Talk:God the Father/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Other religions

I've removed this section. The sources were dreadful - whoever thought that an Islamic website was a reliable source for Confucianism? One sentence had an old fact tag, 3 bad sources, no reliable sources discussing these religions and the concept of God the Father. Please don't replace without clearly reliable sources which discuss the subject of this article directly. See WP:RS and WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the article is no gem either. This was on my path to clean up in 2012, so will get to it sometime. History2007 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on my watchlist because it was vandalised in the past but I don't have a great interest in the topic. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism

I left a message on Wikiproject Hinduism to see if someone can figure that section out. I do not know the topic well enough to fix that section. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've posted on the editor's talk page. One sentence was sourced to a personal website, the other had a cite request dated 2 years ago, yet he replaced it all. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us wait until the end of the week. If no one shows up from the Hinduism project, I guess I will have to learn about Hinduism and fix it.... History2007 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

From WP Hinduism: There is no one being given the epithet "God the Father" (also no "God the Son", "Holy Spirit") in Hinduism. In Shaiva, Vaishnava, Ganapatya or Saura monotheistic sects, a male God is considered Supreme, but then there is a genderless Brahman and the Shakta Goddess. Brahma is called the creator, but he is never the God in any sect. There are fringe theories by those comparing Hinduism and Christianity, but I suggest removal of the section as this is clearly an Abrahmanic concept, with no exact counterpart in Hinduism or any other Dhramic religion per se. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But maybe we should mention what you just said: "there is no God the Father concept in Hinduism". Do you have a reference for that so we can add that sentence and move on? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, based on Redtiger's comment I think I figured out the references. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism

Yes, per my discussion with History2007, I trimmed the section a little (removing a whole paragraph, that was not really needed), and I also added a couple of needed refs. That section is better now than before, for sure. Also, there was some confusion by History2007 (honest good-faith mistake), where totally wrong information and ref was put in, as replacement, that I had to undo, because it was about the wrong church, about "Pentecostalism" (the Charismatic movement), and NOT "Oneness Pentecostalism". (Which is NOT the same thing.) Charismatic Pentecostalism is not "modalist", but the opposite, whom actually some accuse as being "tri-theistic" (but officially Charismatic Pentecostalism is Trinitarian) I double and triple checked the section, to make sure. So I had to restore the original information, but re-worked it a little last night, per points made. It's true that that section was a bit too long compared with the other religion sections in this article. Now it's shorter, and with ref citations. It's better now. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk, part of the issue may be that Oneness Pentecostalism is not a homogeneous movement, as today there are several varieties and hundreds of denominations, and I am not sure if they all teach the same things. That point may need to be made somewhere with a ref. In any case, and long as the section is well referenced I do not care, as long as it gets trimmed to be the same size as the JW and Mormons. That section reads more like a discussion of Jesus rather than God the Father anyway, so should be rimmed to be mostly about the Father. And given that there is a Main per WP:Undue I see no reason not to trim it to be the same size as the others. If you just rmove the last paragraph it will be the same size as the Mormon and JW. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well "Oneness" Pentecostalism IS basically the same across the board as far as their view of "God the Father". In other words, the Modalists have the same basic doctrine and position on that. With maybe minor variations in church practice or whatever. But their position of who and what "God" is, and who and what "God the Father" is is homogenous overall. All the Oneness groups have the same basic theology. And also, as I said, "Pentecostalism" is something altogether different in theology and their views of God the Father and Jesus. That's the Trinitarian Charismatic movement, and doesn't really apply. The only similarities they may have with Oneness Pentecostalism is maybe their view on the actions of the Spirit, and Christian living or practice, to some degree. But their respective Theologies are very different. And yes, I agree that the section was too long, hence I trimmed it a bit, by removing a whole paragraph. Also, one reason it reads a lot about Jesus, is because, in Oneness theology, the Father and Jesus are the SAME essential Person, just different modes. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not know what to say here:

• The edit that I had made specifically stated: "Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity doctrine as an extra-Biblical invention, and see it as a 'tradition of men' given the absence of the word 'Trinity' from the Bible." so I cannot see the rationale for your comment.

• I see no source for your statement that: "Oneness Pentecostalism IS basically the same across the board." How do we establish that per WP:V given that there are hundreds of denominations and no central teaching authority? I see nothing to validate that. If you have a source please provide it, but the source needs to be very recent given the continuing change in those denominations in recent years. Else, we need to state that there are many dnominations.

• I see no justification in your reasoning why the Oneness crowd (whichever denomination may be represented in the article now) should get twice as much space as JW & Mormons.

I had posted on the Hinduism and LDS project pages and people came in and helped on those sections. Now I will post on WikiProject Christianity for suggestions. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if you put a statement in that section that was correct "they reject the Trinity doctrine", the rest of it was not really accurate, and had a ref that was totally wrong and non-applicable. That ref was about Pentecostalism (which IS Trinitarian), and the Charismatic movement, not Oneness Pentecostalism at all. And what I said before in my comment is that all ONENESS groups have the same basic theology about GOD THE FATHER, across the board. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Source for the last sentence there? History2007 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Source? All Oneness groups believe the same about God the Father. They're all MODALIST. It's just fact, known and sourced all over the place, that ONENESS groups have the same basic theology about GOD THE FATHER, across the board. They have MODALIST theology. See the "Oneness Pentecostalism" article, and see what I mean. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I said "source". A Wikipedia page can not be the source for another, per WP:V, of course. History2007 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point, if you were to look at that article it GIVES A BUNCH OF SOURCES that mention that clear point of fact. And also the known fact, that all Oneness groups teach the same non-trinirian modalist view of God the Father, is "the sky is blue" anyway. But if you were to check that article, as I suggested, you'd see right in the opening lines in the lede these words:

----Oneness Pentecostalism (also known as Apostolic Pentecostalism or One God Pentecostalism) refers to a grouping of denominations and believers within Pentecostal Christianity, all of whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness.----

