Talk:Gino Jennings

"Controversy" section

The supposed "Controversy" section of Apostle Gino Jennings is defamatory & subjectively-viewed libel towards the Apostle. This should be removed for rational reasons. Thank you. LJack2332 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bringing your concerns here is the correct thing to do and if through discussion you can obtain consensus then the text can be removed or substantially reworded. However, removing the text five times in 18 hours (which you have done) in the face of opposition from multiple editors is not the correct thing to do; Shellwood has left a note about edit warring on your talk page which you are advised to follow. My view is as follows: Wikipedia is not censored; if reflects what is published in reliable sources and not a view of the world that any one person prefers. I see no evidence that the text in question misrepresents or makes false accusations - it is referenced and it seems to be written in a fairly balanced way. I therefore oppose removal of the section. As an aside: I also note that you refer to the subject as Apostle Gino Jennings. If you have a conflict of interest in the matter you should ask yourself if it is you that is favouring "subjectively viewed" content. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING THE RELIGION

I understand that a lot of people keep coming on to this Wikipedia article and keep reverting edits and edit warring over the page just because of the religious classification on this article being classified as "Oneness Pentecostalism." I also fully understand too that Gino Jennings and the adherents of his church, the First Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Inc. (FCOOLJC) just identify themselves as "Holy" or "Holiness" or as "the religion of Biblical Holiness" because they choose not to personally identify with any so-called "man-made" religious or denominational names and titles.

However, if you take a detailed, scholarly, and unbiased examination of Gino Jennings' beliefs and teachings, and the same thereof of the FCOOLJC, you will find that their beliefs and teachings match up with and are the EXACT SAME beliefs and teachings as other churches and leaders of the ONENESS PENTECOSTAL branch of Christianity. I know that Gino Jennings and the FCOOLJC do not believe in calling themselves any specific name, title, or denominational classification, BUT for all intents and purposes, Gino Jennings and the FCOOLJC hold beliefs and teachings that are the same beliefs and teachings as most other Oneness Pentecostal churches and denominations.

Gino Jennings and the FCOOLJC believe that speaking in tongues (glossolalia) is a required sign of evidence of being baptized with the Holy Spirit, which is one of the exact same beliefs and teachings of Oneness Pentecostalism. Gino Jennings and the FCOOLJC also believe in a staunchly Modalistic viewpoint of Nontrinitarianism that is sometimes referred to as "Modalistic Monarchianism" because it believes that God is not a Trinity but that God took on different modes or aspects throughout creation to accomplish His divine purposes, such as taking on the Mode of the Father in Creation, taking on the Mode of the Son in the New Testament Gospels, and then taking on the Mode of the Holy Spirit in this present day and age, so that God still exists as one God and that He does not exist simultaneously as Three Persons like the Trinity on the opposite hand teaches, which is also another exact same belief of Oneness Pentecostalism.

Gino Jennings and The FCOOLJC also believe in water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, or the name of the Lord Jesus only according to Acts of the Apostles 2:38, which is also another exact same belief of Oneness Pentecostals. These are only a few examples, but these examples are the main beliefs that distinguish Oneness Pentecostal churches apart from ANY and ALL other churches and denominations of Christianity and that makes them a distinct and separate branch of Christianity. So please stop going back and forth reverting edits and edit warring and leave the Gino Jennings biography page AS IS: "Oneness Pentecostalism." This goes for ALL ANONYMOUS USERS, EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS, and ADMINISTRATORS UNLESS you find a valid source that should classify his religion as otherwise. IntellectualChristianWikiUser (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Concur. Jennings staunchly holds all three cardinal doctrines of Oneness Pentecostalism, in addition to "Holiness," the practical lifestyle commitment of Oneness Pentecostals. Ergo he and his church are Oneness Pentecostals, regardless of how he claims to prefer to be identified. - JGabbard (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Pastor Gino Jennings

Pastor Gino Jennings is a Holiness Preacher not a Pentecostal Preacher. 2601:5C3:C200:2C30:8554:379:66E7:1C8D (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes true, but to say that he is NOT also a Pentecostal preacher is disingenuous and misleading because that implies that he no longer believes in the baptism of the Holy Ghost? And he no longer practices water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ? And he no longer believes Oneness? You know that none of that is true and so does he. - JGabbard (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Significant lack of sources

A significant amount of the content in this article is unsourced. A similar amount is sourced to general webpages for the subject's church. Those pages are not neutral or verifiable, but, more importantly, even they do not contain the purported biographical details which are reflected on the page. The article has been tidied up a bit, with most the unsourced content having been removed. It seems the biographical content may have been written merely to offset some of the more critical content (within the "Controversy" section). In any event, the article is worthy of closer monitoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCleanUpCrew (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

