Jump to content

Talk:List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-additions

[edit]

Can I add myself? :) Voyager640 08:46, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sure, if you're notable. Nick Graves 03:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of cool people on this list is staggering. So not just notable, but cool as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.145 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for three lists

[edit]

Since most of these people are from before Unitarianism and Universalism merged in the US, there probably ought to be three lists:

  1. Unitarians - American pre-1961 and international
  2. Universalists - American pre-1961
  3. Unitarian Universalists - American post-1961

--Palnatoke 19:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • That's an interesting thought. It is useful to note, though, that post-1961 discourse among Unitarian Universalists tends to conflate the three categories. A good example of this is the "Famous UUs" t-shirt that my sister has. If no one wants to do the work of disaggregating these lists, perhaps we could just add an explanation saying that the list includes Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists. Voyager640 16:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative to separate the U's and U's from the UU's, beginning with the Adams' and a few others (four of whom I added to the list completely). I do not have the time nor resources at the moment to sort everybody, but it is my opinion that it'd be best to start sorting properly as soon as possible, so new edits can be placed into the appropriate subcategories. --Jxn 05:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have also asked for assistance in the sorting on UUWiki. --Palnatoke 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've done some of the sorting by checking Wikipedia articles. The ones left unsorted are mostly Americans pre-1961 whose Wikipedia articles fail searches for "Unitarian" or "Universalist". Many of the names that are left (Anthony, Bell, Longfellow to hame a few) are Unitarian, I think, but I won't sort them unless I find a source. Sorry for so many small edits. Edwinstearns 18:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was skeptical about Newton at first, but according to Britannica he was: [1] --Tydaj 20:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Julian of Norwich

[edit]

Wow. This one really ought to be taken off this list. I think this again is just showing the tendancy that I've seen on many other religion/mysticism pages to make Christian mystics out as being somehow seperate from Christianity, as if they had caught a glimpse through the darkness of Christianity into the light of a more modern and quasi-Eastern beliefs. Corbmobile 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separating Unitarians from Universalists

[edit]

I think this can be somewhat misleading. For most Unitarian Universalists today, the historical meaning of the words and the differences between the two earlier denominations is no longer important. To include some like (say) Pete Seeger as a Unitarian but not a Unitarian Universalist is making a statement about his beliefs that I don't think can be substantiated. A person who died before the merger might be considered strictly Unitarian or Universalist, but not someone who was alive after the merger took place. Shoaler 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not too strong an objection, I am going to disaggregate the categories, listing them alphabetically with a letter index, indicating persons from Universalist and other traditions next to their name. I am also giving their birth and death dates so that persons alive during the merger can be identified. Otherwise, I am using all the information present in the lists. You can preview the article as it currently stands in User:Shoaler/List of Unitarian Universalists Shoaler 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have reordered the lists of names into one alphabetical list. Shoaler 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this change is that it lost the information about those who are sometimes called UUs but were never members, such as Thomas Jefferson. These names at least should be seperated from the rest. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 15:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of some notation for these people, indicating they were non-members, or "spiritual unitarians" or something like that. I'd be open to suggestions how to indicate that. But I think it's really valuable to be able to look for people in a single list. Shoaler 15:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you refer to Unitarians and Universalists as "earlier denominations"? There are quite a number of organized UUs who consider themselves Universalists, and in many countries, there is Unitarianism but no Unitarian Universalism. Besides, waiting a couple of days for objections is a bit on the short side. --Palnatoke 18:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I confess of thinking in terms of US Unitarian Universalists, which of course I'm more familiar with. You are quite right. There are many people in the world who belong to Unitarian and Universalist organizations and consider themselves strictly Unitarians and Universalists and not UUs (even if, in the US, their society might be a member of the UUA).
And, of course, it's even more complicated than that. Members of UU churches might consider themselves only Unitarian or only Universalist. And many people on this list attended churches occasionally or regularly but never formally joined. And some churches didn't have formal membership. So it's a "best estimate" at the orientation of a group of people who considered themselves (or were considered by others) unitarians or universalists.
I still believe a single list is easier to use. And it's less likely to lump people into absolute categories. Where it falls short is that it identifies Universalists but not Unitarians, primarily because more Unitarians were well known. And the people listed are almost entirely US. We should try to rectify that too. Shoaler 18:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And no matter what, the title of the article is wrong. This is a list of Unitarians, Universalists and Unitarian Universalists (but "List of Unitarians and Universalists" would probably do). Shoaler 16:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