Not sure why you would dismiss that point there. But also, this is not really a debatable issue, that A) Oneness Pentecostalism is NOT "Classic Pentecostalism" as far as their theology on God the Father. Charismatic Pentecostalism IS Trinitarian. Oneness Pentecostalism isn't. That's just a fact, without question. And B) that ALL "Oneness" groups are MODALIST. And non-trinitarian. As far as a "source" for that. Here's one (which you could have easily seen on the Oneness Pentecostalism article): ^ a b c Patterson, Eric; Rybarczyk, Edmund (2007). The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States. New York: Lexington Books. pp. 123. ISBN 978-0-7391-2102-3. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That they are non-Trinitarian is obvious, and I had already said that. And I had never asserted their being Pentacostals - the book I used had the Pentacostal title but that section was about Oneness. The other book was just on Oneness. In any case, That they are non-Trinitarian has (and had) a reference. The rest of the statements about relationships between Jesus and the Father and teh Spirit is another story, and is not sourced as "common among all denominations". That is the question. Is there a source that says the rest of the material beyond non-Trinity is shared among all 100 denominations? History2007 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the easiest/best way is to be brief: say they are non-Trinatarian, and have a general description (two paragraphs not a dissertation) and refer to the Main. That will also resolve the WP:Undue issue. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but you were questioning "my last statement" in my other comment previous, about "their view on God the Father is ESSENTIALLY the same". All Oneness Pentecostals believe that God the Father is the Spirit and that the Son is the Flesh, and all are the SAME "Person". Just various modes or roles played. Whereas "Charismatic Pentecostalism" (which is Trinitarian) does not believe that at all. Again, though, I agree that that section was too long, hence why I shortened it. It may still be a tad bit too long, but that's a different issue. And could be even trimmed a little more. But again, if you examine and study this issue, all "Oneness" agree basically on theology of God the Father. Even if some Oneness groups might differ (slightly) on church practice or some other minor things. And the WP article "Oneness Pentecostalism" (which is the same name as this section on the God the Father article) says all the same things about their view of "God the Father" and Spirit and Jesus relations. And with many sources. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I would question some of the statements above. I am not sure "Charismatic Pentecostalism" is necessarily Trinitarian, but I can't verify that. And, regardless of sources in other articles, as per wikipedia policies and guidelines we need sources here as well, if that information is to included here. I think this page might be at least an acceptable source per RS for some statements, but only for what is said in that source. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree in your questioning some of the statements, but I did not want to open that other Pandora's box. In any case, given that Word Aflame Press is published by one of the denominations, a better WP:RS source would be Christian Confessions by Ted Campbell 1996 ISBN 0664256503 page 219, as here which states that they are non-Trinitarian, etc. at a general level. And it refers to the general beliefs of most of them. I am not happy about using Word Aflame because it is not clear that it represents all denominations.

And given that it needs to be trimmed back, perhaps we can just keep the first two paragraphs, drop the 3rd paragraph and touch it up using the Ted Campbell book - which by the way says similar things to the glossary weblink you provided. The interested reader can then read the Main article and here we just have an overview the size of the JW & Mormon cases.

The person who knows about non-Trinatarian issues in general is probably In ictu oculi. Maybe we should ask him as well. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, should there be a subsection under Christianity called non-Trinitarian? God in Christianity is organized that way anyway. So let us discuss that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused now, and to be honest getting a little irritated. What's to "question" about any of my above statements? I already SHOWED how A) Oneness Pentecostalism is NOT "Pentecostalism". And B) also that "Pentecostalism" (if one even bothers to check up on it) IS Trinitarian. Just because you guys were ignorant of that known fact does not mean you have to so rudely "question" what I'm saying. I was courteous before, but I had enough now. I went over this nonsense when I don't really have time. Also C) I PUT IN TWO REFS in the section, so what is "John" talking about? Apparently he's not totally keeping up with all the facts and points. As well as disregarding certain things. Just like you are "History". Two new (correct) refs were put in, per your points. And they deal with ONENESS Pentecostalism, NOT regular "Pentecostalism", like your wrong Anderson ref was dealing with. Again, History2007 made an honest mistake but it was almost all completely wrong information, last night. He put info that was dealing mostly with Charismatic Classical "Pentecostalism" (and one of the refs he put was totally incorrect and NOT about "Oneness" movements at all). The ref he put An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (Introduction to Religion) by Allan Anderson is NOT about "Oneness" theology of God the Father AT ALL. All Oneness groups (sighs) are MODALIST, and have the same theology about God the Father. Period. Move on already. Thanks. (Oh, and by the way, thanks for the vote of confidence. And though In ictu oculi knows quite a bit, trust me, I know much more about "non-trinitarianism" than he does. Regardless, none of what I pointed out should be "questioned". The sky is blue should not be questioned. Oneness Pentecostalism IS NOT regular "Pentecostalism" in theology of who God is. And many people kinda know that already. Oneness Pentecostalism is MODALIST. Regular Pentecostalism is TRINITARIAN. See the WP article on that why don't you. This is known by people. Not sure why you didn't.) Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion and there is no need to get upset. There are issues that we are not certain about and can not just "move on" until they have been clarified. The Trinitarian issue is obvious, as stated for long, and was already in my initial edits. By the way page 50 of Anderson's book is about Oneness and its differences from others. The use of Word Aflame as a source for all Oneness denominations has not been resolved. Do they represent all denominations? How do we know? Statements in that section beyond the non-Trinitarian item still remain unresolved, regarding their general applicability. Issues regarding section structure, and length also remain unresolved. I cannot tell you they are resolved if in my mind they are not. In any case, I noticed that John left a message for In ictu oculi who knows the non-Trinitarian issues well. Let us see what he thinks as well, for I think it will be useful. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why I agreed and conceded about the length and lack of refs issue, which is why I did trim it a bit (removed a whole paragraph), and put two refs, per your points on that, which were valid. My only disagreement (obviously) was the info I was reading that you put in (totally replacing the way the section was before, not just shortening it), and it didn't seem correct, then I checked the ref etc, and saw it was off. Even if "page 50" says whatever, there was NO mention in your re-wording about how God the Father is considered the Holy Spirit "or the Spirit" in Oneness theology (Oneness Pentecostalism in general), nor really how the "Son" Jesus is considered only the "Flesh", but that all are considered one Person, just different modes of operation. They DO consider God the Father the Holy Spirit. I have their books in my possession, their audio and video debates, their web pages, etc, for years. That stuff was not really mentioned in your version last night of the section. It red as stuff that regular Trinitarians would say, so it was not really clear, and kind of confusing. Again, though, I did shorten the section (maybe it could use some more shortening), and I added two refs to it, that are totally unquestionably valid for Oneness theology. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at it this way, the remaining issues are:

• We can probably agree on the wording if it conforms to a non-denominational reference such as Campbell. Word Aflame by itself is not enough.

• There is no reason why it should be twice the size of Mormons. It should be almost the same.

• The section grouping as non-Trinatarians remains to be decided.

Those are the three issues I see. History2007 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements' entry on Oneness Pentecostalism is pretty clear that OP's share the same basic theology on the Godhead, namely modalism. It is radically Christocentric in that "the name" of God revealed in the New Testament is that of Jesus. There is only one divine being who is revealed as Father in the Son and as Spirit through the son—that is why baptism must be done is "Jesus' Name" only. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are manifestations or offices of the one God whose name is Jesus.

I think any differences between the denominations have more to do with race and historical development as opposed to differences in Oneness theology. All OP's come from pretty much the same source, private revelations at a Pentecostal campmeeting in Arroyo Seco 1913. In any case, the NIDPCM presents a general overview of OP so I think it can be considered a reliable source for OP generally.

For the record, "Pentecostalism" is mostly Trinitarian. "Charismatics" are mainline Christians who've adopted some Pentecostal beliefs. Ltwin (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. By the way, there is probably a need for a page on NIDPCM (New International Dictionary of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements) if you guys wan to start that. So now the questions are:

• Is the NIDOCM the best source for that section? How representative is Word Aflame?

• How closely does the text there now correspond to NIDPCM?

