Talk:Unitarianism

Hatnote

I figured I'd leave a short note about my recent edit to the hatnote, which previously read:

This article is about the Christian theology. For the liberal religious movement, see Unitarian Universalism. For its UK counterpart, see General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. For other uses, see Unitarian.

The first part of this seemed to contradict (or at least cause confusion) with this sentence in the Terminology section:

To avoid confusion, this article is about Unitarianism as a religious movement (proper noun). For the generic form of unitarianism (the Christology), see Nontrinitarianism.

I'm certainly not learned enough in the specifics of the topic to say whether there is a technical difference between referring to a 'Unitarian theology' and a 'nontrinitarian Christology,' but that's also sort of my problem with the way this is framed. I'd in fact found the article looking for information on nontrinitarianism, and until the link to nontrinitarianism in the introduction, I had assumed based on that hatnote that I was on the right article. As such, I saw fit to specifically disambiguate between this article and the nontrinitarianism article in the hatnote, which is the purpose of my recent edit. I hope this does not prove controversial, as I mean only to enhance the navigability of the encyclopædia. 76.10.184.83 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I changed the hatnote to say 'Christian theological movement' rather than 'Christian theology' to better distinguish it from the doctrine page. ParallelFrog (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Why is this a separate article from Nontrinitarianism? 110.174.77.204 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion to one talk page, for ease of use. The hatnote on this article distinguishes between the two, and it's clearly going to be difficult to simply merge them, as they are both long articles... you'd have to spin one of them out into a separate article anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The ICUU

I met some difficulties in checking some of this content against citations and had to ferret out some more precise urls. However the websites are a mixture of archaic archived sites and more recent official sites which have not been updated with any consistency. A previous editor seems also to have introduced some original research which I had to unpick in favour of the citations. I suspect the editor was on the ball but lacking the necessary verification, though I found a good source for the inclusion of Poland which had been omitted from "Member Groups". In short, the ICUU content is beset with problems. I guess the same must apply to its main article, in respect of which I found a very detailed pdf source and added it to the external links for that article. Bjenks (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably misleading, certainly needs citations

"Unitarianism might be considered a part of Protestantism, depending on one's stance or viewpoint, and some exclude it from that term due to its rejection of the Trinity. Despite common origins during the Protestant Reformation, some scholars call it a part of Nontrinitarianism, while others consider it both Protestant and Nontrinitarian, seeing no contradiction between those two terms. None of the three views is universally accepted."

This is all misleading at best. Unsourced, I think it can be entirely removed. Jrwsaranac (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The article still contains a lot of blather that sounds like a blog and is certainly WP:OR. I removed more opinion. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Differences between "Sources", "Bibliography", and "Further reading"?

@Editor2020, GenoV84, ParallelFrog, Hazhk, ChaoticTexan, KIENGIR, Maximajorian Viridio, MusenInvincible, Skytree4cites, and Jrwsaranac: Greetings and felicitations recent editors. I'm puzzled—what are the differences between the contents of the "Sources", "Bibliography", and "Further reading" (sub-)sections? "Further reading" by itself I understand, but why have both a "Sources" subsection and a "Bibliography" section? Can any of these be combined and/or renamed to alleviate confusion? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think sources and bibliography sections can be combined. --Hazhk (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If they are to be combined, I'd prefer moving the contents of the "Bibliography" section into a renamed "General sources" subsection in the "References" section for clarity. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Editor2020, GenoV84, ParallelFrog, Hazhk, ChaoticTexan, KIENGIR, Maximajorian Viridio, MusenInvincible, Skytree4cites, and Jrwsaranac: Any further comment? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: The "References" section should contain both the subsections "Bibliography" and "Notes" (although it's not always the case, since they are separated sections in many articles), while the purpose of the "Further reading" section is to display further informations that can be found in additional sources unused in the article. In my opinion, I think that the references listed under the "Sources" section should be moved to the "Bibliography" section, and consequently the "Sources" section should be removed, there's no point to keep it.--GenoV84 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@GenoV84: For clarity I prefer "Citations" to "Notes" (since "Notes" can and often is used for explanations) and "General references/sources(/bibliography)" to "Bibliography" (which can also mean "a list of works by the subject of the article"). Your thoughts (those of anyone else)? —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, if there is not a general rule for that. I'd follow the format used at the Nikola Tesla article, but having Notes above completely separate - as sometimes it conatins explanations unrelated to the other mwentioned. The only other remark would be, if bibliography would not not be abandoned as "further reading" would cover it.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC))

Number

The number of Unitarians seems to be 800,000, throughout the world.