DavidMDCXI

June 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Trinity, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aguy777 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems you wish to stop me from removing bias this is clearly biases as it makes the claim it's a developed doctrine Christians do not believe that and so to assert that is biased I will proceed to remove the bias again. DavidMDCXI

Not all followers of Christianity share the same belief as you. Some do not believe in the Trinty. It is not an anti-Christian bias to state that. The source provided within the lines you tried to remove is a valid source presenting this view point. Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:NOTCENSORED, and so will express the various view points of the topic appropriately, and from a neutral point of view (which the article does meet). Regardless, the article has been protected from further vandalism. Aguy777 (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMDCXI (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)"Not all followers of Christianity share the same belief as you." for one I never stated if I held to that belief and I never put my views on the page this doesn't merely state some think it's a developed doctrine it asserts that as fact I tried to put "some claim" which would make it neutral but you reverted it adding back the bias this is heavily biased.DavidMDCXI (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I inferred that you followed the belief of the Trinity based on your wording and language. I am sorry if this assumption was incorrect or offended you. The article does state that it is a developed doctrine as fact, as that is what it is. Adding in 'some claim' simply wouldn't make sense here. A developed doctrine is a well-formed thought or belief (the word doctrine implies connection to either theology or philosophy, of course); the Trinity certainly meets this definition. Aguy777 (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMDCXI (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)The word "develop" means "to (cause something to) grow or change into a more advanced, larger, or stronger form:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/develop) developed is merely the past tense form clearly this asserts that the doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical and is a doctrine that was made up that is not a neutral position at all it's equivalent to me putting in the tawhid page that that is a developed doctrine not found within the Qur'an that would be biased.DavidMDCXI (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Develop. As in 'to develop a thought into a well-rounded belief'. The wording is not biased. The wording used points out that the Trinity is a well-developed belief; a well-formed or thought-through belief. If anything, the wording here is positive. The word 'developed' is not being used to imply 'fabricated'. Aguy777 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMDCXI (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)That's not the only issue it asserts as fact that it's not explicit in the new testament that's pretty biased I don't think such a statement should even be in thereDavidMDCXI (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's because it's not explicitly stated in the New Testament (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trinity-Christianity). The article states this, as well. Aguy777 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMDCXI (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)That's not a valid source there really is no reason to state such a thing as there is varying opinionDavidMDCXI (talk)

It is a valid source, and there are others stating the same thing in the article. Yes, there is such a thing as a different opinion, and that is exactly why the piece of the article you seem to have a problem with will remain. You have yet to provide a single valid argument for the removal of the text in question. It is not a WP:NPOV violation. It is not biased. And, until you prove otherwise, edits contrary to this will be reverted. Aguy777 (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMDCXI (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)if there is a difference in opinion and it's a matter of interpretation then either both views should shared from a NEUTRAL standpoint or neither should be that's what being neutral is that is a perfect example of bias Britanica is not a valid source on what the text of the new testament means/says that's absurd.DavidMDCXI (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMDCXI, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DavidMDCXI! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)