980.

Does anybody have an actual, verifiable date? 2600:1700:FB50:EA00:E428:1032:1D95:8ABB (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)