This list is for "notable" Unitarians and Universalists, not just anyone who happens to belong to a UU church (which would be a fairly large list). It is a similar criterion as the one for Wikipedia articles and everyone on this list should probably have a Wikipedia article also. So here's an opportunity for people who like to research and write articles. With this in mind, does anyone know who Robert Dillman and Angela Moffett are? Shoaler 10:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do actors count as notable people?--HistoricalPisces 17:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is sufficiently notable to have an entry in Wikipedia, they are notable enough for this list. –Shoaler (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if people who do not have a Wikipedia article should remain in the list. My inclination is to take them out. As time permits, I intend to do a Google search on names without articles and see if they truly are notable. Any thoughts on that?--Mikebrand 01:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several people on the list who are notable in UU circles but do not have articles written about them yet. I would check the UUA website and see what it says. But yes, if they're not notable, we should take them out. –Shoaler (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should stay (or go) based on whether they're notable or not, rather than whether or not an article exists. If they're non-notable, feel free to remove them. But if they're notable, they should stay even if there's no article written just yet. One of the biggest advantages of list articles over categories is that you can include entries for which there is no individual article. --Craig Stuntz 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to clean up all the "red" enteries without deleting anyone. Most were a matter of changing the link to the proper Wikipedia article. For several others I added a link to an external page. The few remaining "red" names are at least sufficiently notable to be listed here: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_unitarian.html --Mikebrand 04:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It took just another 30 minutes to added an external reference to everyone who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Now all the notables have either internal or external references. If time permits I hope to use those external references as sources for Wikipedia articles --Mikebrand 13:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Tolstoy?

[edit]

After reading some of Leo Tolstoy's religious texts (just a few, not all) and autobiographical works, I am tempted to add him to the list. While defining himself as a Christian, in his later life he adhered to the belief that

...a Christian should look inside his or her own heart to find inner happiness rather than looking outward toward the Church or state... [2]

However, I am an expert in neither Tolstoy nor the philosophies of UU, so I am requesting the assistance of someone more knowledgable than myself. I hope I am not embarrassingly off-the-mark here.  :) --buck 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

I disputed this because I think it's vague and hard to tell. There are three different possible groups and I think members were taken from all of these. Such as John Adams, was a Unitarian but this list said Unitarian Universalists... so, it's too convoluted. gren グレン ? 09:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are five groups if you include (small-u) unitarians and universalists. Or 120 if you consider that any of these people may be in more than one group. Assertaining a person's belief from 200 years ago is not an exact science but I think this list does the best job possible. We could rename the article "List of Unitarians and Universalists" which would probably be more (but not completely) accurate. I think some of the entries are may not be perfect either, but hanging a {{disputed}} tag on the whole article I think is a bit of an overkill. Shoaler 11:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than dispute the whole article, why not just use {{fact}} on the names you believe to be questionable?--Craig Stuntz 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to rename the article "List of Unitarians and Universalists" and then remove the {{disputed}} tag, allowing the use of {{fact}}. If you have any objections, please post them. Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the new name. "List of Unitarians and Universalists" was cumbersome as it was, but at least it's precedented. --Tydaj 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the US there are congregations which are strictly Unitarian or Universalist (though with only a few exceptions, are all part of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) - It would be helpful if someone could cite an example in the US. There are certainly congregations that haven't changed their names to include both u's, and individuals who would still classify themselves this way, but I haven't run across whole congregations that either embrace hell or the trinity. This also would argue against changing the name of the article. --NealMcB 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two factors which muddy the waters on this issue. While there are some UU churches in the US which have not (yet?) changed their name to include the other "U", there are some which see themselves as strictly Unitarian or Universalist without espousing either hell or the trinity. It's more a matter of tradition than specific theology. There are churches which have been Unitarian for 150 years and are not about to add Universalist to their name. Do they believe in hell? Probably not. And there are other churches which are Universalist and not UU. Why? Either because they have always been Universalist or because they believe that "Universalist" churches are more traditional. And that's just in the US. In Britain, for example, a Unitarian church is a member of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. There are very few if any Universalist churches in Britain. But I doubt if many of the Unitarians there believe in hell. –Shoaler (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Justice John Marshall, a Unitarian ? ? ? No, not that John Marshall