• How can that section be trimmed to be the same size as the Mormons etc? Why not just remove the 3rd paragraph so it will be the same size as the others?

By the way, how many OP followers are there? I looked it up and the estimates vary dramatically. I guess it is hard to know, given the many denominations. Anyway, hopefully we can wrap this up quickly as a section the same size as the other two and move on to fix the over all structure. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Christianity section

I think the Christianity section needs 3 pieces:

• A basic introduction with Bible elements without getting into Trinitarian vs non-Trinitarian issues. Just two paragraphs or so upfront.

• A sub-section called Trinitarian beliefs

• A sub-section called non-Trinitarian beliefs

The non-Trinitarian section then includes a few subsections (with a Main) with a couple of paragraphs on each significant movement, etc. But overall the size of the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian subsections should be equal. Suggestions? Thanks.History2007 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the Islam section? Oct13 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not understand that. What I meant was that at the moment there is a general introduction then 3 subsections which are not-Trin. There is no separate "God the Father in Trinatarian teachings" section. That section is missing and needs to be written. History2007 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So would non-Trinitarian Christian beliefs go under the non-Trinitarian section, and the same for Trinitarian beliefs under the Trinitarian section? Oct13 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, made new sections. Oct13 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the right section structure. We now need more text in it. I will try to add some. But given the similarity of the beliefs in the Trinitarian groups, I wonder if they can all be lumped together? What do you think? Else we will need a section on Protestants and one on others. History2007 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Material getting added with little relevance

Hashem, I see material getting added that has little relevance, e.g.

• An image of the Virgin Mary was added in the Catholic section, and one of Christ in the Eastern Orthodox section etc. I have fixed those now. And the Menorah image added to the Judaism section also has little relevance to the Father in Judaism - I think should be just deleted. If there is no relevant image, no need to add one.

• The Catholic section has "Before the creation of mankind, however, God made spiritual beings called angels." I think you mean to refer to Hebrews 1:4-14 on that but the Epistle to the Hebrews is a NT book and not just Catholic.

• The statement "He desires his creatures to love him and to love one another." in the Catholic section is sourced to the Gospel of Matthew. That is obviously not just a Catholic book - many other Christians read it.

• The statement about the Nicene Creed and Catholics also has a similar situation. It is followed by many more groups.

• The Eastern Orthodox section refers to Pre-existence of Christ, but again that is not just an Eastern Orthodox item, etc. It is one of the Trinitarian vs non-Trinitarian issues at a more general level.

Overall, I am not happy about these edits. They often apply to Christians at large and do not just represent the denomination - hence have no place in that denominations section. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the problem is when dealing with this subject, the matter of the "Son" and "Spirit" HAS to invariably come up, in relation to God the Father, as they are involved closely with each other, in their theology (and in the Bible). So what God the Father DOES with the Son and Spirit is pertinent. Though I agree that it should not be talking TOO MUCH only about Christ the Son, but only how He relates (in the church's theology) to God the Father. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually "what" needs to be discussed is one issue, "where" it needs to be discussed is another. So the issue of pre-existence needs to be discussed, but not in the Eastern Orthodox section for it applies to Lutherns too. In general, issues that are discussed in the section for denomination X should be those that distinguish denomination X, not those that apply to 5 other denominations too. That was my point. And that was why I asked Oct13 if he thought the Trinitarian section should lump many items together. The answer seems to be emerging as a yes. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, there are similarities, of course, but the Greek Orthodox view (for example) of God the Father is not 100% exactly the same as the Roman Catholic's. In relation to the "Trinity", and in relation to "the Son" and his "pre-existence", or even to the Universe. Hence why separate sections. Protestant's view of God the Father may be close to Roman Catholicism's (in some ways), (in relation to the Son, and how the Logos "pre-existed", with the Father,...and the Spirit, etc), but also not exactly totally the same. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Gender of God

To say there are "masculine" traits for God is missing the point of the paternal role God has as Father. The proper understanding, at least according to Catholic theology, is that God has paternal characteristics and we use the gender-neutral pronouns (him, his, he, etc.) in reference to God. Oct13 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete "Other religions" section?

The "other religions" section reads as follows:

Although some forms of Hinduism support monotheism, given that Hinduism is not just one religion, but a group of collective religions, believing in a pantheon, these views differ among different groups. However, there is no overall concept of God the Father in Hinduism, although a genderless Brahman is considered the Creator and Life-giver, and the Shakta Goddess is viewed as the divine mother and life-bearer.

I'd suggest deleting this section - it's just one para long, and mentions only one religion (Hinduism). Even then whhat it has to say is highly questionable - what it's describing is just one version of Hindu belief, the moist philosophical; in fact the various Hindu gods are forever fathering children, but this is ignored. Also in ancient Greek/Roman religion, the gods were frequently fathers. I think what this article is getting at is the sense in which Judaism, and later Christianity, used this idea - Judaism's god as the father of his holy children Israel, from which came the idea of the unique Son of God in Christianity. Sticking to that will make the article easier to handle.PiCo (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The term "God the Father" seems to be primarily, if not exclusively, used by religions in the Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Bahai family. If there is a similar concept in Hinduism, it would probably best be included in a separate article relevant to Dharmic faiths in general. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case should properly source and say somewhere: "The term "God the Father" seems to be primarily, if not exclusively, used by religions in the Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Bahai family". History2007 (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. About.com here states that it is used by Abrahamic religions, and it probably would be a good idea to include that information in the first paragraph, whether with that source or not. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably needs a better source. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking and thinking a bit more, I believe the article needs to redefine the meaning of the phrase "God the Father". A god who becomes a father, like Cronos becomes the father of Zeus or Shiva (I think) becomes the father of Ganesh, isn't really what we want to talk about. What the article really means to address is the specifically Christian idea of God the Father as one part of the Trinity - that's a topic that's concrete, easily sourced, and manageable. It's not found in Judaism, although it's based in 2nd Temple ideas, and it's specifically rejected by Islam, and it's not at all the same thing as Zeus-Athena et al. So I suggest a redefinition ("God the Father is the first person of the Christian Trinity" being the irreducible minimum) and general re-working of the article. PiCo (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. Maybe "God the Father is the name given to the first person of the Christian Trinity by Trinitarian Christians" might be a bit more obvious and pedantic, but it sounds like a good start. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the basic approach that the article should about the Christian concept and not the Hindu view, etc. Yet the Trinatarian/non issue should be handled as well, in that there are sections on it already. As I said above the sections on Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox etc. are in need of serious help anyway. The Mormon section was looked at people from that project and should be OK. History2007 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is more difficult to research than I'd imagined. Nobody seems to write books about God the Father, and even religious encyclopedias don't think he's worth a mention. Maybe if I look up Holy Trinity I'll find something. The more basic problem, for me, is that I find theology dead boring. I'm more interested in the history of beliefs than the beliefs themselves. But I'll keep looking. PiCo (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Think of this way: This page gets viewed 17,000 times a month and Johnny Depp gets 600,000 visitors each month. However, your personal interest in the history of belief should not probably change the direction of the page given that it is about an entity (i.e. God in this case) and not the history of the entity. Just as Johnny's page does not start by recounting his first encounter with his first agent and how the agent pitched him to the studios. Johnny's page starts with and focuses on his appearances in the medium which relates him to the public (in his case film) and God's page should also do the same and use the relevant medium (in that case the New Testament) as well as further packaging in terms of the Church Fathers, etc. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I looked through some notes I had and did some more thinking and it seems that there is pretty solid theology to write about on the topic - God I mean not Johnny Depp, of course. So I will sketch something soon. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to leave this to you. Practically everything I write ends up being about history, and of course this should indeed be about the theology. And yes, Tertullian is not the place to start. PiCo (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a few encyclopedias of theology and suchlike that I have access to, and they might have some material directly relating to this topic. Maybe, I'll try to check over the weekend. I'll let you know one way or another when I do. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

