From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Archive from 19:26, 26 May 2006 to 20:58, 26 July 2006 1.1 Recent edits using the word "literal" 1.2 Vandalism 1.3 Recent Edits to The Doctrine Page 1.4 Tongues 1.5 Acts 2:38 1.6 Reworking the UPCI article 1.7 Major Editing Finished 1.8 Page Moved 1.9 Special Protected

Archive from 19:26, 26 May 2006 to 20:58, 26 July 2006

Recent edits using the word "literal"

I understand the core belief by some people editing this article that the UPC's beliefs are the one true way to salvation and that it is the only salvation formula backed by Biblical verse and that there is no real controversy that can be made on this issue. Such an arguement is fundamentally not NPOV (neutral point of view). If you are unable to talk or write about your faith using NPOV, you shouldn't be working on this article.198.97.67.57 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The same principle applies to those who are critical of the UPC, and are unable to talk or write about it using a NPOV.68.111.150.81 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And All you wonderfull Men of God - Please Don't forget to sign in your after your comment. You can do it by pressing ~ four time. Pastor Linu 11:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

More on "literal"

"a more literal Apostolic interpretation of the baptismal accounts in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, where the Apostle's were recorded as perfoming baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, 'in the name of the Lord Jesus," or "in the name of the Lord.'"

Is not NPOV because it implies that UPC doctrine adheres more to the Bible than does other denominations. This is a position which I'm certain many other denominations would disagree with. Unless it can be proven objectively that it is more true to the original faith (something which I doubt most UPC preachers are able to argue since they tend not to be fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek), the above statement doeesn't belong in the article. It can be replaced with the following, "The doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church embraces Acts 2:38 (where Peter states, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost') as its salvation formula" without in any way criticizing UPC doctrine.

"Peter put this in plain language for the early church in Acts 2:38 - 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost'." Again, not NPOV. It also implies rather strongly that UPC doctrine is correct and all others are wrong. The statement can be deleted without criticizing UPC doctrine.

"The word name is used here in the singular" Obviously, in -english- it is in the singular. But that raises issues of how good a translation it is. If you want to go into the ancient Aramaic on this, it would make your case far stronger. Without that, you have NPOV problems (because of the assumption that the KJV is priveleged).

"the UPCI holds to the original oneness view of God" and this is the core problem with all of these comments that I've removed from the article. The claim that the original view of God was oneness is not NPOV unless you can back it up a lot better than you have. It can be edited to "the UPCI holds to the oneness view of God - which it claims is the original view of God" without criticizing UPC doctrine. 198.97.67.56 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "literal" and "plain language" arguments are POV and should be edited. David L Rattigan 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Seems that someone needs a lesson on what Wiki considers vandalism. "Wiki vandalism is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki." As all articles on Wiki should be written with NPOV, deliberate persistant efforts to remove NPOV (and thus violate the NPOV policy) are an act of vandalism. Please stop.198.97.67.59 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the ~unreferenced sign~, because whoever put this sign does not mention the reason why?... Pastor Linu 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again removing Template:-unreferenced-sign.. simply no reason mentioned Pastor Linu 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits to The Doctrine Page

It seems like some of you need a lesson on the purpose of Wikipedia. The doctrine section of the United Pentecostal Church article is a place to present (surprise!) the DOCTRINE of the United Pentecostal Church. Whether you agree with it or not, whether you like it or not, whether you were once a part of the UPC but left and now have a personal vendetta against it or not, whether you think you are an expert because you have a degree from Manchester or not, the doctrine section of this article is to present the doctrine of the UPC. This is what we teach, you do not have to agree with it, but to insert your own propoganda (for or against) is wrong, and will continue to be deleted. If you have a greivance with our doctrine, feel free to discuss it on the (surprise!) DISCUSSION page, but unless you have a significant contribution regarding our doctrine (and not just your personal thoughts on the matter), you will be deleted for vandalism.