Denomination : Holiness 68.12.224.204 (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No you cannot change the denomination. Read the "STOP CHANGING THE RELIGION" section that I posted above. Thank you IntellectualChristianWikiUser (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sent

Oh my (or, if you'd prefer the words of Minister Williams: "my Lord"!!). Listen, I've long been a huge fan of Pastor Jennings (although in my case, it's because I find him to be delightfully entertaining - here, in suburban Philadelphia, that 10–11 pm Sunday night slot on Channel 20 is hands-down the best hour of television programming in existence, but I digress...). Listen, to address the "STOP CHANGING THE RELIGION" happy horseshit, in all its ALLCAPS glory, I'm afraid you have it ass backwards: your isegesis of Jennings' teachings, along with the second from the banned sock puppet, is original research, and is therefore forbidden. Your edits run afoul of WP:NOR, WP:V, and most importantly, WP:BLP, the last of which is completely non-negotiable when it comes to editing. Your nonsense about "requiring a valid source before changing the religion", or whatever the hell it is exactly that you said higher up on this page, couldn't be more wrong. It is you who must provide a valid source ("valid" in this case meaning a scholarly third-party source) that Jennings subscribes to the Holiness movement, and/or Oneness Pentecostalism, at which point a discussion would be in order as to whether or not we should use those labels to describe Jennings here in this article. Regarding the term "fundamentalist", that goes even more so. Per long-standing, site-wide policy, we do not use Wikipedia's voice to refer to someone as a "fundamentalist" unless they self-identify as such, or unless an extremely compelling argument is put forth that the article is improved by using such a label. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

We cannot use combative, derogatory language to others. That isn't civil, alongside telling someone that they "have it ass backwards." The edits are not running afoul of those. You have come here against a long-standing consensus of other contributors and have been highly belligerent. This is why you were taken to the noticeboard, @Joefromrandb. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me further add that your edit summaries come along the lines of WP:ADVOCACY, as you have been troublesome to other contributors with this article for months. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

How's this, Lion: until you can demonstrate even the most rudimentary understanding of WP:BLP, go fuck yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll add a few things here: essays have zero relation to policy - taking every last drop of WP:AGF I can muster, & giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're simply incompetent, rather than malicious; assuming you genuinely misunderstand WP: ADVOCACY, instead of disingenuously pretending to misunderstand it, an essay holds very limited weight in the first place, and aside black-letter policy like WP:BLP, it holds absolutely zero weight. Your "status quo" nonsense is troubling, and in any case, it leads one far down a rabbit trail, and deep down into the rabbit hole, and this again assumes the good-faith position that your edits are the result of stupidity, rather than malice. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Vegas Incident

The paragraph is misleading. It says:

During the debate, Jennings had Vegas escorted out of the building by security after an altercation that ensued between Vegas, the church's audio and visual team, and the other associate ministers on the pulpit.

There's a video here: https://jamaica.loopnews.com/content/mr-vegas-sad-after-being-booted-church-clash-us-pastor

The word "altercation" here is a bit weaselly and gives a false impression that Mr Vegas attacked people or something when in reality Jennings did not want a fair debate. It could be written with some more clarity, I would make the changes now but the page is currently locked. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a good thing the article's locked then, isn't it? Obviously this article is never going to say: "in reality Jennings did not want a fair debate", but if you have a third-party, scholarly analysis of the debate, in which a credentialed individual opines that Jennings didn't want a fair debate, that could certainly be included. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We're on the talk page, I can give opinion, my opinion is not the same as what I wanted to put in the article. The source https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20180528/mr-vegas-ejected-religious-gathering-during-debate-pastor-gino-jennings used does not have the lack of clarity that the current article summary has. Describing it as a "shouting match" between Jennings and Vegas is far clearer and less misleading than "altercation that ensued between Vegas, the church's audio and visual team, and the other associate ministers on the pulpit". D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine. Talk pages are to be used to discuss potential ways in which the article can be improved. Unless your take on the debate has been published in a reputable secondary source, I don't see why you would think anyone would be interested in your opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you're intentionally misreading my replies to wind me up. Most discussions on talk pages involves opinions. When we discuss "potential ways in which the article can be improved" that is opinion.

I'm not going to respond to more offtopic remarks. Do you think we could improve the article by making the paragraph more accurately reflect the source used? D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Jennings cited multiple verses from the Bible to support his position, while Vegas was unable to cite one, and after responding in the form of an ad hominem attack multiple times in succession, rather than citing chapter and verse as requested, Jennings instructed his security team to "usher him (Vegas) out". Obviously, all of this is incredibly foolish misogyny; women should, of course, wear whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. In terms of the debate, however, Jennings scored a flawless victory fatality, as the misogynistic foolishness is indeed what the Bible has to say about the matter. If you think the term "altercation" has the potential to imply fisticuffs, then, sure, we can reword it. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)