[edit]

This is to explain why I'll be deleting from the list of famous Unitarians this entry for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall: 

 John Marshall (1755–1835) (Chief Justice)

Simply put, Chief Justice John Marshall was not a Unitarian. He was an Episcopalian, who figured prominently in the history of St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in Richmond Virginia.

See, e.g., http://www.stpauls-episcopal.org/Church_History.asp

The fact that Chief Justice John Marshall was an eighteenth-century Virginian should itself make one suspicious of any assertions that he was a Unitarian - - for Unitarianism's roots were in New England, not the South. Thomas Jefferson was an eighteenth-century Virginian too, of course, but we know from his relationship with the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley, and from his correspondence with John Adams, that he was a Unitarian in sympathy and theology, if not by membership in a Unitarian congregation (which was not much of an option at Monticello). I'm afraid we have no similar basis for tagging Chief Justice John Marshall as a Unitarian. And his leadership in the Espiscopalian Church, provides a compelling reason for removing him from Wikipedia's list of famous Unitarians and Universalists.

I would, however, like to offer a possible explanation for why the Chief Justice has been misidentified as a famous Unitarian. I suspectt it comes of the fact that another John Marshall was a prominent British Unitarian -- John Marshall the British industrialist and linen draper from Leeds who lived from 1765 to 1845.

See: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TEXmarshall.htm

I would guess that that John Marshall, the industrialist, earned an entry for his name in lists of prominent Unitarians. Americans then confused him with John Marshall they knew best - - the U.S. Chief Justice.

The misidentification may have been popularized by an ardent Unitarian stamp collector who assembled pages of Unitarians on postage stamps - - prominently featuring a stamp honoring John Marshall, the U.S. Chief Justice. I saw such a collection, framed, on the wall of the Unirtarian Universalist Association's Boston headquarters when I visited in early 2007, and I have seen it reproduced in Sunday school curricula that I use as a religious-education instructor at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego.

The mistake was an easy one to make, but it really needs correction.

Eric Alan Isaacson 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again . . . .

Doing follow-up research, I find that Chief Justice John Marshall's daughter, in the last days of her life apparently told a minister that her father for most of his life declined to take communion in the Episcopal Church that he openly supported because he could not subscribe to its dogmas - - in particular, the dogma of the Trinity. She apparently recounted that in the final months of his life, Chief Justice Marshall accepted the doctrine of the Trinity, and sought to take communion publicly, but was unable to do so on account of his illness. SeeAllan B. Magruder, John Marshall 264-65 (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1885); 2 Bishop Meade, Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia 223-24 n.* (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1891).

This would make Chief Justice a theological Unitarian (small "u" unitarian in the usage of this article) until his last days - - and some might say would justify including him in a list of prominent Unitarians and Universalists. I personally don't think it does.

