text:
Oneness Pentecostalism

Oneness Pentecostalism (also known as Apostolic, Jesus' Name Pentecostalism, or the Jesus Only movement) is a nontrinitarian religious movement within the Protestant Christian family of churches known as Pentecostalism. It derives its name from its teaching on the Godhead, a form of Modalistic Monarchianism commonly referred to as the Oneness doctrine. The doctrine states that there is one God―a singular divine spirit with no distinction of persons―who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This stands in sharp contrast to the mainstream doctrine of three distinct, eternal persons posited by Trinitarian theology.

Oneness Pentecostals differ from most other Pentecostals and Evangelicals in their views on soteriology, believing that true saving faith is demonstrated by repentance, full-submersion water baptism, and baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Oneness believers also solely baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, rejecting the Trinitarian formulas.

Many Oneness Pentecostal groups―especially the United Pentecostal Church International―tend to emphasize strict holiness standards in dress, grooming, and other areas of personal conduct. This teaching is shared with traditional Holiness Pentecostals, but not with other Finished Work Pentecostal groups―or at least not to the degree that is generally found in some Oneness Pentecostal (and Holiness Pentecostal) churches that say holiness is to be set apart to God.

The Oneness Pentecostal movement first emerged in North America around 1914 as the result of a schism following the doctrinal disputes within the nascent Finished Work Pentecostal movement (which itself had broken from Holiness Pentecostalism) —specifically within the Assemblies of God. The movement claims an estimated 30 million adherents worldwide. It was often referred to as the Jesus Only movement in its early days—referring to its baptismal formula—which may be misleading as it does not deny the existence of the Father or Holy Spirit.

History
The first Pentecostals were Holiness Pentecostals, who teach three works of grace (the new birth, entire sanctification, and Spirit baptism accompanied by glossolalia); Finished Work Pentecostals broke off and became partitioned into Trinitarian and nontrinitarian branches, the latter being known as Oneness Pentecostalism. The Oneness Pentecostal movement began in 1913 as the result of doctrinal disputes within the nascent Pentecostal movement, specifically within the Assemblies of God, the first Finished Work Pentecostal denomination.

Beginnings of the Oneness movement
In April 1913, at the Apostolic Faith Worldwide Camp Meeting held in Arroyo Seco, CA, conducted by Maria Woodworth-Etter, organizers promised that God would "deal with them, giving them a unity and power that we have not yet known." Canadian R. E. McAlister preached a "new revelation" that a baptismal formula in the name of Jesus only was to be preferred over the three-part formula "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" found in Matthew 28:19, pointing to Acts 2:38. This revelation immediately caused controversy when Frank Denny—a Pentecostal missionary to China—jumped on the platform and tried to censor McAlister.

A young minister named John G. Schaepe was so moved by McAlister's new revelation that, after praying and reading the Bible all night, he ran through the camp the following morning shouting that he'd received a revelation against Trinitarian baptism. This conclusion was accepted by several others in the camp and given further theological development by a minister named Frank Ewart. On April 15, 1914, Frank Ewart and Glenn Cook publicly baptized each other specifically in "the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" in a tank set up in Ewart's Crusade tent. This is considered to be the historical point when Oneness Pentecostalism emerged as a distinct movement.

A number of ministers claimed they were baptized in Jesus' name before 1914, including Frank Small and Andrew D. Urshan. Urshan claimed to have baptized others in Jesus Christ's name as early as 1910. In addition, Charles Parham, the founder of the modern Pentecostal movement, was recorded baptizing using a Christological formula during the Azusa Street revival; and until 1914, both Parham and William J. Seymour baptized in this Christological formula but repudiated the new movement's nontrinitarian teachings amidst the controversy as they baptized as Christocentric Trinitarians.

In the Assemblies of God, the re-baptisms in Jesus' name caused a backlash from many Trinitarians. The issue finally came to a head in October 1916, at the Fourth General Council: the mostly Trinitarian leadership—fearing that the new issue of Oneness might overtake their organization—drew up a doctrinal statement affirming the truth of Trinitarian dogma, among other issues. When the resulting Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths was adopted, a third of the fellowship's ministers left to form Oneness fellowships. After this separation, most Oneness believers became relatively isolated from other Pentecostals and mainstream Christendom.

Forming Oneness organizations
Several small Oneness ministerial groups formed after 1914. Many of these ultimately merged into the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, while others remained independent, like AFM Church of God. Divisions occurred within the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World over the role of women in ministry, usage of wine or grape juice for communion, divorce and remarriage, and the proper mode of water baptism. There were also reports of racial tension in the organization. African Americans were joining the church in great numbers, and many held significant leadership positions. In particular, the African American pastor G. T. Haywood served as the church's general secretary, and signed all ministerial credentials. Three new organizations were formed in 1925: the Apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ, Emmanuel's Church in Jesus Christ and the Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance. The first two later merged to become the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, and the second became the Pentecostal Church, Inc.

In 1945, a merger of two predominantly-white Oneness groups, the Pentecostal Church, Inc. and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, resulted in the formation of the United Pentecostal Church International, or UPCI. Beginning with 521 churches, it has become the largest and most influential Oneness Pentecostal organization through its evangelism and publishing efforts, reporting a membership of over 5.75 million.

Oneness theology
Oneness Pentecostalism has a historical precedent in the Modalistic Monarchianism of the fourth century. This earlier movement affirmed the two central aspects of current Oneness belief:
 * 1) There is one indivisible God with no distinction of persons in God's eternal essence, and
 * 2) Jesus Christ is the manifestation, human personification, or incarnation of the one God.

They contend, based on Colossians 2:9, that the concept of God's personhood is reserved for the immanent and incarnate presence of Jesus only.

Characteristics of God
Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is a singular spirit who is absolutely and indivisibly one (not three persons, individuals, or minds). They contend that the terms "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost" (or "Holy Spirit") are merely titles reflecting the different personal manifestations of God in the universe. When Oneness believers speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they see these as three personal manifestations of one being, one personal God.

Oneness teachers often quote a phrase used by early pioneers of the movement: "God was manifested as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in emanation," though Oneness theologian Dr. David Norris points out that this does not mean that Oneness Pentecostal believe that God can only be one of those manifestations at a time, which may be suggested in the quote.

According to Oneness theology, the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same personal God. It teaches that the term "Holy Spirit" is a descriptive title for God manifesting himself through the Christian Church and in the world. These two titles—as well as others—do not reflect separate persons within the Godhead, but rather two different ways in which the one God reveals himself to his creatures. Thus, when the Old Testament speaks of "The Lord God and his Spirit" in, it does not indicate two persons, according to Oneness theology. Rather, "The Lord" indicates God in all of his glory and transcendence, while "his Spirit" refers to his own Spirit that moved upon and spoke to prophets. Oneness theologian Dr. David K. Bernard teaches that this passage does not imply two persons any more than the numerous scriptural references to a man and his spirit or soul (such as in ) imply two "persons" existing within one body.

Bernard asserts that it is unbiblical to describe God as a plurality of persons in any sense of the word, "regardless of what persons meant in ancient church history."

Son of God
According to Oneness theology, the Son of God did not exist (in any substantial sense) prior to the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth except as the Logos (or Word) of God the Father. They believe that humanity of Jesus did not exist before the Incarnation, although Jesus (i.e. the Spirit of Jesus) pre-existed in his deity as the eternal God. This belief is supported by the lack of Jesus' incarnate presence anywhere in the Old Testament. Thus, Oneness Pentecostals believe that the title "Son" only applied to Christ when he became flesh on earth. The Father in this theology embodies the divine attributes of the Godhead, and the Son embodies the human aspects. They believe that Jesus and the Father are one essential person, though operating in different modes.

Oneness author W. L. Vincent writes, "The argument against the 'Son being his own Father' is a red herring. It should be evident that Oneness theology acknowledges a clear distinction between the Father and Son–in fact this has never been disputed by any Christological view that I am aware of."

The Word
Oneness theology holds that "the Word" in John 1:1 was the mind or plan of God. Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Word was not a separate person from God but that it was the plan of God and was God Himself. Bernard writes in his book The Oneness View of Jesus Christ, "In the Old Testament, God's Word (dabar) was not a distinct person but was God speaking, or God disclosing Himself (Psalm 107:20; Isaiah 55:11). To the Greeks, the Word (logos) was not a distinct divine person, but reason as the controlling principle of the universe. The noun logos could mean thought (unexpressed word) as well as speech or action (expressed word). In John 1, the Word is God's self-revelation or self-disclosure. Before the Incarnation, the Word was the unexpressed thought, plan, reason, or mind of God." Bernard additionally claims that the Greek word pros (translated "with" in John 1:1) could also be translated as "pertaining to," meaning that John 1:1 could also be translated as (in his view), "The Word pertained to God and the Word was God."

