User talk:Timboact238

Hello, I am Timboacts238. I am new to Wiki as an active editor. I will say that I am a scholar of many topics ranging from business to theology. I'm a diligent Bible student and read financial news nearly every day. If we are editing an article together I hope you find it fun and enlightening!

April 2021
Regarding your contributions to the article Oneness Pentecostalism, there has been undue weight given, and redundancy. It has also been written like a novel in some sections of your contributions. Wikipedia is not the place for those three characteristics I have written beforehand. The article originally states, "Oneness Pentecostalism (also known as Apostolic, Jesus' Name Pentecostalism, or Jesus Only movement)" in the beginning which binds the term together. Therefore, there is no need to say "also known as Apostolic, Apostolic Pentecostal, or 'albeit misleading and pejorative, the' Jesus Only movement)". This shows grammatical redundancy, and a personal agenda which may be easily verified with the typical quoting of "Acts 2:38" in your usersname (popular among Oneness Pentecostals), alongside citing "misleading" into the text. Your contribution has furthermore lacked grammatical eloquence as on Wikipedia, not everything capitalized often should be capitalized as in other sources. "Oneness Doctrine", should remain, prior to your contribution, "Oneness doctrine" for example. Scholars have already deemed the belief a form of Modalistic Monarchianism as well, and has been prevalent in its use toward assisting with further defining this movement in Pentecostalism. The further additions in the lead are redundant and quite unnecessary. Furthermore, blanking complete sections of the article with references toward its young age as a movement is a further red alert of an apparent agenda; your contributions then appear as if they are attempting to revise recorded history with the bias from your movement. The actual broad Pentecostal movement is older than the Oneness Pentecostal movement. I am going to request that you remain careful with your contributions, and perhaps, as a new contributor maybe take them to the talk page for review among more-established contributors. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply to TheLionHasSeen

Thanks for reaching out! I appreciate the more thorough feedback, as you can see that I am new to this whole Wiki-editor thing. I will say that you are a little off-base with your assessment of me. Yes, based on my username, you can deduce that I am an adherent to Oneness Pentecostalism; however, to state that this verifies my agenda-based approached to editing the article is quite prejudice. Here is why. I tried to leave as much as the original framework intact in the opening statement and simply moved the statement concerning the Jesus-Only misnomer as "pejorative" and "misleading" from the end of the introduction section to the first sentence. Someone else wrote this statement, and I agree. I just felt it needed to be said when the Jesus-Only misnomer is first introduced. To me, it seems redundant that the article has to cover the topic twice, essentially. Further, although it is a historical fact that Oneness Pentecostalism was called "Jesus-Only" for a time, it is also a fact that those same groups and scholars openly recant this practice and agree that it is a misnomer.

Furthermore, I see a distinction between the term "Apostolic" and "Apostolic Pentecostal" because, in my experience, "Apostolic" typically refers to the "holiness standards" relevant to the topic and can be applied to other denominations, such as Baptist or even Catholics. I will concede that this might be a definition that is only held within the subcultural of Oneness Pentecostalism and therefore not applicable here. Just to be clear, in my mind, it was not grammatically redundant because of this nuance. I'm perfectly fine with removing the first instance of "Apostolic."

On the subject of capitalization, I do agree with this assessment, but please don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater," as the saying goes! The truth remains that this information still represents scholarship, not opinion or agenda-based ramblings. If capitalization is the issue, and a single instance of grammatical redundancy, then by all means correct what I have written to reflect your specific points of criticism.

As far as the stylistic approach, that is, whether or not it "reads like a novel" or not, I am open to suggestions as to how you might integrate the new source material and content in a way that reads more to your liking. Your comment that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia is interesting. Can you point me to a source from Wikipedia (the organization) that says they prefer a particular style? If not, this is merely your opinion or preference of the appropriate style. That said, I am fine with adapting to your preference if you can define it with examples.

I hold firmly that the summarization of the Oneness doctrine from Dr. Bernard is appropriately merited and relevant to the article because citing summarizations from opponents of the belief is akin to asking a Democrat to explain the Republican Party's platform. You can imagine how that would turn out, right? I understand that you are not an adherent to Oneness Pentecostalism and thoroughly respect your perspective! However, allowing for fair representation of the truth of what exactly is Oneness Pentecostalism is not too much to ask. I think anyone that finds this article will want to know "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe?" To answer that question using sources from non-Oneness Pentecostals predominantly is inherently biased. To be fair the introduction needs sources from actual Oneness Theologians that balance outside interpretations. As it was written (and is now that it has been reverted for the second time), it is essentially answering the question: "What do Trinitarians (or even simply non-Oneness Pentecostals) think Oneness Pentecostals believe?"

