Talk:Unitarianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

other countries

Changed the section on the distinction btw theological and ecclesiastical to include Canada and Germany both of which have UU churches--Vannin 02:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Apart from the English-speaking EUU fellowships, whose members are mostly American expatriates, there are no UU churches in Germany. The native Unitarian churches and associations in Germany are not "UU". --jofframes 10:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I understood that the Deutscher Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft was a member of the ICUU --Vannin 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are. The ICUU is not "UU". It is the International Council of Unitarians AND Universalists. It includes both Unitarians (e.g. the Transylvanian Unitarian Church) and Unitarian Universalists (such as the UUA). The DUR is an independent organization, it is not an offshoot of the UUA and does not promote the kind of religious pluralism inside its ranks that the UUA is doing. --jofframes 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, how would you like to phrase it then, so that it is less US focussed and includes churches, such as those in Canada and Germany that are more humanistic and less christian? --Vannin 00:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I already edited that section a few days ago and I think it is OK now. --jofframes 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Spurious Assertion at end of United States section?

Here is the current last sentence in the United States section...

"The vast majority of Unitarians have sought out liberal Christian churches in other denominations and have made homes there."

This seems to be a completely unfounded assertion. There's no source for this important assertion. I'm NOT going to add yet another 'unsourced' tag to the top of this article: I believe that tag is rampantly abused. Wikipedia is not an academic journal.

If the "vast majority" have left assertion is somehow true then during what time period did this take place? Have Unitarian churches in the U.S. lost the "vast majority" of their attendees at some point in presumably very recent history? I think not during my own lifetime, but am only 98% certain not 100%.

I'm not well enough to undertake even the simple, basic research to verify or deny this claim. Given that I can't follow up with research, I don't have the courage to delete it. Someone please take on this small but somewhat important task? I'm tired now and must go lie down. =|:-0 69.17.65.50 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ANSWER: The reference is to theological Unitarians only, not ecclesiastical Unitarians. I do not have the stats with me, but I am sure the UUA will confirm that the number of theists in their organization has been dwindling ever since the late 1800's.[July 7, 2007]

Principles of Faith section makes misleading generalizations

Since this article claims to consider Arianism (misdescribed, see Talk:Unitarian Christianity) a form of Unitarianism, I thin it important to note that certain statements in the Principles of Faith section contradict both Arian, and so-called Arian, statements of the Fourth Century. Examples include several Creeds affirming, among other doctrines, the divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth, and also contradicting Nicaea. Jacob Haller 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all Arians of the fourth-century believed exactly the same thing. Regardless, the "Principles of Faith" are of Unitarian Christians today, including both Arians and Socinians.User:donbodo8 July 2007.

Yes, people produced several creeds. I stated that. Anyway, the section should say it doesn't cover earlier unitarians. Jacob Haller 12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Unitarians vs Unitarian Christians?

The section that was taken from Unitarian Christianity (and still references Unitarian Christians) is titled Liberal Unitarians. Who came up with Liberal Unitarians? Why does it have the political connotation for an apolitical group? Couldn't Unitarian Christians be considered Conservative Unitarians since its a return to a Christian core?—Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliE75 (talk • contribs)

I think it was introduced to address the issues above. Obviously these principles of faith do not describe all historical unitarian Christian traditions. Jacob Haller 18:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to account for this. Please note that at the beginning of the whole article, a differentiation between conservative and liberal Unitarians is made. This has nothing to do with political views. It concerns religious liberals and religious conservatives. This section on the principles of faith applies only to the liberal Unitarians, because they have other beliefs associated with them besides rejection of the Trinity. When we say "liberal Unitarians" we are not talking about non-theistic Unitarians. This article concerns theological Unitarians only. Donbodo 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Association with Ken Kesey

Should mention be made of this church's association with novelist, and leader of the group "The Merry Pranksters", Ken Kesey? I can see why he might not be mentioned, as the pioneer of the Acid Tests, and a keen believer in the spread of LSD, but lets not forget he was a key speaker at the 1964 Unitarian Convention, in California, and through his actions there, caused a split between the older and younger generation of church members. I was just wondering if anyone else agrees! User:Cian

That probably would be more appropriate under Unitarian Universalism. Donbodo 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, it is an important part of the religions development throughout the 60s, and it was with the Unitarian church that Kesey associated with, not Unitarian Universalism. User:Cian 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no Unitarian Church after 1961. Donbodo