I have written most of the doctrine section personally, and my qualifications include 26 years of studying, teaching, preaching and writing about this doctrine. You can save your anti-UPC flame throwing under the guise of the "NPOV" card - I know full well the true definition of the NPOV, and your edits are not it. Dcmcgov 18:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah. Hold off on the personal attacks. I have not attacked the UPC, and am interested in contributing to a fair, NPOV article. You are imposing your POV in your edits by presenting UPC doctrine in a particular light rather than simply stating objectively what those doctrines are. David L Rattigan 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition of doctrine is a set of ideas taught to a group of people as truth. These are our ideas - it is impossible to "present them in a paticular light" other than in the way we teach them. This is our doctrine, this is what we teach, this is a synopsis of what is written in our orgazational charter; if you dont agree with our doctrine - guess what: you don't have to agree - but dont accuse me of "presenting it in a certain light". The way it is being presented is the way it is taught - full stop - your personal opinions on the matter are not relevant to the doctrine, and need to be left out. This is like arguing over the color of the sky. You may not like blue, but the sky is blue, and the article on Wikipedia about the sky better call the sky blue, regardless of who likes or dislikes the color blue. The same principle applies here. Our doctrine is as such! You may not like the doctrine, but it is our doctrine. You are undermining the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information with your so called "NPOV" rants. Our doctrine is not interlaced with your opinions and interjections, and should not be presented as such. Dcmcgov 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(deleted unsigned comments) Dcmcgov 19:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you see as the critical difference between saying "The UPC teaches that.." and saying "The literal interpretation of the Bible is X" when describing UPC doctrine? In other words, what exactly is it with the edits that we've made that you find so objectionable Dcmcgov?71.74.217.83 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you remove Acts 2:38 from the repentance section of this article, I will report you. If you have an issue with this organization's doctrine, discuss it HERE. Do not remove fundamental portions of thier doctrine because of a personal issue you have. Doing so in the name of NPOV is especially ridiculous. Again, I will report your activity and have your IP address banned from editing. Dcmcgov 03:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the edits you had made were as minor as those you stated, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Don't try and spin this, User 71.74.217.83.

Deleting Acts 2:38 from the article and stating that we don't really "scientifically" (?) speak in tongues are not minor semantical edits, but are acts of vandalism to a page that should present the UPC doctrine for what it is, and not what you think is wrong with it. Dcmcgov 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (btw, You should think about creating an account sometime soon, I feel like I'm talking to a number.)

The page needs to objectively describe UPC beliefs. The following phrases were very loaded with POV:

... embraces a more literal Apostolic interpretation ...

... Peter put this in plain language ...

Claims that a particular interpretation represent a "more literal" reading or the "plain" reading are POV.

As for the Acts 2:38 reference, it is given in the intro, which is why I think it is being removed from elsewhere.

I removed the tongues claim, as it was POV. The phrase "speaking in tongues" is fine by itself - it just describes a religious phenomenon and doesn't make any claim about whether it is really divine or "scientific". David L Rattigan 08:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I think I've been reasonably successful in balancing contrasting the different viewpoints on the article Jehovah's Witnesses with regards to presenting beliefs in a concise way, and also presenting criticism. It might be helpful, or give you some ideas about this. For instance, in this section on this article, you constantly have to invent phrases for "The UPC teaches/believes/holds/maintains/claims ..." I personally found these sorts of phrases tedious and redundant on the JW belief section, and opted for a different approach that eliminated them altogether. joshbuddy^talk 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tongues

Would it be NPOV if it were stated without the "obviously"? I can see in hindsight that that word does bring bias to the article. However, stating that there are no verifiable cases but plenty of urban legends of it is part of the etic description I think. [Unsigned]

Which statement are you referring to? I couldn't find "obviously" anywhere in the article. David L Rattigan 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Obviously, there are no scientifically verified and documented cases of a UPC member speaking in tongues as it was done on the day of Pentecost - speaking an earthly language unknown to the speaker. There are many "urban legends", however, of members doing so."198.97.67.56 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see - it was your statement, and you'd like to know whether it could be replaced without "obviously" to make it NPOV? Understand now.

I don't think there's any need for the statement at all. I think it can be taken for granted that "speaking in tongues" refers to a religious experience capable of being interpreted in many ways. The statement would be as true of tongues-speakers in any religious tradition. David L Rattigan 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What happened on the day of Pentecost was xenoglossalia. The UPC bases its belief in speaking in tongues on this act. They are either not doing what was done on the day of Pentecost or they are engaging in xenoglossalia. If they are engaging in xenoglossalia, then it is scientifically verifiable that they are doing so.

I know of no other religion who claim to practice xenoglossalia. So comparing how we should treat a religion who practices glossalia but not xenoglossalia to another religion which claims to be practicing xenoglossalia is comparing apples and oranges. The fact that it would not be as true of tongue-speakers in any religious tradition is, therefore, simply irrelevant.198.97.67.57 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for a UPC claim to xenoglossolalia in particular? Acts 2 is pivotal to all Pentecostal traditions, and usually the difference between glossolalia and xenoglossolalia is overlooked. There are also many anecdotal accounts of xenoglossolalia within Pentecostalism as whole, not just UPC. David L Rattigan 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Do you have a reference for a UPC claim to xenoglossolalia in particular?" Yes, [1]it is at the UPC website. It references Acts 11:15-17 (for the Gentiles) pointing back to Acts 2. Since Acts 2 describes xenoglossalia and the UPC basis its arguement on Acts 2, it must either be preaching xenoglossalia or be inconsistent with its Biblical support. Take your pick.