New lead

I've revised the lead in line with the preceding discussion, so it now focusses on the Christian doctrine of God the Father within the Trinity. I have one source, which (I think) traces the origins of the Trinity in the theological sense with Tertullian - tho further research might change this. Comments? PiCo (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As above, Johnny Depp's page does not start with how his first agent (in this case the equivalent of Tertullian) presented him to the studios, and the public etc. but focuses on his overall portrayal. There may also be a section on how Johnny got started in the business, mention his first agent, etc. But if you are interested in how agents promote actors, that does not necessarily change Johnny's page to just focus on the history of the agents he has had.

On another note, I think the non-Trinitarian sections in the article as is, make it clear that it i not just a Trinitarian idea. I have been trying not to work on this page, but I guess now I will set time aside to do something. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comment here from user AnonMoose on the Holy Trinity talk-page: "the historical evidence seems to be that the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed or worked out until the early Christians had been challenged by attacks based on Greek philosophy, and had responded to those challenges. This happened before the 4th century, but after the books of the New Testament were written down in their original form." Unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject to comment, but if this can be sourced it should be noted. PiCo (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That does agree with material I have seen earlier regarding Arianism, when I was working on a related article. Let me see if I can find sourcing over the weekend to support it. If by Monday I seem to have forgotten, remind me on my user talk page. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that issue is mostly about the Trinity, not God the Father - a related but yet different topic. History2007 (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I undid all of his radical changes and POV pushing. There's no way I was gonna put up with that, in all bluntness. And I'm not sure why you did. It seems there aren't enough editors on here to keep a good watch on this thing, and to put a curb on unwarranted changes. The lede should NOT be just about the supposed "trinity". "God the Father" encompasses a bit more than that. If the lede was maybe modified a bit to include that slightly somewhere, that's different. But not the wholesale change. (Also, sorry, the Tetragram IS the Name of God the Father, and that image belongs in that section. Per other article usage.) Again, the lede was way too overly-altered, where it would give the impression that this article is just about the Roman Catholic trinity doctrine and view of who or what "God the Father" is. Fail. Why this was tolerated makes me wonder. Again, not enough good editors on here to balance or curb this type of nonsense more. And I myself was away from this article for a while. If I get reverted, I won't violate 3RR, but there will be warring going on. Again, I can't stand by and let the good lede that was there get trashed over an obvious bias and POV. Can't happen, per WP policy. He changed things so radically so as to push an agenda. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I think that is pretty strong, and undeserved, language against Pico. I may not always agree with Pico, but he is a nice fellow who always relies on good scholarship, and if there are differences of opinion here they need to be addressed in a far more collegiate manner. History2007 (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 above, and have reverted the changes made by Hashem sfarim. I specifically note that there seemed to be in his edits a definite possibility of WP:SYNTHESIS. The fact that several monotheistic religions, for instance, refer to a monotheistic God as "Father" does not mean that they are necessarily related to the concept of "God the Father," and it would be SYNTH to say it does. Also, there is the matter of [{WP:WEIGHT]] to be given such material, and where explicitly it should be included. I believe all those matters should be addressed and the material added agreed to before any further changes along those lines are made to the article. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because John Carter agrees with the POV does not make it any less POV. Just because John Carter also misunderstands the point of the article does not make it any less a misunderstanding. This article should NOT give right off the bat the impression that this is about the Roman Catholic "trinity" doctrine view of "God the Father", but should be MUCH BROADER. In other words, as it was before. Meaning, the changes were too radical and agenda-pushing (it's obvious from PiCo's history that he's hyper-trinitarian...), and has some biases towards that (a 5 year old can see). In other words, also there was NO REAL NEED to so radically change the lede. Not saying that a modification or little addition (expressing also the Trinitarian view of it) could not have been done. But this was going wayyyy too far. And I think HIstory2007 (whether he wants to admit or not here) kind of agrees with that. There was nothing wrong with the lede before (though always open to improvement or tweaking). And to make it like this article is basically about Christendom's "Trinity" first and fore-most, instead of as ALSO, seems a bit too far. The concept of God the Father is not just as a title (a Biblical title) but as an overall CONCEPT, of God AS "Father"...which PiCo seems to be missing. History2007, you seem though to understand that though. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I very seriouswly regret that the above editor saw fit to engage in apparently personal comments which may very likely violate WP:TPG and possibly WP:POV rather than making any sort of attempt to verify that the construction of the article he favors, referring to God as a father figure in multiple religions, has not been substantially supported by his edits. And, to borrow his phrasing, just because Hashem sfarim wants to get the article to reflect his opinions, WP:NAME has to be adhered to. So far as I have ever seen, and I have just reviewed such web sources as are readily available, the specific phrase "God the Father" seems to be almost, if not in fact, exclusively used by Christians. The possibility of God being a "father" is another matter, and may well merit discussion somewhere in wikipedia. However, I believe that it is incumbent on those who wish to make this article fit their own opinions to abide by WP:BURDEN and provide substantial support to their position that this article, under this title, should contain such content. In general, some sort of reference work would be the best indicator. I have seen no effort yet to do so. I will thus revert the edits again, and request that rather than using the talk page to pontificate and dismiss others, he might better actually act in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines and provide the evidence required to make this article, under this title, reflect the views he wishes to support. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop harping on what you perceive as "personal attacks", and focus on the gist here. 1) New lede is blatantly hyper-trinitarian, and arguable POV, from someone who is known to be a strong advocate for the trinity doctrine. That's just a fact, not a personal attack. You lie when you say that all I did was "personal attack". I made the points as to why this should not be just about Trinity doctrine view in the very lede as all that it is. 2) You and PiCo fail to understand that though the name of article is the title "God the Father", the article is supposed to be about the overall CONCEPT of God AS "Father". (Regardless of the phrasing or how it's worded.) And the new radical lede is JUST about Roman Catholic trinity doctrine view, and nothing else. Not balanced or rational, per the point of article. It's that simple. I told you, I will not go on forever with this. Please stop complaining about imagined personal attacks as a canard to avoid the substance of the problem here. You and PiCo are pushing an agenda, that's my opinion of it, based on the clear evidence, so what? You say you see "no effort (from me) to do so" what? Point out that the lede should not be just about the trinity doctrine view of God the Father, when that was NOT the overall point of the article? You call it "undue weight" because you fail to understand that the article (regardless of how the name is worded) is about God AS "Father" in certain religions. The concept. Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a content issue any more