There certainly was. What you mean is that there was no American Unitarian Association after 1961. Jnelsonleith (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Psilanthropism

I reverted the reference twice in the past few days, because:

• It's to a dictionary. I find that dictionary definitions strip the history, the context, and everything else away. They often leave one central idea to describe the group, but it is often an idea which many members of the group oppose, and many opponents of the group support. I've seen this happen with definitions of "Arianism," and in politics, of socialism. A better source would make a better citation.
• It can be misleading. "Entirely humsn" can mean "fully human" at least as easily as "merely human." A lot of trinitarian and semi-trinitarian theologians describe Jesus as "fully God and fully (hu)man" and are obviously not Psilanthropists. Jacob Haller 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• What other source would you suggest for the definition of a word? What other possible citation is there? Tell me, and I will obtain it. Donbodo

I don't know. I try to avoid definitions. Jacob Haller 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But you were the one who asked for a citation. Donbodo

No, I just reverted the citation. I would rather do without one there. Jacob Haller 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a reference about the word. What's wrong with Socinianism? It is perfectly understandable in this context and easy to reference. I do not see the need to choose a highly academic word instead if it is not for a very strong reason. --jofframes 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, "Psilanthropism" is still there, but this creates a problem with the contents of the paragraph, because Félix of Urgell did believe that Jesus was divine. More concretely that Jesus was the Son of God, a person in the divine Trinity, and there were two natures in him: divine and human (perfectly orthodox up to here). He was God's natural Son in his divine nature, but (here's the distinction) Jesus was the adopted Son only in his human nature. Therefore Félix's adoptionist theology is not about a "mere man", and it is incorrectly included in this list of "psilanthropists". --jofframes 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I created this category to include ALL conceptions of Christ that denied his preexistence as an intelligent person. This would embrace even those beliefs in which the divine impersonal Logos is said to become flesh (such as Michael Servetus' view). If "psilanthropism" is an inapproriate term, please suggest another one.Donbodo

Sorry, but Logos means not just word but also thought, and therefore intelligence. Psilanthropism literally means "belief in just a man", therefore no preexistence (as in Servetus) can be included under this category, and it is debatable if theologies of later rising from human to divine status (as in Socinus) should be included. --jofframes 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Servetus also believed in the Divinity of Christ. You say: "but as a man was chosen by God and filled with the Holy Spirit." He doesn't fit under this general description. Jasonschnarr 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Unitarian concept of the human nature of Jesus"

Doesn't the Forms section list two general categories of different concepts of this? Since there are many different concepts, there can't be only one concept here, and, in any case, it's true of some but not other concepts. Jacob Haller 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea is not to make this section too convoluted and confusing. It could get that way if we start differentiating between all the variations in theology. A two-branch presentation is simple and easy to follow. Donbodo (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This conflation between trinitarian/unitarian issues and monophysitism/dyophysitism/humanism issues needs to be carefully monitored. One of the primary confusions about unitarian theology throughout Wikipedia is that it necessarily implies this or that about Jesus, but this is simply false: there are a broad variety of views one could hold about Jesus while still rejecting the "coeval, coeternal" stance of Trinitarianism. Subordination is a common theme, but Jesus could be considered a projection of God into human form, could have been absorbed or adopted by God, could be a second but subordinate and created "God" as Justin Martyr asserted, or could have been a mere human teacher: all of these Christologies are compatible with a Unitarian conception of God Most High as One. The conflation of Unitarian theology with other ideas (and the rejection of the term "unitarian" by groups that are manifestly unitarian in their theologies) is more a matter of sectarian polemics than accurate description of the ideas at play. Jnelsonleith (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that even subordinationism is a common theme. Servetus was not a subordinationist, just as Newton wasn't either. The common point is the rejection of both the Trinity, with its distinction of divine persons and one substance, and tritheism as an extreme interpretation of the trinitarian model. Anything within Christian theology that affirms the unity of the Godhead can be qualified as Unitarianism, at least since the Reformation. --jofframes (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"England"

I've made some edits to the section on England to improve the flow of this section, giving fewer longer paragraphs as I think this will read better. I think that it still needs some work to pull into a cohesive section (which I'm planning on contributing to). Angelamaher 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"This article is about Unitarian theology"

This is stated now at the beginning of the article. If we agree on that, does it make sense to keep the information about the national Unitarian movements? The ICUU article should be enough for most of them. --jofframes 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To which statements in the article are you referring? Donbodo (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"This article is about Unitarian theology." First line in the initial paragraph in italics.