As for other forms of Pentecostalism preaching xenoglossalia, I don't see how that is relevant. [Unsigned]

Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~.

My point about other Pentecostals was relevant because you just claimed above that no other religion claimed to be practising xenoglossolalia, by which I assume you mean no one other than the UPC.

The link you provided mentions Acts, but doesn't claim UPC practises xenoglossolalia. I think the criticism that modern tongues is not like that in Acts 2 is one that probably belongs in the general Pentecostalism article rather than here, since it is a general comment on Pentecostalism in general rather than the UPC specifically. David L Rattigan 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"you just claimed above that no other religion.." Okay, the UPC is a denomination of Christianity which is a religion.

If the UPC teaches that what it practices is anything other than xenoglossalia, then it is in conflict with the Biblical basis for its practice. I see no reason why the fact that a central part of the UPC doctrine is non-Biblical can't be listed here as well as in the general Pentecostalism article.198.97.67.56 16:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's important enough to be included, I suggest you include it in the Criticisms section, rather than in the main body of the article, and provide a source. You would also have to phrase it in NPOV terms, as the view you expressed is a POV criticism based on a particular biblical interpretation. (Thanks for signing, by the way - makes the discussion a lot less confusing.) David L Rattigan 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Acts 2:38

I believe DCMGOV intended to post this here instead of in my personal talk space "Do NOT remove Acts 2:38 from the repentance section of the UPCI page again. If you don't agree with the UPCI doctrine, discuss it in the discussion page, but you cannot remove fundamental portions of the organization's doctrine simply because you do not like it." 71.74.217.83 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reply 1.) The philosophy of Wikipedia is against one person controlling the contents of an article by telling others what they can or can't or should or shouldn't post in it - only Wiki policy can do that 2.) My version of the article does not remove Acts 2:38 from the article

Reworking the UPCI article

Just wanted to post some notes about my recent changes to the Wikipedia article. Please read this and consider, before you revert. This is my first time doing major writing for the Wikipedia, so my NPOV my not be perfect. Please don't flame or revert, but an explanation of the offending language would be helpful.

I removed an in-text citation because it referenced a college level research project. It's probably too unreliable for something like the Wikipedia.

I'm endeavoring to secure primary sources for this article. I've started the process of citing the UPCI doctorinal stances, directly from the UPCI homepage. These are paraphrased and abbreviated, save some plagiarism on the part of others, which I will remove/reedit as I have the time. For the time being, I've begun expanding the doctorinal sections with more detail. I would also like to secure some tracts, manuals, and other printed literature, so that I can fill a reference section, above and beyond internet references.

Well done. You may be interested in joining the Charismatic Wiki Project - see link at top of page. Hasn't really got off the ground yet, but with a bit more interest it might. David L Rattigan 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I was carefully Checking the Recent History of this Article. I appreciate "Firstdivider" for the Major Editing work he has done. But I just need an explanation, who you deleted most of the people from "Prominent People with UPC" section? Also please create a user Page of yours! Pastor Linu 09:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not me! Those people were gone by the time I first saw this page. I'll work on creating a user page :). I've edited the wikipedia before, but this is the first time that I've done it using my own account.

Recent changes: Last night I tightened up the intro paragraph by removing some off-target information. I'm also going to de-link all of the red topics. Firstdivider 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just de-linkified the red links in the article, and I also removed rendundant/irrelevant blue links. I've posted a list of the removed red links below.

Churches with no Wiki: Pentecostal Church, Incorporated, Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, The General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies, The Apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ, The Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance, Emmanuel's Church in Jesus Christ, The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, The Pentecostal Church, Incorporated,

UPCI Affiliates with no Wiki: Christian Life College, Texas Bible College, Gateway College, Centro Teologico Misterial, Indiana Bible College, Apostolic Bible Institute, Northeast Christian College, Urshan Graduate School of Theology, Pentecostal Publishing House

People with no Wiki: Rev. Kenneth Haney, Daniel Seagraves Ed. D. Firstdivider 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Editing Finished

I've just finished alphabetizing and standardizing lists and links. I've also wikified/removed dead/broken links, as well as redundant links, or links which did not belong.

• Contains UPC position papers, beliefs and more
• United Pentecostal Church India website

I will probably put the first link in a section called 'criticisms of the UPCI' which I will make at some future point.

I removed the second link because it was dead, and also because it was not appropriate to put a regional organization under a heading for individual churches. I'm not even sure if links to individual churches should be in the wikipedia.

The schools and learning institutions are now properly linked, so I removed them from the list.

Firstdivider 07:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Moved

The actual name of the organization is the United Pentecostal Church International. In the interest of properly reflecting the true name of the organization, I've moved the page (the old UPC page is now a redirect).

Special Protected

I put a Special Protected sign due to so much vandalism and unwanted edit by anonymous people. 125.22.33.103 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)