This is clearly not a content issue any more, and I see it less than productive. Pico, myself and John Carter do not necessarily agree on the issues, but we were having a civil and good-hearted discussion about the issues. However, this this edit summary by Hashem sfarim which formally declared war and the ensuing talk page comments by him are clearly, clearly in breach of multiple Wikipedia policies and protocols ranging from WP:CIVILITY to WP:AGF and WP:TPG. As stated above, I do not necessarily agree with Pico, but this sudden change in atmosphere does not permit me to address content issues. The user behavior by Hashem sfarim here is clearly not supportive of cooperative development. As a side note Hashem sfarim, from what I understand Pico has "no religious beliefs" whatsoever, so the accusations against him are hollow in any case. I would have probably worked it out with him in a friendly manner by using references. But that matters not now, given that the friendly atmosphere here has suddenly evaporated and page improvement can not take place in the presence of threats of war and strong language. I will hence seek redress a WP:ANI. Until the battle ground mentality ends, I can not address content. History2007 (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding. There was no "declaration" of war...merely a prediction that there would be warring going on....BY OTHERS. I never said "I will war on this". I said clearly, I will NOT violate any WP rules or policies. History2007 is a whiner and has personal bias against me, and is whining on this page...instead of talking to me directly to understand what I meant. Not cool. But then he's not cool. Instead of focusing on the substance of the dispute and the edit problem, he harps and nit-picks on this nonsense, only to get me in trouble. Not asking me what I meant or assuming good faith, or benefit of the doubt. (Against WP policy.) I said clearly I won't violate 3RR, and will leave this whole thing to others after this weekend. The "war" I mentioned was a PREDICTION, because I know how others are gonna be acting. Not a "declaration". History2007, as usual, over-reacts, and whines, and wastes my time. Not cool.

Regardless of what you wrongly say or assume, and bad motives you put on me (against WP policy, by the way), this is and always is a content issue. No matter what you do or say on "ANI" or what section headings you put. This is all about content with me. And even if what you say is true, that PiCo has no religious whatever, I can only go by someone's actions and history. Regardless, though, the sum and substance of my arguments are (clearly seen above) 1) the point of article is NOT just about trinitarian POV view of "God the Father", regardless of wording of article name, but rather the overall CONCEPT of God AS "Father". And 2) undue weight was given to the Roman Catholic trinitarian view of "God the Father" as the SOLE view of it, in the entire lede...and that was going too far. I said that over and over again. But leave it to you, to harp on petty nonsense, that you misunderstood in the first place, and ignore the gist of the edit problems here... For real, man, it's just about content with me here ultimately, nothing else. Despite your biases and knee-jerk reactions, and questioning my motives, which is AGAINST WP policy. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)------

I agree. This is, was, and always has been about content and guidelines. Unfortunately, so far as I an see, the basic issue is one editor's failure to provide sufficient evidence as per WP:NAME, WP:WEIGHT, and other matters which would be required for the content to be adjusted in accord with his own apparent POV. The fact that that editor, immediately above, continues to engage in personal attacks and other insults is also very worrying. Is there any chance that the required sources to substantiate these claims be produced, or can we simply expect more of the same? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A fair compromise in lede

Hello, to anyone concerned. I restored some of PiCo's words in lede, per discussion. As an addition and modification...with tweaking. This is how the first paragraph in lede looks now.

God the Father is a paternal title given to God in many monotheistic religions, particularly patriarchal, Abrahamic ones. In Judaism, God is called Father because he is the creator, life-giver, law-giver, and protector.[1] In traditional Christianity, God is also called Father because of the Father-Son relationship revealed by Jesus Christ as well as the reasons mentioned above.[2] According to most Christian churches, the title "God the Father" refers to the first Person of the Christian Trinity. This doctrine holds that God, although single, is made up of three "persons", the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I hope this is acceptable to most editors. As I said, this was really basically about content of editors, not character of editors. I don't care what a person's biases or preferences are, as long as they try to be fair and balanced and neutral, and understand also what the purpose of a given article (regardless of phrasing) is trying to do. Anyway, let me know what you think of re-wording now. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NAME, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT and other policies and guidelines. We do not very often, if at all, compromise on matters of policies and guidelines. I see no specific citation involved which specifically indicates that the phrase "God the Father", which is the title of this article, most frequently refers to anything other than Christianity. The first citation merely indicates that Judaism calls God a "father", not that the phrase "God the Father" is generally used by Judaism. I cannot see any reason to attempt to compromise on matters where policies and guidelines are involved. Please provide a specific source which implies that content relating to Judaism should specifically be referred to in this article. That would mean finding a source which specifically indicates the use of the phrase "God the Father" in Judaism to the degree that it meets WP:NAME, and also independent academic sources which use the specific phrase in a significant way so that it can also be demonstrated to meet WP:WEIGHT requirements. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I also note that the article Sky father already contains a reference to the idea of the Abrahamic god being called a "father". I certainly could see how that article might be improved with relevant specific content, and I also could see an article on the Paternity of God, or something similar, which addresses how religions other than Christianity refer to a father-god. But those are all separate issues from the specific concerns already noted, and I would appreciate, as I said already, seeing the specific sources which specifically demonstrate that such changes to this article meet wikipedia policy and guideline requirements. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In all frankness, I'd rather not engage you anymore. Or get engaged by you. I don't think you're reasonable or fair, and you see "personal attack" under every couch. And you're obviously not interested in the fact that the point of this article was NEVER just about a co-equal Trinity view, so that the WHOLE lede would just be about that. For real. If you think that the ENTIRE lede should be just a trinitarian viewpoint and nothing else, that shows that you stubbornly can't see and just don't want to see that it does not matter that the phrase "God the Father" is not generally used by Judaism, or whatever. The phrase is used by nontrinitarian churches, and again, it's talking about the CONCEPT of God AS "Father". You refuse to see or concede that point, and then snarl on my talk page. I don't need this, sir.

The article was never just about the trinitarian model of who or what "God the Father" is, and never was intended to be JUST about that. And your stuff about undue weight makes no sense when there are so many refs all over the place in the article for the broader view.