Given his open support for the Episcopal church and attendance at its services throughout his life, I am not inclined to add Chief Justice John Marshall to a list of prominent Unitarians and Universalists on the basis of post-mortem hearsay reports of secretly held doubts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity -- doubts that never were a matter of public knowledge during his lifetime.

I would distinguish Chief Justice John Marshall's case from that of, say Thomas Jefferson whose Episcopalian commitments were not as ostentatious as Chief Justice John Marshall's, whose Unitarianism is known to us from his own writings (I am thinking of his correspondence with John Adams, and of Jefferson's statements endorsing Priestley's theology), who in correspondence expressed hope that Unitarianism would become the general religion of the United States, whose Notes on Virginia and correspondence with a nephew together express a theological pluralism characteristic of modern Unitarian Universalism, and who was in fact publicly identified as a Unitarian during his own lifetime in Belsham's Life of Theophilus Lindsey, which itself played a prominent role in "the Unitarian Controversy" that produced schism in New England's Congregationalist churches in the early 1800s.

I think Thomas Jefferson's Unitarianism is far clearer, and far more historically important than are Chief Justice John Marshall's secret doubts about the doctrine of the Trinity. Those doubts may warrant discussion in a biographical entry about the Chief Justice, but I do not think they warrant including him on this list of prominent Unitarians and Universalists.

Eric Alan Isaacson 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on attempts to "separate" Unitarians from Universalists

[edit]

Separating Unitarians and Universalists may be easier said than done. Consider the Rev. Adin Ballou, who was first a Universalist minister, and then a Unitarian minister. His move from one denomination to the other was motivated, if I recall, by the fact that he objected to the "ultra-Universalism" of the Rev. Hoseah Ballou that had swept the Universalist denomination, and which rejected the idea of hell altogether. Believing that sinners should be punished in at least a temporary hell, Adin Ballou opted for a Unitarian affiliation because it was less radical than Hoseah Ballou's "ultra-Universalism." The Unitarian affiliation left left him room to argue that Universal salvation would come only after people had been soundly punished for their evil deeds.

Perhaps Adin Ballou's case argues for drawing a hard distinction between Unitarians and Universalists - - at least in the context of the eighteenth-century Restorationist Controversy. Yet the boundaries are anything but hard and fast. And terminology can become very confusing because "Unitarian" and "Universalist" can refer to theological doctrine, or to denominational affiliation, or to both.

And today many who are fervently "Unitarian Universalist" in their denominational affiliation are neither Unitarian in their theology, nor Universalist in the original sense of believing in a Universal resurrection and Universal salvation. Many members of the Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego, for example, accept Buddhist teachings - - which are neither Unitarian nor Universalist as those terms were used in eighteenth- or nineteenth-century Christian theology. But difficulties of terminology go back some time.

When the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley fled England to escape religious and political persecution, he was welcomed to preach in 1796 from the pulpit of the Rev. Elhanan Winchester, the leading Universalist minister. Thomas Brown, in his 1826 A History of the Origin and Progress of the Doctrine of Universal Salvation lauds Priestley and Winchester for placing religious fellowship above theological doctrine. For the two entertained radically different Christologies, yet could fellowship one another and share a pulpit. Brown tells us that Rev. Winchester was a "Trinitarian Universalist," while "Dr. Priestley was a Unitarian Universalist." See Thomas Brown, A History of the Origin and Progress of the Doctrine of Universal Salvation 325 n. (Thomas Brown 1826).

Ah, but we're told that there was no such thing as "a Unitarian Universalist" before 1961, when the Unitarian and Universalist denominations merged. Yet Priestley surely was both a Unitarian by denominational affiliation, and a Universalist, in his theology. And Winchester who was both a Universalist in his denominational affiliation, though anything but a Unitarian in his theology.

Then there's Benjamin Rush, whom Unitarian Universalists today claim because he accepted Winchester's Universalist theology, and even penned the resolutions of the General Convention of Universalists that met at Philadelphia in 1790. Yet Rush, if I'm not mistaken, had his children baptized as Presbyterians.