On the subject of the assertion that I am trying to re-write the early history of the movement, I recycled a decidedly negative source article written from the perspective of a Trinitarian Pentecostal about the early history of the movement. That Trinitarian author is the one that ascribed the date of the Oneness movement to the 1906 Azusa Street Revival, not I. Plus, I add the caveat that it was subsequent to the larger Pentecostal movement, which is the truth. Please check the article yourself, maybe I misread it. To be clear, I was not re-writing history. I do concede that depending on your source you can find evidence for a later and an earlier date of the Oneness movement. However, most of that is concerning whether you consider Jesus' Name Baptism to be synonymous with the Oneness movement, which it isn't really, in my personal opinion.

Speaking to my skills as a grammarian and scholar, I can assure you that content that originates purely from me will be free of grammatical errors and redundancies. The errors result from me trying to respect the work of others before me. For example, this message has no errors and reflects a smooth style. I can assure you that I am well-educated and have written many research papers that have received praise from professors in various disciplines, albeit not in the area of theology or church history. Nonetheless, I am not stupid. This is a verifiable fact. If it weren't a breach of personal data, I could share my transcripts with you. I guess you'll have to take my word for it. Timboact238 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Context is key, and according to the article and grammatical intent in context, the lead would be best left alone. As for the additional comment, it is not preference. If you would research the policies here, you may easily find them. Look into the help articles and the countless guidelines and policies here, which may be found there. I would furthermore clarify that the summary from Dr. Bernard has been explained in various points of the article with weight granted from opposition, so that is not necessary in this sense to compare apples to oranges; the truth has been explained, and Googling "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe" should suffice with the information derived from Wikipedia. There's sources from many non-Christians defining Christianity, yet as there are many sources from non-Christians there are many from Christian scholars in assisting with the definition. This appears to be a blatant attempt to usurp any non-Oneness Pentecostal research verbatim now. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * May I also add, there is no prejudice, just blatant observation. "Acts 2:38", the Oneness Pentecostal's favorite quotation; the grammar and context of one's contributions, also a giveaway. I might need to inform you that I assist in the fight against purported and blatant agenda pushers with other contributors, and have been battling a consistent issue with parties related to the Horn of Africa articles. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that the article just be viewed as a whole, not section by section. Correct? In other words, because Oneness theologians are quoted elsewhere towards the end of the article or in its body it is admissible to exclude them from the introduction. If this is the case, then I submit that the approach should be flipped. The introduction should only summarize what Oneness Pentecostalism is and allow for opposing views within the body. This is part of the psychology of the presentation of information. Anything presented first is read more frequently and takes the first place in the reader's memory. Therefore, allowing the initial definition of Oneness Pentecostalism to be effectively written by an opponent using inaccurate phrasing and overtly adversarial sources effectively loads the reader's mind with a negative bent, not a neutral bent. I don't see how the way it is presented is fair or neutral. Plus, you didn't really address your points that I rebutted. I would appreciate some sort of acknowledgement that you misjudged concerning your allegations of rewriting history or grammatical redundancies. Timboact238 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just saw your other reply. I wasn't saying you were off by your assessment of the Acts 2:38 reference. I was overtly clear that you were correct in deducing that I am an adherent to Oneness Pentecostalism. I was saying it was prejudice to say that I am pushing an agenda. I am not. I'm intent is to improve the accurate and objective presentation of Oneness Pentecostalism. If that's an agenda, then how does one become an editor without an agenda. By that standard I could argue that your agenda is to ensure that Oneness Pentecostalism is presented negatively by subversively loading the introduction with source material written by its opponents. I respect your role in preventing agenda pushing edits. I assure if you meet me halfway I can learn your preferences and what constitutes a good edit in your eyes. Timboact238 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarification. It was not with prejudice might I mind you, rather behavioral observation. I recognize your intentions are made in good faith, however Wikipedia is not a soapbox for information written in a self-promoting manner, or a manner which lacks as little neutrality as possible. I write that because, indeed, no one is completely unbiased; we are all human (or bots...and whatever else utilizes Wikipedia). By that standard on the other hand you could not argue such an agenda as it is not presented negatively whatsoever; it bears no resemblance to an opinion piece either written in a negative manner. It merely provides weight stating it is a contrasting movement to Trinitarian Pentecostalism and other movements. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want negativity, there's random contributors here and there who, as with the Arianism article, vandalize it and state: "[Insert movement here] is a heresy and whoever believes it is a dummy." That, is negative. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I see your point. Let me clarify mine. Your perception of the article is colored by your outsider perspective. You may not see the inaccuracy or bias as an outsider. The fact that none of the references in the first three paragraphs exclude the word cult or heresy is a bias and unbalanced presentation. The summary of Oneness doctrine is one sentence and focuses on baptism. It is more complex than this but can still be explained concisely and should be explained within the introduction. Timboact238 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not inaccurate in the sense that Wikipedia is not used as a soap box, again, or as a end-all be-all for information pertaining to an "insider's viewpoint". That is not biased, as there are multiple sources in the article which compete and originate in Oneness Pentecostals, and those who are not from this movement. Everything one is stating is explained, just not to personal liking, thereby verifying this, being referred to personally as an "outsider". - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. So, once again, the psychology pertaining to the presentation of information and persuasion of opinion via the written word is irrelevant, so long as the article holistically balances perspectives. Correct? Timboact238 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So, once again, what is the context of your inquiry? The contents of the article are in an appropriate manner, insofar as they are able. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. It is a fact the the introduction of the first impression readers have of the topic. Second,it is a fact the within the scope of the introduction there is not an accurate summary linked to a reference that does not say heresy within the title. The fact that the source starts from the premise of heresy means it is bias to the belief itself. Lastly, within the scope of the instruction, there is no references to Oneness theologians or material written by a Oneness theologian.