In the incarnation, Oneness believers hold that God put the Word (which was His divine plan) into action by manifesting Himself in the form of the man Jesus, and thus "the Word became flesh". In this, Oneness believers say that the incarnation is a singular event, unlike anything God has done prior or will ever do again. Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Word of John 1:1 does not imply a second pre-existent, divine person, but that the Word is simply the plan of God, which was put into action through the incarnation.

The dual nature of Christ
When discussing the Incarnation, Oneness theologians and authors often refer to a concept known as the dual nature of Christ, which is understood as the union of human and divine natures in the man Jesus. Bernard describes this concept in his book The Oneness of God, stating that Jesus "is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son. On his human side, He is the Son of man; on his divine side, He is the Son of God and is the Father dwelling in the flesh." They see this not as two persons in one body but rather as two natures united in one person: Jesus Christ. Oneness believers see the mystery referred to in 1 Timothy 3:16 as referencing this concept of two natures being united in the one person of Jesus Christ.

Although the Oneness belief in the union of the divine and human into one person in Christ is similar to the Chalcedonian formula, Chalcedonians disagree sharply with them over their opposition to Trinitarian dogma. Chalcedonians see Jesus Christ as a single person uniting God the Son—the eternal second person of the Trinity—with human nature. Oneness believers, on the other hand, see Jesus as one single person uniting the one God himself with human nature as the Son of God.

Scripture
Oneness Pentecostalism subscribes to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in common with mainstream Pentecostals and other Protestants. They view the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and as absolutely inerrant in its contents (though not necessarily in every translation). They specifically reject the conclusions of church councils such as the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. They believe that mainstream Christians have been misled by long-held and unchallenged "traditions of men."

The name of Jesus
The overwhelming emphasis on the person of Jesus shapes the content of a theology based on experience among both Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals. In principle, the doctrinal emphasis on Jesus attributes all divine qualities and functions to Christ. What might therefore be called a 'Christological maximalism' in the Pentecostal doctrine of God leads among Oneness Pentecostals to a factual substitution of the three divine persons with the single person of Jesus, while Trinitarian Pentecostals typically elevate Christ from the 'second' person of the Trinity to the central figure of Christian faith and worship.

Critics of Oneness theology commonly refer to its adherents as "Jesus Only," implying that they deny the existence of the Father and Holy Spirit. Most Oneness Pentecostals consider that term to be pejorative and a misrepresentation of their true beliefs on the issue. Oneness believers insist that while they do indeed believe in baptism only in the name of Jesus Christ, to describe them as "Jesus Only Pentecostals" implies a denial of the Father and Holy Spirit.

View of the Trinity
Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Trinitarian doctrine is a "tradition of men" and is neither scriptural nor a teaching of God, citing the absence of the word "Trinity" from the Bible as one evidence of this. They—alongside the nontrinitarian Jehovah's Witnesses—generally believe the doctrine was gradually developed over the first four centuries AD, culminating with the Council of Nicaea and later councils which made the doctrine as believed today orthodox. Most mainstream Christian scholars have rejected these assertions, and some have rebutted alleged misinterpretations of Trinitarians seeming to support those assertions.

Oneness Pentecostals insist that their conception of the Godhead is true to early Christianity's allegedly strict monotheism, contrasting their views not only with Trinitarianism, but equally with the theology espoused by the Latter-day Saints (who believe that Christ was a separate god from the Father and the Spirit) and Jehovah's Witnesses (who see him as the first-begotten Son of God, and as a subordinate deity to the Father). Oneness theology is similar to historical Modalism or Sabellianism, although it cannot be exactly characterized as such.

The Oneness position as nontrinitarians places them at odds with the members of most Christian denominations, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as cultists. Oneness clergy consecrated into the Joint College of Bishops are also at odds on grounds of their claims to apostolic succession (being that documented consecrators in succession were Trinitarian from the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern churches, alongside contradicting records).

Accusations of Modalism and Arianism
Oneness believers are often accused of being Modalistic. They have also occasionally been accused of Arianism or Semi-Arianism, usually by isolated individuals rather than church organizations. While Bernard indicates that Modalistic Monarchianism and Oneness are essentially the same, and that Sabellius was basically correct (so long as one does not understand Modalism to be the same as patripassianism), and while Arius also believed that God is a singular person, Bernard vehemently denies any connection to Arianism or Subordinationism in Oneness teaching.

Oneness views on the early church
Scholars within the movement differ in their views on church history. Some church historians, such as Dr. Curtis Ward, Marvin Arnold, and William Chalfant, hold to a Successionist view, arguing that their movement has existed in every generation from the original day of Pentecost to the present day. Ward has proposed a theory of an unbroken Pentecostal church lineage, claiming to have chronologically traced its perpetuity throughout the church's history.

Others hold to a Restorationist view, believing that while the apostles and their church clearly taught Oneness doctrine and the Pentecostal experience, the early apostolic church went into apostasy and ultimately evolved into the Roman Catholic Church. For them, the contemporary Oneness Pentecostal movement came into existence in America in the early 20th century during the latter days of the Azusa Street Revival. Restorationists such as Bernard and Norris deny any direct link between the church of the Apostolic Age and the current Oneness movement, believing that modern Oneness Pentecostalism is a total restoration originating from a step-by-step separation within Protestantism culminating in the final restoration of the early apostolic church.

Both Successionists and Restorationists among Oneness Pentecostals assert that the early apostolic church believed in the Oneness and Jesus name baptism doctrines. Oneness theologian David K. Bernard claims to trace Oneness adherents back to the first converted Jews of the Apostolic Age. He asserts that there is no evidence of these converts having any difficulty comprehending the Christian Church's teachings and integrating them with their existing Judaic beliefs; however in the post-Apostolic Age, Bernard claims that Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Polycrates, Ignatius (who lived between 90 and 140 A.D.), and Irenaeus (who died about 200 A.D.) were either Oneness, modalist, or at most a follower of an "economic Trinity," that is, a temporary Trinity and not an eternal one. He also asserts that Trinitarianism's origin was pagan, quoting anti-Catholic Alexander Hislop, a Presbyterian minister; but none of Hislop's arguments have been confirmed by historians in contemporary scholarship.

Bernard theorizes that the majority of all believers were Oneness adherents until the time of Tertullian, whom he and many mainstream Christian scholars believe was the first prominent exponent of Trinitarianism (though Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the term). In support of his allegation, Bernard quotes Tertullian as writing against Praxeas: "The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise or unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the very ground that their very Rule of Faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own economy. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity, they assume to be a division of the Unity." In contrast to Bernard's theory, mainstream Christian scholars suggest the writings of Ignatius and Irenaeus teach an eternal Trinity, though Norris disagrees with them in his book I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology, writing, "While Ignatius can on occasion utilize the language of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he does not have three persons in mind."

Oneness soteriology
Oneness theology does not represent a monolithic soteriological view; however, there are general characteristics that tend to be held in common by those who hold to a Oneness-view of God. In common with most Protestant denominations, Oneness Pentecostal soteriology maintains that all people are born with a sinful nature, sin at a young age, and remain lost without hope of salvation unless they embrace the Gospel; that Jesus Christ made a complete atonement for the sins of all people, which is the sole means of man's redemption; and that salvation comes solely by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Oneness doctrine also teaches that true faith has the fruit of obedience, and that true salvation is not only to profess faith, but to demonstrate it as well in action. Oneness churches, while exhibiting variations, generally teach the following as the foundation of Christian conversion:
 * repentance;
 * water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:48);
 * baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

Oneness Pentecostals generally accept that these are the minimal requirements of conversion.

Grace and faith
Oneness Pentecostals maintain that no good works or obedience to law can save anyone, apart from God's grace. Furthermore, salvation comes solely through faith in Jesus Christ; there is no salvation through any name or work other than his (Acts 4:12). Oneness teaching rejects interpretations that hold that salvation is given automatically to the elect; they believe that all men are called to salvation, and "whosoever will, may come" (Revelation 22:17).