And there's Susan B. Anthony, who I am told, called herself sometimes a Quaker, and sometimes a Unitarian - - perceiving no conflict between the two.

Does Rush's Presbyterianism exclude him from the history of Universalism? I think not. His place in American Universalist history is an important one. Does Anthony's Quakerism exclude her from Unitarian history? Again I think not. No more than the Buddhist sentiments of many modern Unitarian Universalists would.

We'd best recognize that the task of identifying Unitarians and Universalists is neccessarily a messy one. And that may not be a bad thing.

Eric Alan Isaacson 04:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the UUA itself merged in recognition of longstanding similarities between the two and attempts to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, it seems to me one list including both is most appropriate here. Moreover, the distinctions between individual fellowships within either entity in different parts of the country and world are FAR greater than the distinctions between the two of them, and not limited to merely two items of theology. Let's not split hairs where the national organizations try not to do so. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

[edit]

I have deleted all entries that had no references. These may be added back in as references are found. See here to find the names that need references in order to be restored. They will be in the left column, highlighted in yellow. Nick Graves 03:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted all entries that did not yet have their own articles. This does not necessarily mean they do not belong on the list. They are just presumed non-notable by Wikipedia standards until enough reliable, independent sources are found to justify writing an article about them. The names can be found here, highlighted in yellow in the left column. Nick Graves 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but you couldn't find any references yourself? You deleted the current president of the UUA, referenced in his article even if not here! Aleta (Sing) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have referenced a number of them; so I've struck that portion of my previous comments. Aleta (Sing) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was really a draconic measure. I don't have the time to track down references for every single person on the list, although I know for some of them the specific Unitarian church they attended, and where their grave can be seen in the cemetary outside that very Unitarian church!! Try this website for a start: http://www.famousuus.com/. Most of them are there, maybe all. We are NOT lying, there really are this large number of famous UUs. For all these candidates you are trying to have removed, I would like to know what religion you think they were. (although I agree with you on the notability issue, if they don't deserve their own Wikipedia article, they are not notable enough to go on this list)--KEVP March 8, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.131.111 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this was a really draconian measure and I disagree they should be deleted from the list just because there is no article (yet) for them. You gotta start somewhere, and this measure makes it more difficult to get started. At least if names are on a list somebody might see them and contribute an article start. Not "having" a Wiki article is NOT the same as not "deserving" a Wiki article. There are many who deserve one who do not have one yet, or we would not continue to get new ones. I also note the shortage of women on the list about whom there is an article. Is this a form of gender discrimination? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is only as good as the reliable sources that support its content. Please see WP:V, particularly the section on burden of proof. If some of those who were removed from the list were truly notable, and truly u/u/uu, then there must be sources out there to confirm it. I've personally added many sources to support inclusion of roughly 100 of the names now listed. That I've removed other names for which I could not find sources is not indicative of any draconian streak of mine, but a reflection of limitations in time and research resources, and my effort to remain faithful to a core content policy at Wikipedia. I would definitely like to see this list robustly populated with as many notable u/u/uus as possible, and hope others will help by finding reliable sources toward that end.
Regarding concerns about gender bias: There are more men than women in this list because of the sad fact that history has a gender bias. Women, even in liberal religion, have historically been under-represented in positions of prominence, whether due to a culture failing to properly celebrate and record the achievements of women, or to that same culture influencing women away from taking prominent roles in the first place. Fortunately, that's changing, but this trend does not prevent lists such as this from indirectly documenting a history of gender bias through the proportion of men and women it lists. Nick Graves (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Isaac Newton who had no reference and as I found reference that he was not. JoyceD (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origen

[edit]

