Talk:Unitarian Universalism/Archive 3

To UUA focused

This article is focused more on the UUA then on Unitarian Universalism in general. I do not know how best to remedy this or I would have gone ahead and done it along time ago. Suggestions and ideas on how to remedy this would really help to improve this the flagship Unitarian Universalism article. --Devin Murphy (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is OK that the article is focused on the UUA. There are hardly any Unitarian Universalists outside the UUA and North America. For other Unitarians, see Unitarianism. --jofframes (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism as a distinct entity/thought-group arose from the UUA, so it seems appropriate that's where the focus should lie here. Unitarian and Universalist thought outside of the UUA-like model can be addressed in Universalism, Universal Reconciliation and/or Unitarianism. Dealing with specific groups, you may with to refer to article such as General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, International Council of Unitarians and Universalists and Canadian Unitarian Council. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An article on the UUA should talk about the UUA. an article on UU should be about UU. the UUA is not UU. one is an entity the other is a religion. In other words the UUA-like model is a specific group that should be addressed in its own article. Now, is the article too UUA focused? I don't think so. But it might be. --76.25.117.97 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what and how is "UU" outside of the UUA? And how do you define "UU" without quoting the Principles and Purposes of the UUA? I think that would be clarifying. --jofframes (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I was thinking wen I brought this up was the faced that must UU congregations in Canada don’t currently get most of their services from the UUA. Instead they get their services through the CUC (Canadian Unitarian Council) and that this is not expressed in a manner to indicate the significance of this, especially to those who may not now this fact. And after reading your comments and some great posts from within the UU blogosphere about UU identity and UU affiliation (i.e. to congregations), a thought has come to my mind. And it is this, do you have to be a member of either the UUA or CUC to be considered a UU? And if not shouldn’t this be articulated in this article. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So edit the article, or discuss what you'd like to include in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

religion vs religious movement

I'm a UU, so I may not be impartial, but it's a religion to me. And "religious movement" redirects to "religion".... - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way, but religion is the simpler term. --Also a not entirely impartial UU, Aleta ^Sing 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. My thinking was that "religious movement" better suggests the theological diversity and progressive thinking of Unitarian Universalism, while "religion" implies a certain static quality and rigidity. I could be wrong. At any rate, I have no objection to either term. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The UUA website specifically calls Unitarian Universalism a Religion, more specifically, a 'Liberal Religion'.http://uua.org/aboutus/index.shtml Matt (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me UU's have a creed, just one that is broad and vague. I think UU may not be a religion(in one sense of the term) since members of a group can be of varying religions, even atheists apparently. of course certain beliefs are incompatible with UU. movement is also used in other wikipedia articles to describe religions. Rds865 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree since UU can come from various religions that may have contradictory beliefs, I don’t think it can be a religion. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to know enough about religion. People can hold many different beliefs and still call themselves Unitarian Universalist. What you are describing is belief not religion. Religion is the formal structure of people who share a common religous or spiritual core. Around that core, people may, or may not, have a variety of beliefs. In UUism, it is more common to have a variety of beliefs around that core. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A religion may not have a formal structure, as the related Wikipedia article indicates. Nowadays in the Western world religions tend to organize themselves, but Eastern and African religions, and many religions from the past, are or were embedded in their cultural environments and did not need a formal structure. --jofframes (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as religious movement redirects to religion, it is a moot point in my eyes, and we should use religion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deiz edits

This section is for Deiz to explain why s/he feels the links they've been deleting are inappropriate. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:External Links. And do yourself a favour by a) checking out links posted in edit summaries and b) understanding relevant policies and guidelines before creating embarrassing talk page sections like this. I don't follow your "intimidating editors" comment - if providing links to Wikipedia guidelines and cleaning up articles is intimidating, then maybe WP is a bit too rough-and-tumble for you. Deiz talk 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using condescending phrases like "do yourself a favor" and ad hominem suggestions like "WP is a bit too rough-and-tumble for [me]" and start discussing the reasons behind your edits. I called what you were doing intimidating because you came in here deleting content and using the revert function without bothering to discuss your edits on the article talk pages.

I've read the external links guideline and I recommend that before you run off quoting policy, you try reading and understanding WP:IGNORE which states that: Ignore all rules was [and according to Jimbo Wales "always has been."] Wikipedia's first rule to consider.

Then think about the fact that you aren't even invoking a wiki policy, you're invoking a guideline. Guidelines are guides not rules. Then you might consider Wikipedia:Consensus which states that: Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process, and then perhaps assume good faith and a modicum of thoughtfulness on the part of the editors here. You need to recognize the possibility that the editors here might actually consider those links appropriate.

I would appreciate an explanation of why you think those links are inappropriate. Posting a link to a guideline is not an explanation. If you have no reasonable explanation, then please just leave the article alone. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the WP:IAR defense, aka "We own this article and will do what we like, thanks very much". Closely followed by several guidelines which you appear to think are not worth ignoring, even if WP:EL is. You don't see the contradiction? OK, never mind, have fun with it... Guidelines are fully actionable (which you know) and were created over a long period of time by many editors keen to ensure quality content in the encyclopedia. It's otherwise a nice article, just a shame the editors involved don't understand the provisions of :EL, and the final section is therefore a link dump. Deiz talk 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All I asked for was some reasoning and discussion. It's too bad you don't have the time share your experience here and to help us all become better editors. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 11:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent tag activity

There's been some activity with tags recently and I'd like to see some discussion here on the talk page in order to avoid getting into an edit war over them. Personally, I'm opposed to the self appointed "article police" who go around adding tags to pages they've never read before, and then move on without any intention of fixing the article, leaving the "dirty work" to us lowly editors who actually care about content and reliability. I personally think there should be a policy or guideline about that kind of activity. Maybe one day I'll propose one.

In the meantime, tags do serve a purpose for the editors who are actively working to improve the quality of their articles. They draw attention to sections that need expansion or improved documentation. For that reason, I think some tags are appropriate for this article. Comments? Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 02:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that an awful lot of statements were tagged with "citation needed," when the information in them was not particularly controversial or unlikely -- the guideline says you need to cite when the material is likely to be challenged. So does the tagger really think that the granting of corporate status to the UUA by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is going to be challenged? I went ahead and dug up sources for most of the "citation needed" bits anyway. Agathman (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

godhead under profile

I decided not to just click edit because whenever i do, it just gets changed in a couple of days. Under the profile section while talking about the holy trinity the page calls it tritate godhead and i was just thinking that that might not be the best choice of words. and also link 25 under refrences doesnt work. Jordan327 (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I removed ref 25, as it wasn't doing us much good. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Shooting

Do you think the recent tragedy in Tennessee warrants mention in this entry? CelticLabyrinth (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is too general an article for a mention of a shooting at one church (horrible though it is!). Aleta ^Sing 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

William J. Fox

The article on Harriet Taylor Mill (today best known as the wife of John Stuart Mill) mentions "William Fox, a leading Unitarian minister and early supporter of women's rights." -- William Fox is a disamb page, and none of the persons listed seem to be this one. I see a few mentions online of Unitarian minister William J. Fox . We have an stub on a William Johnson Fox, who is described as a "politician" and a "religious and political orator". Same guy or a different one? Do we need a new stub for the Unitarian minister? -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find reliable sources, he shouldn't have an article and, if made, it would probably be deleted for not fulfilling the requirements for WP:BIO. If you can find a number of sources to substantiate the claims, then a stub/article could probably be made. --13² 04:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move proposal

People who read this page should be aware that there is a proposal at Talk:UU to move UU (disambiguation) back to UU. 87.115.1.116 (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)