While salvation is indeed a gift in Oneness belief, it must be received. This reception of salvation is generally what is considered conversion, and is accepted in the majority of evangelical Protestant churches. The first mandate is true faith in Jesus Christ, demonstrated by obedience to God's commands, and a determination to submit to his will in every aspect of one's life. Oneness adherents reject the notion that one may be saved through what they call mental faith: mere belief in Christ, without life-changing repentance or obedience. Thus, they emphatically reject the idea that one is saved through praying the sinner's prayer, but rather the true saving faith and change of life declared in scripture. Oneness Pentecostals have no issue with the prayer itself, but deny that it alone represents saving faith, believing the Bible accordingly mandates repentance, baptism by water and spirit with receipt of the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of the spirit part of the rebirth experience and the true, godly faith obeyed and done by the early Church believers. Thus, one who has truly been saved will gladly submit to the biblical conditions for conversion. According to these believers, Jesus and the apostles taught that the new birth experience includes repentance (the true Sinner's Prayer) and baptism in both water and God's Spirit.

Repentance
Oneness Pentecostals maintain that salvation is not possible without repentance. While repentance is in part godly sorrow for sin, it is as much as complete change of heart and mind toward God and his word. This is why Oneness churches expect a complete reformation of life in those who have become Christians.

Water baptism
Oneness Pentecostals believe that water baptism is essential to salvation and not merely symbolic in nature. They also believe that one must have faith and repent before being baptized, therefore deeming baptisms of infants or by compulsion unacceptable.

Baptismal mode
Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains the literal definition of baptism as being completely immersed in water. They believe that other modes either have no biblical basis or are based upon inexact Old Testament rituals and that their mode is the only one described in the New Testament. The Articles of Faith of the UPCI state that "the scriptural mode of baptism is immersion and is only for those who have fully repented."

Baptismal formula
Oneness adherents believe that for water baptism to be valid, one must be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," rather than the Trinitarian baptismal formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is referred to as the Jesus' name doctrine. "Jesus' name" is a description used to refer to Oneness Pentecostals and their baptismal beliefs.

This conviction is mainly centered around the baptismal formula mandated 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." Oneness Pentecostals insist that there are no New Testament references to baptism by any other formula–save in Matthew 28:19, which most hold to be simply another reference to baptism in the name of Jesus. Although Matthew 28:19 seems to mandate a Trinitarian formula for baptism, Oneness theology avows that since the word "name" in the verse is singular, it must refer to Jesus, whose name they believe to be that of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oneness believers insist that all Bible's texts on the subject must be in full agreement with each other; thus, they say that either the apostles disobeyed the command they had been given in Matthew 28:19 or they correctly fulfilled it by using the name of Jesus Christ.

Some Oneness believers consider that the text of Matthew 28:19 is not original, quoting various scholars and the early Church historian Eusebius, who referred to this passage at least eighteen times in his works. Eusebius' text reads: "go and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you." However, most Oneness believers accept the full Matthew 28:19 as an authentic part of the original text.

Oneness Pentecostals assert that all of the five mentions of baptism in the Book of Acts were performed in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; ; and Acts 22:16), and that no Trinitarian formula is ever referred to therein. In addition, is taken by Oneness Pentecostals to indicate baptism in Jesus' name as well; Oneness author William Arnold III explains their reasoning: "If we follow Paul's train of thought, his obvious implication is 'No, Christ was the one crucified for you and so you were baptized in the name of Christ.' So the believers at Corinth as well as those in Rome were baptized in Jesus' name." Hence, Oneness believers claim that this constitutes proof that the Jesus name formula was the original one and that the Trinitarian invocation was erroneously substituted for it later. As additional support for their claim, Oneness Pentecostals also cite editions of Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Interpreter's Bible and various scholars to justify this claim; Norris teaches that "there is a strong scholarly consensus that the earliest Christian baptism was practiced in Jesus' name."

In contrast, the Didache—a Jewish Christian text generally dated to the first century AD—cites the Trinitarian formula. In response, some Oneness Pentecostals deride the text and support the now less-common assertion of it being a second-century text; they also consider it untrustworthy, citing one manuscript existing (though a Latin manuscript was discovered in 1900).

Mainstream (or Nicene/Trinitarian) Christians exegete "in the name of Jesus Christ" as by the "authority of Jesus" which denotes baptism in the name of the three persons of the Trinity. In response, Oneness Pentecostals have claimed that the wording of Acts 22:16 requires an oral invocation of the name of Jesus during baptism ("calling on the name of the Lord"). They also assert that the way one exercises the authority of Jesus is by using his name, pointing to the healing of the lame man at the Gate Beautiful in Acts 3 as an example of this.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Oneness Pentecostals believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a free gift, commanded for all.

Pentecostals—both Oneness and Trinitarian—maintain that the Holy Spirit experience denotes the genuine Christian Church and empowers the believer to accomplish God's will. As do most Pentecostals, Oneness believers maintain that the initial sign of the infilling Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues and that the New Testament mandates this as a minimal requirement. They equally recognize that speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers of the Holy Spirit's power, and is to be actively sought after and utilized, most especially in prayer. However, this initial manifestation of the Holy Spirit is seen as distinct from the gift of divers kinds of tongues mentioned in, which is given to selected spirit-filled believers as the Holy Spirit desires. Oneness adherents assert that receipt of the Holy Spirit (manifested by speaking in tongues) is necessary for salvation.

Worship
In common with other Pentecostals, Oneness believers are known for their charismatic style of worship. They believe that the spiritual gifts found in the New Testament are still active in the church; hence, services are often spontaneous, being punctuated at times with acts of speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophetic messages, and the laying on of hands for the purposes of healing. Oneness believers, like all Pentecostals, are characterized by their practice of speaking in other tongues. In such ecstatic experiences a Oneness believer may vocalize fluent unintelligible utterances (glossolalia), or articulate a natural language previously unknown to them (xenoglossy).

Some Oneness Pentecostals practice foot washing, often in conjunction with their celebration of Holy Communion, as Jesus Christ did with his disciples at the Last Supper.

Holiness standards
Oneness Pentecostals believe that a Christian's lifestyle should be characterized by holiness. This holiness begins at baptism, when the blood of Christ washes away all sin and a person stands before God truly holy for the first time in his or her life. After this, a separation from the world in both practical and moral areas is essential to spiritual life. Moral or inward holiness consists of righteous living, guided and powered by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Practical or outward holiness for many Oneness believers involves certain holiness standards that dictate, among other things, modest apparel and gender distinction. Oneness Pentecostals believe wholeheartedly in dressing modestly. They believe that there is a distinct deference in modesty (shunning indecency) and moderation (avoiding excesses and extremes). They justify this belief by using 1 Timothy 2:9 ("In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel") and Philippians 4:5 ("Let your moderation be known unto all men"). Some Oneness organizations, considering current social trends in fashion and dress to be immoral, have established dress codes for their members. These guidelines are similar to those used by all Pentecostal denominations for much of the first half of the 20th century. According to UPCI standards, women are generally expected not to wear pants, make-up, form fitting clothing, jewelry, or to cut their hair; while men are expected to be clean-shaven, short-haired, and are expected to wear long sleeve shirts (women are also expected to wear long sleeve dresses or blouses) and long-legged pants, as opposed to shorts. Additionally, some Oneness organizations strongly admonish their members not to watch secular movies or television. Many of these standards have roots in the larger Holiness movement. However, the precise degree to which these standards are enforced varies from church to church and even from individual to individual within the movement.

In the early days of the Oneness movement standards, holiness was not a held belief nor required bylaw for congregants. In fact, holiness or sanctification was actually shared with that of the Wesleyan viewpoint.

Due to the comparative strictness of their standards, Oneness Pentecostals are often accused of legalism by other Christians. Oneness denominations respond by saying that holiness is commanded by God and that it follows salvation, rather than causes it. They say holiness proceeds from love rather than duty and is motivated by the holy nature imparted by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. While the Christian life is indeed one of liberty from rules and laws, that liberty does not negate one's responsibility to follow scriptural teachings on moral issues, many of which were established by the apostles themselves.