Not even this cool compromise, where I actually went out of my way and put some of PiCo's words and points, that were in his very first sentence, back onto the very first paragraph, suffices you. Hence why I have my opinions about "POV pushing". It's simply your opinion that it's "undue weight"...and that only the Trinitarian position should be the sole thing in the lede. Not a hard fact. (Also, as for me, simply saying "POV pushing" should not be complained about as "personal attack", because then WP policy itself would be engaging in "personal attack" since WP mentions that some editors do POV push.) Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the lede now, as it fairly and accurately reflects the point and concept of God as Father, PER THE REST OF THE ARTICLE. Did you forget that the lede should reflect or summarize in some sense what's in the article in general. Again, to repeat, this article was never intended to be just about Roman Catholicism's "trinity doctrine" view of "God the Father", but God as Father as broad concept. And the lede should reflect that correctly. Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, what you want is of no importance whatsoever. What is wanted, and is required by policies and guidelines, is that you demonstrate in reliable sources that the material merits inclusion in this article. And your unsubstantiated assertions about what the article has "always been about" carry no weight whatsoever until and unless you actually demonstrate the clear evidence of such. I once again ask if there is any chance you will do so, rather than continue in behavior you have already been warned about. And, believe it or not, it is not your place as an individual to determine the fairness or lack of same of content, despite the fact that your statement makes it clear that you think it is. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and, once again, provide some information to support your claims based on independent reliable sources. Again, to date, I have not seen the required evidence, and it is hard not to wonder why someone insists on arguing a position without producing the required evidence. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I said what I said. The "reliable sources" for what? How the lede should reflect what's clearly there and clearly sourced in the rest of the article? (P.S. as far as "consensus", I can almost guarantee you that if more editors were on this thing, instead of just one or two, who seem to want only one point of view in the lede, and nothing else, I mean, more neutral types who understand the issues, and the fact that nontrinitarian churches do use the exact phrase "God the Father" as well, and that Judaism has the CONCEPT of "God the Father", as the article is supposed to be about the overall concept (though for some reason you like to deny that), the consensus would be against the wholesale change and slant of the lede that PiCo put. I asked some others to join in and give their take.) I'm kinda busy. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim, it appears that your statement "I asked some others to join in" is an attempt at WP:Canvassing given that based on your own admission, you feel the consensus on the page may be against you. Please show respect for Wikipedia policies. I happen to mostly agree with what Jeffro stated, but your tactics here, beginning with the strong language and then selective opinion seeking do not seem proper. History2007 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I was asked by Hashem sfarim to comment here. In the JW (nontrinitarian) sources I'm familiar with, use of "God the Father" (other than direct quotations of scripture) is generally in reference to discussion of their view of the Trinity doctrine. I would therefore tend to think the more general view belongs at God in Christianity. Though this article could include a brief section on nontrintarian views, I don't think it's of sufficient weight for the lead. Also, no matter what form the article takes, "person [of the Trinity]" (along with other generic terms sometimes given honorific capitals including "father" or "son" if used in a general sense, as in "father-son relationship") should not be capitalised. On examination, there are many instances in the article where this needs to be fixed... Mother, His, Whom, etc—all wrong unless in a direct quotation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, hence why I never said that the overt trinitarian view of it should not be in the lede at all. It arguably should be, per common sense, and what's believed, etc. My problem was that that's all that was in the lede by PiCo. 100% nothing else. Which is, IMO, going too far, and seemed POV...given the fact that arguably the article is not just the title "God the Father" but the overall concept of God as Father, in Trinitarian as well as in Non-trinitarian Christianity, and Judaism, etc. But the trinitarian view point should definitely be in the lede too somehow, I agree. Hence, why I put back a significant part of PiCo's words in the lede, the first paragraph in fact. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's been demonstrated that the sources reflect your view. The JW sources I'm familiar with tend to discuss the specific term "God the Father" in reference to Trinitarianism (though they do also refer to God as 'the Father' in the more general sense). Do other sources typically discuss "God the Father" in a more general sense?

On a separate note, Jehovah's Witnesses' view of 'God the Father' isn't substantially different to that of various other nontrinitarian groups, such as Christadelphians, and therefore I'm not sure they warrant their own section to the exclusion of other such groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it all goes back to the point that though the article has the name "God the Father", it seems that the overall purpose and point of the article was not necessarily just about that title in that precise word-order necessarily, but rather also the overall concept of God as Father. Meaning, like if you see the Judaism section in the article, there are sources dealing with the historical Jewish view and the Hebrew Bible in regards to God being a "Father", a Life-giver, Law-giver, etc, as well as how God actually is called "Father" in the Old Testament. So my point is that the lede should always basically reflect or summarize the general point and drift and gist of the rest of the article. Example...Oneness Pentecostals do not view "God the Father" quite the way same as Athanasians or Trinitarians do. Nor do Mormons, nor do JWs, though all those Churches (not small ones either anymore) do use the precise phrase (I have their literature) "God the Father". So again, the lede should not be ONLY saying or presenting the blatant Trinitarian view, as the sole thing, to the exclusion of literally everything else, giving the false impression right off the bat that the entire article is really just about the Trinitarian "God the Father". Even though it's not. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You asked me to comment, and I've given my thoughts. My interest in the topic is fairly limited, so I'll let you guys continue the discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I hear ya. Thanks for your consideration to the matter. I'm just looking for some balance, per the rest of the article. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My only other comment would be that the title of this article seems analogous to God the Son, which also tends to suggest alignment with the more prominent Christian belief on the matter. In any case, if the intended subject of the article is not clear, the article should have a hatnote at the top suggesting, This article is about ... . For articles about ..., see ....--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

While that may be true in a sense, there's one important difference between the expressions "God the Father" and "God the Son". The actual phrase "God the Father" is found in the Bible. The exact phrase "God the Son" is not found anywhere in any Bible. (Whether the actual Trinitarian concept is found in the Bible is of course debatable, not totally explicit, and has been debated for centuries, which proves that it's not super clear, per se.) My point? So "God the Father" is not necessarily a Trinitarian thing or title. In and of itself. Whereas the title "God the Son" would always be an Athanasian thing or Trinitarian nomenclature. "God the Father" is not always that. But I agree about the hatnote thing. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a biblical treatise. What matters is how a term is commonly used and what reliable sources say about it. It is not especially important that one of the analogous phrases isn't in the Bible (a frequent appeal to authority fallacy), because the Bible is a primary source that is overwhelmingly subject to interpretation. If we were going strictly on facts alone rather than what is stated about beliefs in reliable sources, we would need to scrap a great deal of articles altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, Jeffro. I think you kinda missed my point a little bit. I was simply saying that the term "God the Son" is always a Trinitarian term. Always. Whereas the term "God the Father" is not always a Trinitarian term. In or out of "encyclopedias". So equating the two terms so much (as you were) does not really hold. I mean, yes, in a sense, from a strong Trinitarian stand-point, they'd be very analogous. But it would be wrong to think that Athanasian Trinitarianism "owns" the phrase "God the Father". I'm not saying you think that, but I know that there are those who actually do. That phrase was not made up by them, but was first found in the Bible (hence my point before). (The phrase "God the Son" was invented by them though, as even they'll generally admit.)

I was saying that the term "God the Father" is not necessarily a "Trinitarian" term, in general. In or out of encyclopedias. Or wherever. (By the way, even Britannica (you mention "encyclopedia") says that the Trinity doctrine is not really explicit in the Bible, per se.) Regardless, though, forget the Bible for a minute. As that was not really my main thrust anyway, in a sense.

"God the Father" does not have to be a Trinitarian phrase necessarily, and it simply isn't, and that fact is proven and sourced. Meaning, it can be used in various senses. But obviously nontrinitarian Christians don't see it in a Nicean sense. Nor do Modalists or Oneness people. If you dismiss the Bible though, then it has to be consistent. Because the expression "God the Father" first came out of the Bible, to begin with.