It really doesn't make sense there's one church father in the otherwise all-american, post-reformation list. I think this kind of lists are supposed to be sociologically informative, ie. who have been in the Unitarian Universalist movement as we know it today. It really doesn't make sense to add all anti-trinitarians from the history and everyone who taught apocatastasis to this list. So, I request removal of Origen from this list. Theologist (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is, by design, a mixed bag of unitarians, univeralists, Unitarians, Universalists and Unitarian Universalists. I think you will find that Origen's is not the only non-American or pre-Reformation name included, though I take your point that he is in a distinct minority on this list. By the same token, one could argue that a thoroughly Christian Universalist such as John Murray hardly belongs in a religious identity list that also includes the nontheist Unitarian Universalist Pete Stark. As the list criteria stand now, Origen most certainly belongs, as he was definitely a documented universalist. Perhaps we should entertain the possibility of splitting the list along more historically and theologically relevant lines. Nick Graves (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opening chapter states: "A number of noted people have considered themselves Unitarians, Universalists, and following the merger of these denominations". Article Unitarian Universalism states: "The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), founded in 1961 as a consolidation of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church in America". For this list to be informative, it should consist only of members from these three organizations AUA, UCA and UUA (or organizations closely related to them). Mentioning Origen among others is so out of context here, he's mentioned in the main article of universalism anyway. Theologist (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lede paragraph goes on to state: "Additionally, there are persons who, because of their writings or reputation, are considered to have held Unitarian or Universalist beliefs. Individuals who held unitarian (nontrinitarian) beliefs but were not affiliated with Unitarian organizations are often referred to as "small 'u'" unitarians. The same principle can be applied to those who believed in universal salvation but were not members of Universalist organizations. This article, therefore, makes the distinction between capitalized "Unitarians" and "Universalists" and lowercase "unitarians" and "universalists".
Origen's inclusion is only out of context if one insists that this list must only include members of the U/U/UU denominations, and exclude those who had u/u theologies (that is believed in the unity of God, and in universal salvation), but who were not officially affiliated with the big U denominations. I do not have a strong opinion against making this an exclusively denomination-based list. My point is that, up until now, consensus has supported (or at least tolerated) broad inclusion criteria that make room not only for members of the denominations, but also for these denominations' theological fellow travelers and forebears. If you would like to see this list become more denomination-based, I won't stand in your way, but step 1 would be to rewrite the inclusion criteria. Nick Graves (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose making the list more exclusive. I think the list as it is now has a reasonable scope. If the historical likes of Origen are in the minority compared to modern Americans, the solution should be to expand our historical coverage within the list, not to remove it. However, we could try something like breaking it up into historical time periods rather than keeping it strictly alphabetical. Does anyone think that would make sense? LadyofShalott 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This article, therefore, makes the distinction between capitalized "Unitarians" and "Universalists" and lowercase "unitarians" and "universalists"." And how does it make the distinction? This description is not up-to-date. Including unitarians and universalists in the same lists makes only sense in the context of UUA - I wouldn't oppose a list of universalists that includes Origen. Historically these philosophies are distinct from each other. In church history apocatastasis is somewhat tolerated, whereas unitarianism is an utter heresy. Theologist (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Hruska

[edit]

A copy of a response that I posted on a Bagdadjenny's talk page:

Hi Jenny. Thank you for adding a reference to the Hruska entry at the list of U/U/UUs. I don't believe it is a reliable enough source, however. The adherents.com source references another source (politicalgraveyard.com), which has this disclaimer: "Information on this page — and on all other pages of this site — is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. Users are advised to check with other sources before relying on any information here." It is also a self-published website with no editorial oversight structure. It is unreliable by Wikipedia standards.

Your friend's characterization of Hruska as a Unitarian is also not reliable by WP standards, unless s/he has had it published in a reliable source. I'm not sure about whether the file at Harvard Divinity School would qualify. Does it explicitly identify Hruska as a Unitarian? Has such identification been published, or does it remain unpublished?