Notable adherents

 * David K. Bernard – minister, theologian, general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, and founding president of Urshan College and Urshan Graduate School of Theology
 * Irvin Baxter Jr. – minister, founder and president of Endtime Ministries, seen on various Christian television channels
 * Kim Davis – clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky who gained national media attention after defying a federal court order requiring that she issue same-sex marriage licenses following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges
 * Garfield Thomas Haywood – first presiding bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (1925–31); also the author of many tracts and composer of many gospel songs
 * Pastor Gino Jennings – founder of the First Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, Inc
 * Bishop Robert C. Lawson – protege of Bishop G. T. Haywood and founder of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith from 1919 to his death in 1961
 * Bishop Sherrod C. Johnson – founder and chief apostle of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith
 * Hailemariam Desalegn – former Prime Minister of Ethiopia
 * Tommy Tenney – a minister and best-selling author
 * Bishop Jesse Delano Ellis II – first presiding prelate of the United Pentecostal Churches of Christ and Pentecostal Churches of Christ; founder of the Joint College of Bishops

title: Oneness Pentecostalism


text:
TZero

TZero may refer to:

 * AC Propulsion tzero, automobile
 * T Zero, a collection of stories by Italo Calvino
 * t0, a symbol used in mathematics referring to the starting point or the beginning of time within a system

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: TZero


text:
Talk:Manzanar

This is not of FA quality
This article received its FA rating back in 2007, at a time when the standards at FAC were considerably more relaxed than they have since become. Looking through this article, it is apparent that it does not meet present FA standards; indeed, it may even struggle to reach GA status. There are various sentences throughout the article that are simply unreferenced; the formatting of the citations that are used are haphazard; various sections, such as "Township", are badly organised and full of stand alone sentences; and there is an over-reliance on free web sources as opposed to more expert, print sources. I appreciate that a lot of time and effort probably went into getting this to FA status back in the noughties, but it is now time that we send this along to featured article review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Feature article review
Just to make sure people see this, please come participate in the feature article review discussion. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Content removed
The content below from the indicated sections was removed for various reasons, usually because of lack of citation. Please discuss these items in their sections below. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture
The following content was removed because the mention was incidental or limited (such as to a single episode of a TV series, or a single scene in a film). These should be incorporated into the subject articles. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the 1984 movie The Karate Kid, Daniel reads the letter which informed Mr. Miyagi of the death of his wife and son during child birth on November 2, 1944, while in the Manzanar Relocation Camp. Mr. Miyagi was fighting for the US against the Germans in Europe when he received the news.
 * A 2007 episode of the CBS television crime drama Cold Case, titled "Family 8108", dealt with the 1945 murder of a Japanese American man in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania after he and his family were released from Manzanar. The episode originally aired on December 9, 2007.
 * Episode 253 of 99% Invisible, which aired March 2017, focused on Manzanar.

Owens Valley Paiute
This paragraph was removed because the references used are not verifiable (except for the one verifying the size of the lake):
 * "The Army didn't take them on a direct route, either, said Owens Valley Paiute elder Irene Button. "They were forced to walk all the way around the eastern shore of Owens Lake (covers an area of approximately 108 sqmi). They wanted to make sure that as many as possible would die before they reached Fort Tejon."
 * I may have found a book that talks about this. We'll see when I access it. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure
These sentences were removed from the third paragraph (following "...慰霊塔 ("Soul Consoling Tower")."):
 * The monument is often draped in strings of origami, and sometimes survivors and other visitors leave offerings of personal items as mementos. The National Park Service periodically collects and catalogues such items.

National Historic Landmark and National Historic Site
The following sentence was removed as sources have proven difficult to locate. (It was prior to "The Manzanar National Historic Site also unveiled its virtual museum..."):
 * In late 2008, historically appropriate vegetation was planted near the Visitor Center.

References removed
Removed because they are apparently not reliable. Please feel free to comment on why or why not they are reliable. The name of the ref is in quotes, with the citation below that. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "AikoWords":
 * "DenshoTerminology":
 * "Reflectionsiii–iv"
 * "SKE-ManzanarCommittee"
 * "McCarthy-Human Quest"
 * "Ito-MotherJones"
 * "SKE-ManzanarCommittee"
 * "McCarthy-Human Quest"
 * "Ito-MotherJones"
 * "Ito-MotherJones"
 * "Ito-MotherJones"

Wartime-related resources
Buidhe, please specifically mark which ones you think should be kept as further reading and which should be used as references (if possible). Please give reasoning, if you can. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, contains no information that isn't in the next book. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Change to the 1944 edition, which is free full text, and link that. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Children's book, remove. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove. I don't see how this is adding anything to the article. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Marginally reliable popular history book, may be worth keeping. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, seems to be related to a different camp. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, relevant but not useful as a reference. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed both Huffpost articles as it's a marginally reliable source. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a video documentary. Move to external links. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, seems to be about internment in general with little on Manzanar. I've added it to Japanese American internment. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed as irrelevant since it has almost no information on the camp. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should either be cited or deleted, depending on how much detail it has on Manzanar specifically. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, relevant but not useful as a reference. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed both Huffpost articles as it's a marginally reliable source. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a video documentary. Move to external links. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, seems to be about internment in general with little on Manzanar. I've added it to Japanese American internment. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed as irrelevant since it has almost no information on the camp. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should either be cited or deleted, depending on how much detail it has on Manzanar specifically. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a video documentary. Move to external links. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, seems to be about internment in general with little on Manzanar. I've added it to Japanese American internment. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed as irrelevant since it has almost no information on the camp. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should either be cited or deleted, depending on how much detail it has on Manzanar specifically. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed as irrelevant since it has almost no information on the camp. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should either be cited or deleted, depending on how much detail it has on Manzanar specifically. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should either be cited or deleted, depending on how much detail it has on Manzanar specifically. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should either be cited or deleted, depending on how much detail it has on Manzanar specifically. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how to deal with memoirs, they are probably not WP:RS for our purposes here, and my inclination would be just copy them to the wikiarticles of their authors. If the author/book isn't notable, it probably isn't worth keeping. buidhe 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I've trimmed the list per this discussion. Down to four now. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 03:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Post-War-related resources
Buidhe, please specifically mark which ones you think should be kept as further reading, which should be used as references (if possible), and which should be axed. Please give reasoning, if you can. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, not sufficiently related to the topic. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove/move to Embrey's article. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this one is sufficiently related to be here, too. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, this is about restitution for internment not Manzanar. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, irrelevant. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, this is about internment in general, not Manzanar specifically. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, this is about restitution for internment not Manzanar. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, irrelevant. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, unrelated to Manzanar. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, questionable reliability. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's from a long-running newspaper in Los Angeles. I'm not seeing the "questionable reliability" issue. I think this one should be kept, too. I've removed all of them but the two I mentioned here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, this is about restitution for internment not Manzanar. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, irrelevant. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, unrelated to Manzanar. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, questionable reliability. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's from a long-running newspaper in Los Angeles. I'm not seeing the "questionable reliability" issue. I think this one should be kept, too. I've removed all of them but the two I mentioned here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, questionable reliability. buidhe 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's from a long-running newspaper in Los Angeles. I'm not seeing the "questionable reliability" issue. I think this one should be kept, too. I've removed all of them but the two I mentioned here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's from a long-running newspaper in Los Angeles. I'm not seeing the "questionable reliability" issue. I think this one should be kept, too. I've removed all of them but the two I mentioned here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Muslim pilgrimages
The article states: "Since the September 11 attacks, American Muslims have participated in the Pilgrimage to promote and increase awareness of civil rights protections in the wake of widespread suspicions harbored against them post-9/11." Is this still happening? Does anyone have articles more recent than 2008? ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm finding sources for 2017 and 2019. Seems it's still a thing. buidhe 05:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I've added the LA Times article and added a sentence. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional resources for references
Buidhe provided this list of possible sources for use in improving the article: Feel free to use any or all of them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).
 * Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).

Cow Creek annex
The latest USNPS map of internment facilities includes a pointer to Cow Creek in Death Valley as a sort of intermediate/temporary jail short of sending people to Tule Lake. This is next to NPS employee housing and the DV Nat. Hist. Assoc.. 24.121.145.212 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manzanar


text:
Korean won

The Korean Won or Korean Empire won,  was the official currency of the Korean Empire between 1900 and 1910. It was subdivided into 100 jeon.

Etymology
Won is a cognate of the Chinese yuan and Japanese yen, which were both derived from the Spanish-American silver dollar. It is derived from the hanja 圓 (원, won), meaning "round", which describes the shape of the silver dollar.

History
The Korean won, Chinese yuan and Japanese yen were all derived from the Spanish-American silver dollar, a coin widely used for international trade between Asia and the Americas from the 16th to 19th centuries.

On May 22, 1901 the Korean Empire adopted the gold standard in response to many other countries doing the same. The won was introduced in 1902, replacing the yang at a rate of 1 won = 10 yang. Units: 1 won = 100 jeon (錢), 1 jeon = 5 bun (分, "fun" ec. yesteryear spellings) of the preceding currency. Gold coins were produced in the denominations of 5, 10, and 20 won. All of these coins had a composition of 90% gold and 10% copper. Another notable feature of these coins is that they, unlike the earlier yang coinage, contained no English inscriptions as they only contained Chinese and Hangul legends.