These are facts. If you can point to a summary of beliefs from a source that doesn't start from the presumption of heresy or cult, then I'll concede.

From what I gather from your critiques, these facts are irrelevant because Oneness theologians and oneness sources are cited elsewhere. Correct? Timboact238 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Which information are you referring to? That in the lead, right? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "lead"? I'll see if I can get in my laptop and copy and paste some quotes here later. Timboact238 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The lead is the introduction, before the article is split into sections. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is the section in question. I was calling it the introduction. Timboact238 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. Forgive me for my delayed response; I attempted to re-read this whole discussion to grasp the concept you are presenting. From reading, it appears you are asking if the facts are irrelevant because Oneness theologians and sources are cited elsewhere. I would like to state that nothing is irrelevant which is already within the contents of the article, and that as stated prior, articles have sources from parties which may or them, against them, or inherently neutral. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So, yes. The answer is yes. Have you even looked at the sources? I have clicked on and read, at least partially, every source cited within the lead section. At least one is not scholarly at all. Others explicitly state "heresy" within the title and the article begins with the assumption of heresy. Then, towards the middle of the article, the reader finally sees information citing adherents to oneness Pentecostalism.

Everything that I have ever learned in the nearly 8 years of college I have attended and countless papers I've written screams bias presentation of information.

I am researching your assertions of "undue weight" and have read a significant amount of instruction on the topic. I'm curious is you're using the "minority opinion" caveat to apply to the edit. Is this correct? That because proponents of Oneness doctrine are the minority that it is "undue weight" to give their perspective space in the lead section? Timboact238 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I am somewhat saying bias presentation as in the order of presentation. I'm not disputing that opposing views have their due weight. Just that the lead section should summarize the facts of Oneness Pentecostalism and not summarize the academic opinions of the group. Once again, it is essentially "what do Trinitarians think Oneness Pentecostals believe." and not "What do Oneness Pentecostals believe." Timboact238 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Then you have verified an apparent Dunning-Kruger Effect or confirmation bias, pertaining to academic consensus; what you describe as truth, formed through bias from being part of the movement, invalidates further conversation. Any further attempts I will indeed forward, as this has gone nowhere. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that accusing me of Dunning-Kruger bias is an insult disguise in academic language. I won't be bullied.

I'll quote the definition "The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills."

I am not ignorant of the topic. I am not overestimating my knowledge of the topic and I definitely do not lacking self-awareness of the topic nor how my views are perceived by outsiders. I wasn't even raised believing this doctrine.

The only thing I lack in is understanding Wikipedia's style guide thoroughly. However, I will. There is a version that meets all the necessary criteria for due weight and NPOV that accurately conveys the topic. I'm willing to learn and he flexible. This is not being reciprocated. Timboact238 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)