But again, in general, the phrase "God the Father" factually objectively provably is not always a Trinitarian nomenclature. And there are plenty of sources (ala Nontrinitarian Churches, or even neutral writings on the subject) that show that fact clearly. But "God the Son" always is a trinitarian phrase. That phrase is never really used in reference to anything else. Whereas "God the Father" is used in various ways, not just in a trinitarian sense. And also this article does NOT just deal only with the Trinitarian concept of "God the Father". So why should the lede do so? Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

See my previous comments about hatnotes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why such a long discussion on this issue is needed, given that the lede change are imminent anyway, given the statements much further above, and as I had stated there, it is clear via the existence of the non-Trinitarian sections such as Mormonism, JW etc. that a pure Trinitarian approach would not be suffucient in this article. However, as I pointed out above, the selective invitation of specific users by Hashem sfarim amounts to WP:Canvassing and the proper way would have been to ask at WikiProjec Christianity. But given that this is not a major issue, I think it is best to let it pass. History2007 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, nice typical nonsense of putting bad motives on me, which is why you should just stay away from me, History. I did not "canvas". In fact, with Jeffro, I specifically told him on his page that HE MAY VERY WELL AGREE WITH PiCo...when I first wrote to his page. What was so "selective"? I've corresponded with Jeffro over the months on a number of issues, and he has not always sided with me necessarily. I wanted other editors in general (since there were so few on this) to give their input. AuthorityTam is another one, who would probably side more with me, but so what? I was about to go to "ic tu tuli" (or whatever his name is), who would NOT probably side with me. Jeffro I wasn't even sure about. So where's the "canvassing"? These are just people that I know who deal with articles or issues like these sometimes. Not enough editors were on here I felt. Is putting bad motives on me a hobby with you, History? Your personal biases against me are so obvious, that a blind 5 year old can see it. Stay away from me, please. Thank you.

It all boils down to this one simple point and question, that has never really truly been addressed or answered thoroughly...

This article does NOT just deal only with the Trinitarian concept of "God the Father". So why should the lede do so? Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I had stated much further above, there are non-Trinatarian sections in the article, and hence a purely Trinatarian approach in the lede will not be sufficient. And again, I think it could have been worked out much more calmly. And again, the proper way to ask for further opinions is on the WikiProject Christianity talk page, but when asking the request should be brief and not suggest a specific position, but just give a link. History2007 (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Define this article as the view of God as we find it in Christian Trinity, and make a distinct article for God, as we find it in non-trinitaristic denominations. Make the statement visible before the article, like "this article is about the Christian view of God as a part of the trinity, for other Christian views of God, see (article)". The academic view of the topic is different if we consider historican to the theologican views. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Beware the WP:CONTENTFORK (editor User:Hashem sfarim invited me to this discussion)...

The Christian Bible repeatedly uses the exact term "God the Father", so it seems to me that this article is positioned to discuss that New Testament term and how it is interpreted by all those who ascribe to the New Testament (that is, those with Trinitarian interpretations and others with nontrinitarian interpretations).

By contrast, few (any?) Bible translations include the precise terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" (consider a "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" search at Bible.cc). The term "God the Son" seems unique to Trinitarian Christianity, and thus it seems unsurprising to see that the article titled "God the Son" is almost entirely devoted to the Trinitarian view of that term. The term "God the Holy Spirit" currently redirects to "Holy Spirit (Christianity)", which leans toward Trinitarian Christianity but doesn't ignore nontrinitarian Christianity. I'd expect this article to be somewhat similar. I am surprised at the extent to which articles ostensibly on 'God the Father' and 'Holy Spirit (Christianity)' veer into a discussion of overall Trinitarianism rather than the named subject.

My impression is that Wikipedia frowns upon content forks (WP:CONTENTFORK). This article seems plainly about the entity represented by the New Testament term "God the Father" (in contrast with the very general discussion at 'Sky father'), so it's discussion should include views of that entity held by both Trinitarian- and nontrinitarian- Christians. The term isn't really used (to my knowledge) by Judaism or Islam, so their views regarding the paternal qualities of "God in Abrahamic religions" can be discussed or expanded at that "God in Abrahamic religions" article. Incidentally, the exact title/term "Heavenly Father" is used repeatedly in the New Testament's Book of Matthew; it seemed best to redirect "Heavenly Father" to this article, which I have now done. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already a separate article, God in Christianity, for addressing the entity apart from the more specific phrase 'God the Father'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The most relevant policy statement so far as I can see is WP:NAME, which I remind everyone is policy here. The specific phrase in question is the extant title, "God the Father". I have in fact already asked Hashem to demonstrate that the concstruction of the article he prefers is the most common one per that page, but he has apparently refused to respond. I had already checked the Encyclopedia of Religion, first edition edited by Mircea Eliade, second by Lindsay Jones, which seems to be the most highly regarded reference source for religion in general, for all articles it includes in the synoptic outline of Christianity, and I did not find this name there. I will have access to the Jones edition again tomorrow and will check if it is somehow an extant article in that book which is not considered relevant to Christianity, although, given the articles it did include in the Synoptic Outline, I am all but certain that there is no such article there. To an extent, I can understand that, as the content regarding "God the Father" is not particularly notably different than that of Jehovah, at least in the Jewish and Christian contexts. So, what we are basically dealing with here is whether the phrase currently being used as a title here best qualifies as per WP:NAME for the concept of "God the Father". So far as I can tell, the phrase is, basically, the default term used for Jehovah in Trinitarian churches, which are I think historically and currently much more numerous than non-Trinitarian. Given that, I tend to think that unless there is evidence presented that the term ie used almost as regularly elsewhere, the logical way to apply WP:NAME in this context would be to apply it to content relating to Jehovah, under this name, particularly in the context of the New Testament and other Christian works. I believe a similar title, God as father, might well be acceptable per policies and guidelines for the concept of the paternity of God in general.

Also, for the record, we are now working on developing a manual of style for religion articles in general. The early draft can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Although I have not added this information there directly yet, I personally believe that regarding topics which fall within the scope of multiple religious traditions, our best and most reliable sources are academic reference books and/or textbooks which are both highly regarded and are not written from or to any particular religious group. That would include the Eliade/Jones encyclopedia. But at this point any input on such matters there would also be welcome.