As a part of the Russian influence in Korea at the time, the Koreans introduced a small number of "Russified" coins between the years 1901 and 1902, but these coins would prove to be unsuccessful as they were swept away by the flood of cupronickel coins.

The disagreements between the Japanese and Russian Empires led to the Russo-Japanese War when Japan attacked Port Arthur in Russian Dalian and Incheon in Korea, the war ended in a Japanese victory, Japan occupied the Kwantung Leased Territory and the Korean peninsula. The Japanese immediately took control over Korean financial matters. On October 16, 1904 the Koreans accepted Baron Megata Tanetarō from the Japanese Ministry of Finance as financial adviser to their government, Megata was assigned to assume complete jurisdiction over Korea's finances. When Megata arrived in Korea, he told Sir John Newell Jordan, the British Minister-Resident in Korea at the time, that the Japanese protectorate over Korea was being modeled on British rule in Egypt. One of the first recommendations by Baron Megata was to close all Korean Mints and commence a reform of the Korean currency. One of the primary policies he proposed was removing the cupronickel coins from circulation.

After the Japanese had pressured the Korean Mint Bureau, which had been striking coins for 20 years, to close in November of the year 1904, all gold coins of the won were produced at the Japan Mint in Osaka (日本大阪造幣局). In 1905 the Japan Mint began to produce the Korean won's new coinage, this entirely new series was modeled almost exactly on the patterns of contemporary Japanese coins and even used the same planchets.

As the coins of the Korean won were being struck on the same planchets as the Japanese yen, when the Japanese would reduce the weight of the minor coinages of the yen in 1906, the weights and sizes of Korean coins were also reduced in 1907. This was also because the Japanese and Korean coins were circulating as equivalents to each other in exchange at the time.

In the year 1907 the imperial Korean government had designated the Japanese Dai-Ichi Bank to carry out the monetary reforms that were suggested by the Japanese adviser to Korea Baron Megata Tanetarō. The Dai-Ichi Bank attempted to withdraw the cupronickel coinage, recall the yeopjeon, and help circulate the newly introduced coinage that was minted in Osaka. During this era Korean cash coins were still largely circulating in the regions of southern and north-eastern Korea. The task of withdrawing the cupronickel coinage from circulation proved to not be an easy one because of the substantial number of counterfeit cupronickel coins that were circulating in Korea at the time, these counterfeit coins were redeemed by the Dai-Ichi Bank at reduced rates from the "official" cupronickel coins; during the exchange process, it was assumed by everybody that theirs cupronickel were "official" cupronickel coins and demanded the maximum exchange rate. The withdrawal of copper-alloy Korean cash coins was made easier due to a global rise in the price of copper, during this era thousands of pounds of copper-alloy Korean cash coins were exported at a profit.

In the year 1908, Korea was hit by a panic when the value of nickel dropped significantly, this led to the Korean public quickly exchanging their cupronickel at the banks. A staggering amount of 266.480,000 of cupronickel coins were exchanged during this panic. This panic would lead to the demonetisation of the Korean cupronickel coinage in November 1908. In the year 1909 there were supposedly 4,000,000 of 5 jeon nickel coins that were struck at the Japan Mint, however, most were melted down due to their demonetised status. Copper coins during this period were not affected by the panic exchange. Older coins collected by the banks from July 1905 to October 1907 resulted to be more than 375 tonnes. If it assumed that only cupronickel 5 fun coins of 7 grams were collected by the banks, more than 53,000,000 would have been collected from general circulation.

After 1908, circulation of the old cupronickel coins was outlawed by the imperial Korean government, while the cast copper-alloy cash coins remained to be legal tender in Korea at a value of 0.2 jeon, which meant that they had a nominal value of $1/100$ won.

Prince Hirobumi Ito pointed out to the Korean government the anomalous situation of having a foreign (Japanese) commercial bank as the central bank of their government and recommended that the Koreans create their own central bank in the same way that others nations had, and so in 1909, the Bank of Korea was founded in Seoul as a central bank and began issuing currency of a modern type. And on 10 November 1909 many of the functions of the Dai-Ichi Bank were passed onto the newly established Bank of Korea.

The Bank of Korea assumed responsibility for the banknotes issued by the Dai-Ichi Bank that were still in circulation (which totalled 12,000,000 yen), the Dai-Ichi Bank would further transfer to the Bank of Korea the 4,000,000 yen in specie reserves which backed its banknotes. The balance was converted by the Bank of Korea to an interest-free 20-year loan to the Dai-Ichi Bank.

In the year 1910 the Japanese had formally annexed Korea, this meant that Korea's native currency system would become an arm of the Japanese currency system. As a part of the reforms of Korea during the colonial period Korean coinage was suspended; Japanese coinage was then introduced to the peninsula to replace it, although the Japanese created no "crash" program of recall, nine years later in 1919 as much as 25% of all Korean won coins remained in circulation as only 75% of the Korean coinage had been withdrawn by the Japanese.

The won was equivalent to the Japanese yen and was replaced by the Korean yen in 1910 during the Colonial Era. In 1910, the Bank of Korea was renamed the Bank of Joseon (조선은행; 朝鮮銀行), which issued notes denominated in yen and sen.

Coins
Coins were minted in the denominations of $1/500$, 1, 5, 10 and 20 jeon, $1/2$, 5, 10 and 20 won. The coins all carried the title of the "state", Daehan, and the Korean era name, Gwangmu and then Yunghui , whilst the specifications were equivalent to the coins of the Japanese yen.

In 1906 Korea's first gold coinage was created, in denominations of 5 won, 10 won, and 20 won. These coins were also of identical weight and fineness to their Japanese counterparts, but used a dragon which was similar to the previous generation of Japanese yen gold coins in their designs.

The dragon symbol was replaced by the phoenix on the $1/2$ jeon, 1 jeon, and 5 jeon coins when these coins started being produced by the Japan Mint.

List of coins of the Korean won:

Rare coins

 * There is some question as to whether or not any $1/2$ jeon coins were minted in the year Gwangmu 11.
 * The $1/2$ jeon coins minted in the years 1907 (隆熙元年) and 1910 (隆熙四年) are known to be very scarce.
 * In September 2011 a 5 jeon coin from 1909 was at auction for $138,000.
 * The 5 won gold coins are dated to have been produced in the years 1908 (隆熙二年) and 1909 (隆熙三年). Only two known pieces of the 1909 version of the 5 won are known to be extent, one of these pieces was sold at an auction for $460,000 in September 2011.
 * The 10 won gold coins are dated to have been produced in the years 1906 (光武十年) and 1909 (隆熙三年). Only two known pieces of the 1909 version of the coin are known to be extent with one specimen of this series being sold at an auction for $299,000 in September 2011.
 * The 20 won gold coins are dated to have been produced in the years 1906 (光武十年), 1908 (隆熙二年), and 1909 (隆熙三年). Only two specimens of the 1909 coin are known to be extent with one specimen of this series being sold at an auction for $632,500 in September 2011.

Banknotes

No banknotes were issued denominated in won. However, Korean yen notes were issued by Dai-Ichi Ginko (First National Bank (of Japan), 주식회사제일은행, 株式會社第一銀行). The Dai-Ichi Bank's role as treasury bank for the imperial Korean government, its responsibility for recalling the old cupronickel and Korean cash coinage, and the fact that this bank issued the only banknotes that ever gained universal acceptance in Korea at the time emphasised the fact that the Dai-Ichi Bank held a status of being the de facto "Central Bank of Korea" until the founding of the Bank of Korea.

Both local banks and quasi-governmental firms had tried to establish a paper money system in Korea during this era, but none of their issues seemed to have been readily accepted by the public. The Dai-Ichi Bank had petitioned the imperial Japanese government to be granted permission to issue banknotes in Korea, to augment the demonetised Japanese yen coins that it was importing, this was because in the year 1885 the imperial government had monopolised the issuing of banknotes and prohibited banks from doing this in Japan.

After the imperial Japanese government has granted this permission, the Dai-Ichi Bank released banknotes in the year 1902 that were printed by the Japanese Finance Ministry Printing Bureau. In Southern Korea they were well received in the trade port cities, but faced rejection in the Russian influenced cities of Seoul and Incheon. This was because of the ongoing rivalry between Japan and Russia. In the year 1902 the Russians successfully petitioned the Korean government to ban all banknotes issued by the Dai-Ichi Bank, but this ban only lasted for a few months.