I'm not disputing that Hruska is a Unitarian. It just remains to point to a reliable published source that confirms it. Nick Graves (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Everett Hale - author of "The Man Without a Country"

[edit]

Someone should add Edward Everett Hale to this list - he is important in Unitarian History, and U.S. 19th century history generally. He also wrote the first story about an artificial satellite - "The Brick Moon". 212.242.235.174 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

Unitarianism is a Christian belief that there is no Holy Trinity, just one whole god. Universalism is a Christian belief that everyone eventually goes to Heaven. Unitarian Universalism isn't even a Christian denomination, it's a separate religion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so? What are you proposing? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already List of Christian Universalists that lists historic and present day Christian Universalists. That would leave only two lists to be made. But I think it would not be an easy job to do, that is if we are to do it. And I think it may not be the best use of our time. --Devin Murphy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Charles William Eliot

[edit]

One of the names on the list is identified as: "Charles William Eliot (1834–1926) – landscape architect" The Eliot with those dates was the President of Harvard. His son Charles (1859-1897) was the landscape architect. I suspect that the elder Eliot is the one who belongs in this article, but I'm no expert on these guys, so that's why I'm posting this in Talk rather than just editing the article to change "landscape architect" to "President of Harvard." Perhaps a more knowledgeable person would like to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.179.165 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists → List of unitarians, universalists, and Unitarian Universalists – Per MOS:CAPS#Religion (and conforming to, i.a., Christian universalism). Note that Unitarian Universalists retains the capital u's as Unitarian Universalism is a denomination unto itself (not a mere theological movement/tradition) and thus constitutes an "officially recognized sect" pursuant to MOS:CAPS#Religion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Philg88 ♦talk 23:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That will be very awkward. What's the problem with the current title? –Ammarpad (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what would be awkward about it. The existing title clearly violates the MOS and implies to readers that unitarianism and universalism each constitute a denomination unto itself rather than being a cross-denominational tradition. While Unitarian Universalism is a denomination and is capitalized just like Methodism (for example), unitarianism and universalism are theological movements like dispensationalism, Christian existentialism, Christian feminism, evangelicalism, liberationism, etc. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. The upper-case is entirely proper here, and the common name of the people who identify with the particular aspect of their religion. These upper-case uses are all the most recognized names for the topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: How do you reconcile that position with MOS:CAPS#Religion, which provides Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name. For example, Islam, Christianity, Catholic, Pentecostal and Calvinist are capitalized, while evangelicalism and fundamentalism are not? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To discuss the finer points of a guideline (not a policy), they are now derived from a proper name, even if in reverse. The merger of the two groups became upper-cased, which defines those groups now as upper-cased proper nouns. We are not discussing what they were named before the merger, which may have set them in lower-case, but what to name them now, at the present time. Unitarian-Universalists is capitalized, so the two components would have to be capitalized, per common sense, common name (the name and form of name most easily recognized), and a definite exception to a guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although possibly reorient list? If members are listed as lowercase-u unitarians or universalists, then maybe stick them in a special section or a side list for people who are, say, Baptists who also believe in Christian universalism or the like. That said, there are plenty of uppercase-U types out there, e.g. members of the former Universalist Church of America and the like, and they should certainly stay in this list. SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: I'm not opposed to reorienting the list. I imagine you would agree that there is little use in having a list of unitarians and universalists who happen to live in countries with churches that happen use the word Unitarian or Universalist in their name while excluding those unitarians and universalists who belong to churches that don't happen to use either word in their name?
This is similar to the precedents set with the Episcopalian categories.[1][2] Episcopalian is the term used by Anglicans in certain countries for varied historical reasons, but there is nothing substantial differentiating them from other Anglicans in the Anglican Communion apart from their name, hence why non–country-specific categories that use the word Episcopalian have been abolished. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 16 § Category:20th-century Episcopalians
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 17 § Episcopalian categories
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Unitarians,_Universalists,_and_Unitarian_Universalists&oldid=1207690333"