Lastly, taking all matters into account, I think maybe the best way to resolve this in a way that is most likely to be agreeable to all would be to file a Request for Comment on the subject. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not just the question of the JW. Some time ago I asked the people in WikiProject LDS to check the section on Mormonism and two people from there did so. So the LDS people could not really be excluded from this article, and hence the article needs a couple of non-Trinatarian sections, at least. And therefore it has to be open to both Trinity supporters and others. And I am not sure what one would achieve by changing the sections as they are. History2007 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, any non-Trinitarian Christians probably use the term as well. So based on policy, at least so far as I can see, using this article by this name to be about the God of the Hebrew Bible, also called Jehovah, as described in the New Testament, might be the best approach in terms of existing policies and guidelines. And I would agree that any groups called Christians who use works which are not included in the New Testament, like the Mormons and some NRMs, would probably deserve discussion in this article as well. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement by Authority: "This article seems plainly about the entity represented by the New Testament term "God the Father" (in contrast with the very general discussion at 'Sky father'), so it's discussion should include views of that entity held by both Trinitarian- and nontrinitarian- Christians." just sums up the situation with this article. The article does attempt to do that - but as mentioned much, much further above does not do a good job in many sections. So I am not sure what the debate is about really. History2007 (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Section content

After the comment by John above, apart from the issue of the lede, etc. the issue of content needs to be addressed, as mentioned much further above here. Per WP:LEDE the lede needs to follow the content, not determine it. So it needs to be fixed at the end of the day.

The only two high quality sections on the Christian denominations here seem to be the JW and the Mormonism. The Mormonism section was checked as OK by that project and I assume the JW section is OK, else it would have been edited and fixed by now. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy sections are in pretty sad shape and I have been trying to ignore them for a while. But I guess they need to be fixed now. There is no general section on Protestanism and the Lutherans, etc. are unspoken for. That also needs to change.

I will try to touch up the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy etc. and add some context within the next week. The other issues can be discussed in parallel. I will also leave a message for the Lutheran project to come and comment or write a section. That way things may clarify anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Athanasian Trinitarianism does not "own" the phrase "God the Father". It's a Biblical term, and is a phrase used by Modalists and Arian Christians...obviously not in a trinitarian sense. And the article reflects that throughout, and always has. And the lede should NOT give the false impression, right off the bat, by only just mentioning the blatant trinitarian view of "God the Father", solely, to the exclusion of literally everything else, inaccurately and in POV style, when it's long been established that "God the Father" is not the exclusive title of trinitarians, and never was. Talk to any Oneness Pentecostal (Modalist) and ask him if he thinks the term "God the Father" refers to the "first person of the Christian trinity, of three co-equal persons, Father, Son, and Spirit", and see what his response is. They obviously don't believe that, nor hold to that. Neither do Jehovah's Witnesses, in their Unitarian or Semi-Arian view. It's just lopsided, (regardless of what John Carter keeps going on about), to make the WHOLE LEDE just about that alone. It does not reflect the article correctly or accurately, nor is it even true, nor sourced. "God the Father", yes, does refer, in Trinitarian circles, generally to the "first person" of their Trinity...but that phrase does not, never has, and never will, be ONLY referring to that. Period. And there are plenty of sources and books and refs that prove that fact. And the point of the article, again, regardless of the name "God the Father" title, was about the overall concept of "God" AS "Father", in general...including the Trinitarian Nicean concept. But not exclusively. (As with Modalists, Arians, Semi-Arians, or even Judaism.) Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I usually say, don't sweat the lede, it will change. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC

And I also can't help but noting how Hashem continues to refuse to supply the necessary sources to prove that the article as it is currently titled should include such content as per WP:NAME and WP:WEIGHT. If certain editors could provide the proofs he so blythely refers to above, then there would be no basis for further questions. Would it be asking to much of those individuals who seek to keep the article inclusive of non-Christian views to provide the evidence required by policy, rather than making such insulting and basically off-topic comments and personal attacks as one above?John Carter (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Try not reading the angry parts John, it works. Just laugh it off, as I do. It will be forgotten soon. History2007 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To John. You said farther above that non-trinitarian Christians "probably" use the title "God the Father" as well. No, it's not a "probably" matter. THEY DO USE IT. And quite a lot, in fact. Just because you may have been ignorant of that solid and sourced fact does not change the fact that it is a fact. Modalists and Arians use the term "God the Father" all the time. And obviously not in a co-equal Trinitarian sense. The rest of the article shows that, and therefore so should the lede. The lede should include all concepts (as per article and per sources that prove the fact), not just one concept.

Also, your underlined stuff of "including non-Christian views" is very telling, if you're referring to nontrinitarian professed Christians. Because if you're equating being "nontrinitarian" with being "non-Christian" then, of course, you're way off. It's just not true, in an encyclopedic situation or context. If you're only referring to Judaism and Islam, then that's different. But "Trinitarian" (despite what you obviously, in your POV, think) is NOT necessarily exclusively the only thing that can be "Christian". (In fact, there are groups who say that Trinitarianism itself is pagan and actually not Biblically Christian...side-point). But obviously in an encyclopedic and neutral context, and not with POV hyper-trinitarian spin and bias, Modalists obviously are "Christians", since they profess to be so, and use the Bible, etc. So are Arians, Semi-Arians, Bi-nitarians, etc. So there's no "including non-Christian views" IF you're talking about them.

Putting just one view of it in the lede, excluding literally everything else, would make it lop-sided, inaccurate, biased, and POV. Giving a false impression, right off the bat, that the whole article is about only the Trinitarian "God the Father", which it isn't. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

John, please do not read that. It is just too angry. Just skip it. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To History...it was not angry, but pointed out that his "probably" is not accurate. Where exactly was the "too angry" per se in that comment? Hallucinating again? Straight-forward and blunt does not necessarily mean "too angry". Stop disrupting. And didn't I tell you to stay away from me? With your biases, hypocrisy, and whininess? You're not doing that. You're disrespecting me. John wanted me to respond to some of what he wrote, and address it, and I was trying to. Your rude WP violating neurotic disruptions don't help matters. What does "stay away from me" mean, kid? Do that. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk)

I will try not reading that. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Straight-forward does not necessarily mean "too angry". Please stop disrupting. The point is that it seems John was not fully aware (not aware at all actually) that nontrinitarian Christians use "God the Father" as well. I pointed out that they do. End of story. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. History2007 (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I just red over AuthorityTam's comments on the matter. And as I thought, he mostly agrees with me, but not entirely. And analyzing what he wrote, I think he gave THE BEST analysis and explanation of this whole matter, than any other editor on here, including myself. "God the Father" (though I feel can also refer to the concept of God AS "Father") is not a phrase used by Judaism, generally, if at all, and is a phrase exclusive (basically) to Christians. Either Modalist, Trinitarian, Arian, Semi-Arian, Unitarian, Tri-theist, what have you. So the article and lede should simply reflect all Christian views of "God the Father", not just the ultra-Trinitarian view. But all of them. I can live with that, and it makes sense.

Even if Biblical Judaism, for example, does view God as Father (Isaiah, etc), the phrase "God the Father" is not really used or employed by them, per se. I acknowledge that. So I can see AuthorityTam's point. Which, to be fair, was a point made by John Carter too. The difference is that John Carter went too far with it, I feel, and had only the ultra-Trinitarian view in mind for "God the Father", to the unfair and inaccurate exclusion of literally everything else. Whereas AuthorityTam's position (though not totally agreeing with mine) seems more balanced and accurate. The phrase "God the Father" is really used only by professed Christians, whether Unitarian, Arian, Modalist, Trinitarian, Bi-nitarian, or Tri-Theist, never by Islam or even Judaism, per se. So I think the lede should reflect that, if that's the case. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)