The Dai-Ichi Bank had enough fiscal and economic strength to redeem every banknote that was presented to them when they were banned from circulating, later the Dai-Ichi Bank was able to withstand yet another run on its banknotes, this meant that public confidence in the issues of the Dai-Ichi Bank grew in Korea which helped the bank succeed.

In the year 1905 the Dai-Ichi Bank had been designated the "treasury bank" for the Korean government, which meant that it served as the Korean government's agent for depositories and disbursing finances.

The Dai-Ichi Bank would issue fractional denomination banknotes (banknotes with denominations smaller than 1 yen) for the Imperial Japanese Army soldiers that were operating in northern Korea and Manchuria. Since these banknotes were printed by the Japanese Ministry of Finance, they were almost identical to the banknotes issued by the imperial Japanese government themselves for these same soldiers. The fractional banknotes issued by the Dai-Ichi Bank were seen as being very convenient, and were soon circulating all over the Korean peninsula.

Following the establishment of the Bank of Korea, it would immediately begin to issue its own banknotes, these new banknotes were redeemable "in gold or Nippon Ginko notes." Most of the reserves held by the Bank of Korea at the time were banknotes issued by the Bank of Japan and commercial paper.

Korean "Eagle" coins
Following the Japanese victory during the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing dynasty's influence over the Korean peninsula was replaced by that of the Japanese Empire. Furthermore China's weakened position during this era allowed for the interests of the Russian Empire in the Far East to expand significantly as well. The Russian Empire sent Mr. Alexiev as the financial advisor to Korea. On March 1, 1898 the first branch of the Russo-Korean Bank in Asia was established. In the year 1901, Alexiev authorised the minting of a new set of three coins, these were Korean "Eagle" coins were issued by the Russo-Korean Bank.

These coins are known as the Korean "Eagle" coins because the fact that instead of having a Korean dragon or Korean phoenix in their design they have a crowned eagle based on the coat of arms of Russia. All of the Korean "Eagle" coins were minted at the Yongsan Mint (龍山典局). These coins would prove to be unsuccessful as they were swept away by the flood of cupronickel coins.

The Russo-Korean bank also created a set of experimental coins (or "trial coins") that were produced but never saw any circulation. This unissued coin series included a copper 10 won (十圜), a copper 20 won (二十圜), and a silver "half dollar" (半圜, "half won"). While all of these unissued Korean "Eagle" coins were reportedly minted in the year 1901, the coins display various other dates such as 1899, 1901, 1902, or 1903.

Following the Japanese victory during the Russo-Japanese War and Korea becoming a Japanese protectorate under the Eulsa Treaty, the Japanese would confiscate and destroy almost all Korean "Eagle" coins. Because of this, surviving Korean "Eagle" coins are extremely rare.

List of issued Korean "Eagle" coins:

List of unissued Korean "Eagle" pattern coins:

Rare Korean "Eagle" coins

 * A specimen of a 1 jeon Korean "Eagle" coin dated 1902 (光武六年) sold at an auction for $149,500 in September 2011.
 * A specimen of a 20 won Korean "Eagle" coin dated 1902 (光武六年) sold at the same auction as the coin above for $115,000 in September 2011.

title: Korean won


text:
Uptime

Uptime is a measure of system reliability, expressed as the period of time a machine, typically a computer, has been continuously working and available. Uptime is the opposite of downtime.

It is often used as a measure of computer operating system reliability or stability, in that this time represents the time a computer can be left unattended without crashing or needing to be rebooted for administrative or maintenance purposes. Conversely, long uptime may indicate negligence, because some critical updates can require reboots on some platforms.

Records
In 2005, Novell reported a server with a 6-year uptime. Although that might sound unusual, that is actually common when servers are maintained under an industrial context and host critical applications such as banking systems.

Netcraft maintains the uptime records for many thousands of web hosting computers.

A server running Novell NetWare has been reported to have been shut down after 16 years of uptime due to a failing hard disk.

A Cisco router has been reported to have been running continuously for 21 years as of 2018. As of April 11, 2023, the uptime has increased to 26 years, 25 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, and 8 minutes until the router was later decommissioned and the final screenshot of the uptime was 26 years, 28 weeks, 2 seconds, and 6 minutes.

Windows Task Manager
Some versions of Microsoft Windows include an uptime field in Windows Task Manager, under the "Performance" tab. The format is D:HH:MM:SS (days, hours, minutes, seconds).

systeminfo
The output of the  command includes a "System Up Time" or "System Boot Time" field.

The exact text and format are dependent on the language and locale. The time given by  is not reliable. It does not take into account time spent in sleep or hibernation. Thus, the boot time will drift forward every time the computer sleeps or hibernates.

NET command
The  command with its   sub-command provides the date and time the computer started, for both the   and   variants. The command  is shorthand for. The exact text and date format is dependent on the configured language and locale.

Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI)
Uptime can be determined via Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI), by querying the  property of the   class. At the command prompt, this can be done using the  command:

The timestamp uses the format, so in the above example, the computer last booted up on 8 May 2011 at 16:17:51.822. The text "LastBootUpTime" and the timestamp format do not vary with language or locale. WMI can also be queried using a variety of application programming interfaces, including VBScript or PowerShell.

Uptime.exe
Microsoft formerly provided a downloadable utility called, which reports elapsed time in days, hours, minutes, and seconds.

The time given by  is not reliable. It does not take into account time spent in sleep or hibernation. Thus, the boot time will drift forward every time the computer sleeps or hibernates.

FreeDOS
The  command is also available for FreeDOS. The version was developed by M. Aitchison.

Using uptime
Users of Linux systems can use the BSD uptime utility, which also displays the system load averages for the past 1, 5, and 15-minute intervals:

Using /proc/uptime
Shows how long the system has been on since it was last restarted:

The first number is the total number of seconds the system has been up. The second number is how much of that time the machine has spent idle, in seconds. On multi-core systems (and some Linux versions) the second number is the sum of the idle time accumulated by each CPU.

Using uptime
BSD-based operating systems such as FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and SySVr4 have the uptime command (See ).

The uptime program on BSD is a hard link to the w program. The w program is based on the RSTS/E, TOPS-10, and TOPS-20 SYSTAT program.

Using sysctl
There is also a method of using sysctl to call the system's last boot time:

OpenVMS
On OpenVMS systems, the  command can be used at the DCL command prompt to obtain the system uptime. The first line of the resulting display includes the system's uptime, displayed as days followed by hours:minutes:seconds. In the following example, the command qualifier  suppresses the display of per-process detail lines of information.

The command output above shows that node JACK on 29 January 2008 at 16:32:04.67 has an uptime of 894 days 22 hours 28 minutes and 52 seconds.

title: Uptime


text:
Talk:City of Lake Macquarie

2003
Since there's not likely to be many people reading this page with the expertise to contradict one of my assertions, I thought I'd better make a brief mention of possibly inaccurate information here.

 * "However, a good view can be obtained from lookouts in the nearby Wattagan Mountains."

My memory is a bit hazy. I'm not sure if you can see all the way to Warners Bay, but you can definitely see the south end and the ocean.

 * "fish stocks have been significantly reduced from their original values due mainly to recreational fishing activity."

Word of mouth. The guy seemed to know what he was talking about. I know there was once commercial fishing, so there could be more to the story.

 * "There is very little tourism, with the area being virtually unknown even to residents as close as Sydney. "

This statement will some day cause some poor resident to choke on their coffee. I say to that person: (a) compare it with Nelson Bay, and (b) Do you know how many times I had to explain to Sydney residents where Lake Macquarie is, during my 4 years there?

-- Tim Starling 06:53 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Newcastle and Lake Macquarie
On the Lake Macquarie page, there is this paragraph: "There is some confusion among Australians about the classification of places within the Lake Macquarie LGA, some people calling them independent towns, some calling them suburbs of Newcastle. However, residents of Lake Macquarie are in general deeply offended if they are told they are part of Newcastle."

I don't know who is confused. It is more a matter of identification. Lake Macquarie is technically and legally a city by virtue of its population size, although there is no city centre as such, i.e. there is no place called Lake Macquarie within the city, save for the lake itself.

Residents of Lake Macquarie will most often say they are from Newcastle as it is more likely to be widely known due to its role as the regional centre, just as someone who lives in Parramatta will say they are from Sydney, although technically they live in an adjacent city. Newcastle and Lake Macquarie are essentially one continuous city but with independent local government.

As for being deeply offended if told one is part of Newcastle, I have never known anybody who felt that way. As I say, we in Lake Macquarie generally feel we are part of Newcastle. Whenever I am asked where I am from, I always reply "from Newcastle", although technically Lake Macquarie is more correct.

 * I grew up in Belmont, many of my friends and close relatives still live in Belmont, Charlestown etc., and I frequently spend time there. I have never (until I read this article in its recent form) heard anyone suggest that there is something "offensive" about people who live in those places being considered to be from Newcastle. They'd laugh at this suggestion (as I did). In fact, everyone I know would say they are from Newcastle, just as you do.

 * In other words, you are totally correct. I wish you'd identified yourself, as anonymous posts don't carry much weight.

 * Yes, technically it is a "city" (it used to be a "shire"), but you could say the same about the "city" of Port Phillip, and all the other local government districts that are part of Melbourne (for example). Someone who lives in the "city" of Port Phillip will say, when asked, that they are "from Melbourne". As you mention, someone from Parramatta will say they are "from Sydney" (and would certainly not be offended by the idea!) It's just silly getting a city in this administrative sense mixed up with a city in the ordinary sense. We should try to avoid confusing people who read Wikipedia and don't understand the distinction. Metamagician3000 09:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Further to the above, I just went and checked what I say on my own web site. I say that I grew up in the Lake Macquarie area at the southern end of Newcastle. I guess that shows the ambiguity. I could have said "south of Newcastle", implying it is a completely separate place, or I could have just said that I grew up "in Newcastle". I guess that people like me want to be able to claim to be Novocastrians while also claiming that something "special" about growing up on the Lake. But the idea of not claiming to be a Novocastrian, or of actually being offended by it, is just bizarre. Metamagician3000 10:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * And to be completely fair to the person who wrote the words we are criticising, I have been known to say "south of Newcastle". I don't see this as different from describing Parramatta or Penrith as "west of Sydney" or Frankston as "near Melbourne" but there is always this ambiguity about what is in a sprawling Australian city and what is merely near it, given the way local government boundaries are drawn. All the same, I'm still laughing at the "offended" comment. :) Surely wikipedia should be explaining the situation accurately - that it is a group of towns administered by one "city" council, clustering around the lake, and merging with Newcastle when you drive between Charlestown and Adamstown. Metamagician3000 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I lived in Cardiff a few years ago I always told people that I live in Lake Macquarie BTW council is in the planning stage for its own CBD ie a suburb called Lake Macquarie City. At last news they had proposed that the shopping area of Glendale, part of the Cardiff area, Argenton area and the pasminco site would be the new suburb with little or no residential housing in the surburb. I myself think its wrong to advertise something to be what it is not. Lake Macquarie is a City as is Newcastle. Do people in Maitland say they live in Newcastle, or what about Port Stephens or Cessnock? No I dont think so. I think its time that Lake Macquarie got the recognition that it deserves instead of always giving Newcastle the glory. Thats the purpose of the proposed CBD.

 * Well, I live in the City of Port Phillip these days. But everyone here knows that the City of Port Phillip is a whole bunch of suburbs that are part of metropolitan Melbourne. It's true that no one considers Maitland part of Newcastle, and it can be a grey area where a city (in the normal sense as opposed the capitalised "City of..." sense begins and ends). No one thinks that Geelong is part of Melbourne, either, or that Gosford is part of Sydney. But there are plenty of "City ofs" that are part of Melbourne (for example). In fact, the "City of Melbourne" is only a small part of the city of Melbourne, and I've never heard people who live in the City of Bundoora or the City of Port Phillip or whatever complain that they are thought of as Melburnians, or that Melbourne "gets all the glory". The idea actually sounds a bit silly to me. We want to present ourselves to the world as a full-sized city, not a whole lot of "Cities of", even though there are different football teams, etc. Similarly, Parramatta is not part of Sydney for local government purposes but everyone counts Parramatta, Penrith, etc, etc when they add up the population of metropolitan Sydney. Someone who lives in Parramatta will describe himself as "from Sydney".

 * Honestly, arguing from this "City of..." administrative thing is just causing confusion. If there really are two viewpoints among people who live in the towns and suburbs that make up Lake Macquarie, these days, I guess they should be reflected in the article somehow, but I've honestly never heard anyone who has lived there all of their life, such as my parents or my friends, express offence at being thought of as coming "from Newcastle" or as living in a town (such as Belmont, where I grew up, or Gateshead or Whitebridge or Warners Bay or whatever) that is "part of Newcastle" in the wider, non-administrative sense.

 * Maybe this is changing among younger people, but as far as I've ever heard the anonymous poster who I replied to had it exactly right. If anything, the people I know from (say) Belmont would probably be pissed off if the people from near Cardiff or wherever claimed that they were now the "Lake Macquarie CBD", or if they were told they could no longer consider themselves to be part of the larger entity of Newcastle. If it is changing among the younger generation (which I've seen no evidence of except what you've said here) then maybe Lake Macquarie will become a lower-case-city in the ordinary sense one day. From what you're saying some people have that as their plan. But it hasn't happened yet. :) No one has yet built that CBD for example, let alone got it established. I was there at Christmas time, again, and it still looks nothing like a city in that sense. It is still a batch of towns that merge into the suburbs of Newcastle. To suggest otherwise will give totally the wrong impression to people from all over the world who could read this article. Metamagician3000 14:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well I still think that the city should get the recognition it deserves visit this link here at councils website to find out more info about the proposed CBD http://www.lakemac.com.au/news/news_details.asp?key=1471 after reading this you'll see that the mayor shares the same veiw as I do in creating a identity for the city.

 * According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Newcastle Statistical Division includes Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens, Maitland and Cessnock LGAs. This is how Newcastle manages to claim the title of sixth largest city in Australia. Though when discussing the metropolitan area, it only includes Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. In reality, Port Stephens, Maitland and Cessnock are distinct places, as they are not directly joined to Newcastle in an urban sense. Rather they rely on Newcastle (and vice versa) for employment, services, etc. However, the Lake Macquarie urban area is clearly joined to the urban area of Newcastle. It's nonsense to claim Lake Macquarie as a completely separate city. As stated previously, the residents of Parramatta would not claim that they are a distinct city to Sydney. The same as the people of Gosford and Wyong would not claim they are from Sydney (even though they are included in the Sydney Statistical Division). There's nothing wrong with discussing Lake Macquarie and Newcastle in separate articles, but there should be a clear explanation that they are part of the same metropolitan area.

Lake Macquarie - split into lake and city articles
It seems that the City of Lake Macquarie and the geographical feature called Lake Macquarie may deserve to be two different articles. Gregwmay 22:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose move
Shouldn't this article be located at Lake Macquarie, New South Wales? If not, shouldn't there be a redirect there to this article? Blarneytherinosaur 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Right now that place is occupied by the article on the lake, which was split off from this article. Probably not the best location of that article either. andy 11:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be the other way around, the place disambiguated with state suffic and the Lake not--A Y Arktos\talk 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lake-logo.jpg
Image:Lake-logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on City of Lake Macquarie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071113014636/http://www1.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/hneph/EHM/Eraring.htm to http://www1.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/hneph/EHM/Eraring.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of Lake Macquarie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224101536/http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/LocalitySearchResults.aspx?filter=Shortland&filterby=Electorate to http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/LocalitySearchResults.aspx?filter=Shortland&filterby=Electorate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:City of Lake Macquarie


text:
Talk:USS United States (1797)

First Ship of War of this Country
My name is Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr. and since 1978 I have been gathering historical and construction data on the First Ship of War of this Country, the frigate class USS UNITED STATES. I am Founder & President of the USS UNITED STATES Foundation, a non-profit Chartered Corporation.

Noting the commissioning date of 11 July in your notes is not true. The sources of which I am familiar with are misleading and incomplete. It was for this of several reasons that I involved myself with the frigate.

In a document commissioning John Barry as No. One in the United States Navy, Barry received this commission on 22 February 1797. In this order by George Washington, Barry was to take command of the frigate called UNITED STATES at Philadelphia. Since Barry received this commission as the first officer, and since the orders singled out the frigate UNITED STATES under the same order, then the USS UNITED STATES became the first commissioned war ship of the United States of America and the United States Navy on 22 February 1797, prior to her launching. Several news articles also called the USS UNITED STATES as the first ship of war of this country to affirm her place as the First Ship of the United States (Federal) Navy.

The weight of the frigate was in excess of 1576 tons. This weight was the basic design weight. However she mounted a poop deck and roundhouse on the stern that drew 23 feet of water while the bow drew 20 feet of water. She also had 6 pairs of "diagonals" within her construction, a feature which is now being used to lengthen the life expectancy of the reconstructed USS CONSTITUTION (1995).

UNITED STATES was also faster than CONSTITUTION or PRESIDENT and faster then almost any ship in the United States Navy up until the mid 1840's. CONSTITUTION reportedly had an old entry of 13 1/2 knots as a speed. However, repeated entries in the journal of LT. John Muloney, First Officer of the USS UNITED STATES, indicated that the frigate was constantly slackening sail for CONSTITUTION to catch up. And in a incident involving a chase for a French privateer, the UNITED STATES out ran the CONSTITUTION and had the quarry long before CONSTITUTION arrived on the scene. Rumours of she having poor sailing qualities certainly did not show in her speed.

It is my belief that the report of wood on her upper deck to be used for continuing carpentry work below during her maiden voyage made her a little crank, once the wood was below she was more than capable in speed and maneuverability than any other ship in the Navy of the United States. Later misconceptions gave a false image of her true attributes.

Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr. USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com

Captured vs. acquired
I've rolled back the edits that imply that United States was not captured by the Confederacy. While not captured in a battle at sea, she was not simply "acquired" either. She fell into Confederate hands with the fall of the Navy Yard where she was docked. Acquired implies that she was somehow purchased, which is not the case. Feel free to try again to clarify what you're trying to say. Jinian 12:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * From my observations, the frigate was sitting in ordinary and had been decommissioned as a Federal ship at Norfolk before the outbreak of the Americal Civil War. Any ships in that condition are not captured since they were not active in the United States Navy. When the yard was taken by the Confederacy all vessels not under the commission of the United States Navy became aquired in that the possession changes but cannot be captured since they were not active. You may be right as to ships being sold as being aquired. However possession can not take place as a capture unless the ship was commissioned. Therefore she falls under possession as aquired and not captured.

I have the honor to be at your service. Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr.  USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com USS UNITED STATES Foundation First Ship of the United States Navy

date?
Naval Act of 1794 says that it was completed in 1796. This article says 1797. Which is correct? Bubba73 (talk), 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Frigate USS UNITED STATES was commissioned 22Feb1797, launched 10May1797 and got to sea 13 July 1798. 72.193.3.74 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr.; Founder & President, USS UNITED STATES Foundation; USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com

New infobox
I changed the infobox to the latest design of ship infoboxes. This type of infobox can also have more information on it. It looks better anyway. I also took off the new infobox tag on the talkpage--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Another date?
At the top of the article, the ship was broken up in 1865. In the infobox, it was 1866. Explaination? -- 15lsoucy salve.opus.nomen 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Demolition of the frigate USS UNITED STATES was started in December of 1865 and was completed in January of 1866. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.6.211 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Persons Assigned to the US United States in 1850
I just found my 2nd great grandfather in the 1850 U.S. Census. He was on the "U.S. Ship United States" at Norfolk. I had not seen a census record before showing sailors on their ships. There seems to be at least 24 sailors on the ship at that time. The sailors were born in many states and countries. My ancestor, Joseph Yates, is still in Portsmouth/Norfolk in the 1860 census but is living in the town and is not on the ship. Now to determine more about him between 1860 and his death before 1864 96.248.17.116 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Tom
 * The timeline fits perfectly for your research in this case. United States was what they called a receiving ship in 1850. So your 2nd great grandfather was apparently in some sort of transient period and temporarily housed there. Brad (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:USS United States (1797)


text:
Talk:Jesus Only

Would Jesus Only doctrine be a better place for this article? --Jiang

I considered that. I am not finished with my series of articles. Probably in the next day or so I'll see how it looks. You are probably, though. I would have to rewrite a couple of my articles to accommodate the change.

On second thought, I think it's better as Jesus Only doctrine. How do I remove the current page?

Thanks :-)

--- User:Joeykelly

 * You just click on "Move this page" on the left of this screen. This page will then redirect there. You can also sign your name with ~ . Want to give the move a try? --Jiang 07:26 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jesus Only


text:
Minim (unit)

The minim (abbreviated min, ♏| or ♍|) is a unit of volume in both the imperial and U.S. customary systems of measurement. Specifically it is $1/undefined$ of a fluid drachm or $1/undefined$ of a fluid ounce.

The minim was introduced in the 1809 edition of The Pharmacopœia of the Royal College of Physicians of London as a replacement for the drop, which had previously been the smallest unit of the apothecaries' system. It was observed that the size of a drop can vary considerably depending upon the viscosity and specific gravity of the liquid. (At the time, the phenomenon of surface tension was not well understood.) The minim, on the other hand, was measured with a graduated glass tube known as a "minimometer", later known as the minim-tube. The minim-tube was a type of graduated pipette, a device invented in 1791 by François-Antoine-Henri Descroizilles.

Apothecaries' measures are fully defined in the United Kingdom's Weights and Measures Act 1878, but the UK's Weights and Measures Act 1963 provided for the abolition of the minim, fluid scruple, and fluid drachm, all already obsolete. Actual delegalization occurred on 1 February 1971.

The use of the minim, along with other such measures, has been reduced by the adoption of the metric system, and even in the least metricated countries, pharmacy is largely metricated and the apothecaries' system is deprecated. The unit may rarely persist in some countries in the measurement of dosages of medicine.

title: Minim (unit)


text:
Bilocation

Bilocation, or sometimes multilocation, is an alleged psychic or miraculous ability wherein an individual or object is located (or appears to be located) in two distinct places at the same time. Reports of bilocational phenomena have been made in a wide variety of historical and religious contexts, ranging from ancient Greek legends and Christian traditions to modern occultism.

In ancient Greece
The ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was said to have been capable of bilocation. According to Porphyry (writing several centuries after Pythagoras):

"Almost unanimous is the report that on one and the same day he was present at Metapontum in Italy, and at Tauromenium in Sicily, in each place conversing with his friends, though the places are separated by many miles, both at sea and land, demanding many days' journey."

A similar story is told of Apollonius of Tyana, who was supposedly present simultaneously in Smyrna and Ephesus.

In religion and mysticism

The concept of bilocation has been linked with shamanism, Theosophy, Islam (especially Sufism), and Jewish mysticism.

Hinduism and Buddhism
It is also one of the siddhis of Hinduism and Buddhism. Several prominent Hindu gurus, including Neem Karoli Baba, Sri Yukteswar, and Lahiri Mahasaya, have been reported to have this ability.

Christianity
The history of Christianity contains many reports of miraculous bilocations. Among the earliest of these is the apparition of Our Lady of the Pillar. This is an alleged appearance of the Virgin Mary in Caesaraugusta, Spain, in the year 40AD, at a time when she is believed to have been still alive and living in Jerusalem. Other Christian figures said to have experienced bilocation include Catherine de' Ricci, Saint Drogo, Anthony of Padua, Francis of Paola, Francis Xavier, Martin de Porres, María de Ágreda, Alphonsus Liguori, Gerard Majella, and Pio of Pietrelcina.

However, some Catholic philosophers disagree as to whether a person can really be physically located in two places at once, or whether the bilocations of the saints only take the form of non-substantial apparitions.

Witchcraft
In the 17th century, persons accused of witchcraft were often reported to appear to their victims in visions, even if they were known to be elsewhere at the time. The trials at Bury St. Edmunds and Salem included this "spectral evidence" against defendants. Matthew Hopkins described the phenomenon in his book The Discovery of Witches.

Occultism
Émilie Sagée, a French teacher working in 1845 in a boarding school in Latvia, was supposed to have had the ability of bilocation.

New Religious Movements
The English occultist Aleister Crowley was reported by acquaintances to have the ability to bilocate, even though he said he was not conscious of its happening at the time.

Skepticism
Skeptical investigator Joe Nickell has written that there is no scientific evidence that bilocation is a real phenomenon and that cases are often from anecdotal reports that cannot be verified. Nickell listed self-delusion, hoaxing and illusion to explain alleged cases of bilocation.

Cultural influence
Bilocation figures heavily in David Lynch's film Lost Highway (1997) and both Thomas Pynchon's novel Against the Day (2006) and Tim Powers' novel Declare (2000). Bilocation also plays a part in the Christopher Priest novel The Prestige. Additionally, the phenomenon is explored in an episode of The X-Files, "Fight Club", and several season two episodes of Alcoa Presents One Step Beyond, including "Dead Ringer".

A mystical story that involved Soviet author Yevgeny Petrov served as inspiration for the film Envelope (2012), starring Kevin Spacey.

The phenomenon is one of the main ideas in Stephen King's fiction novel The Outsider, even mentioning real-life references in one occasion.

title: Bilocation