Contrary to my previous posting, I now propose to create a new article titled History of Unitarianism, that would include most of the information that appears now under the different geographical areas, leaving here only a brief summary and a link to the new article. --jofframes (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A separate article would be appropriate. Frankieparley (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no opposition to the move after a few weeks, I have created a new page for History of Unitarianism that includes the former History section of this page, adding only a brief intro. I hope that this helps in clarity and a better arrangement of information. --jofframes (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

History section

Isn't the subtitle "Early origins" redundant? Maybe, "Origins and early history" soverman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.23.26 (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2005 (UTC)

The history section is very confusing to read, I think we need to add more summaries Sep 27th 2005

Isaac Newton

The article currently has "Isaac Newton was an anti-Trinitarian, and possibly a Unitarian". Whilst he certainly anti-Trinitarian, he was possibly Sabellian rather than classically Unitarian. Greenshed (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject article is not "Classical Unitarianism." Jnelsonleith (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

movie link

I've removed the following text from the lede. I think it belongs somewhere else, if it belongs at all. SEE MOVIE ...

http://www.dirsmithgroup.com/north_shore_unitarian_church/%20MOVIE_900x676_111Mb_11Min.mov

It is a very big .mov file, and I'm not sure how authoritative the authors are. Any thoughts?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible relationship

Is there any relationship between this group (if this really is a "group" as opposed to simply a philosophy) and Noahidism? Tomer^talk 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Style of Article

This entire article is awkwardly written and repetitive. I tried to fix it up a little but there's too much to do right now. --Ben (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote most of this article? Someone making lots of assumptions and not using a whole lot of references? Speaking as a member of one of the largest British Unitarian congregations, the theology section is full of mistakes. Plain "Unitarian" congregations (as opposed to "Unitarian Christian" ones) don't tend to be anywhere *near* as Christianity-centred as that nowadays, and it gives a very wrong impression of the faith to a lot of people. As a liberal spiritual person, I wouldn't want to touch Unitarianism with a bargepole if my only reference were this article. Best to read Cliff Reed's FAQ "Unitarian? What's that?" over at unitarian.org.uk - much more accurate and informative. 80.7.116.231 (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC) --Tria (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2009 (BST)

The Unitarian denomination developed during the Reformation. Uh no, later. Which is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

History Main article: History of Unitarianism

Unitarianism, both as a theology and as a denominational family of churches, was first defined and developed within the Protestant Reformation, although theological ancestors may be found back in the early days of Christianity.

THE ABOVE PASSAGE APPEARS TO CONTRADICT THE FOLLOWING:

19th century Unitarians often claimed Isaac Newton, but his Arian ideas predate Unitarianism. [8]

[8] "Among contemporary scholars, the consensus is that Newton was an Arian," says Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?" Journal of the History of Ideas (1997) 68:57–80. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries‎ (1996) p 133 points out that modern Unitarianism emerged after Newton's death; David Nicholls, God and Government in an 'age of Reason'‎ (1995) Page 44, also emphasizs that Unitarianism ideas emerged after Newton's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6lbr (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

How can the 1st sentence of the lede (below) be true when Unitarians do not require a belief in any god?

Unitarianism is a Nontrinitarian Christian theology which teaches belief in the single personality of God, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity

Furthermore, do they all identify themselves as Christian?

http://unitarian.org.uk/intro/believe1.shtml says "Unitarianism can therefore include people who are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan and Atheist."

--JimWae (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, there is a difference in what modern denominations and organizations teach and historical unitarianism which is rooted in Christianity. Ltwin (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true Unitarianism developed as a form of Protestant Xty - but that is NOT what it presently IS--JimWae (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When I read the article, what I got was that this article would deal with Unitarianism as it developed within the Christian context and if the reader wanted to know about its development into a post-Christian religion or whatever then:

"For a more specific discussion of Unitarianism as it evolved into a pluralistic liberal religious movement in the United States and elsewhere in more recent times, see Unitarian Universalism, Unitarian Universalist Association, Canadian Unitarian Council, General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, and International Council of Unitarians and Universalists (ICUU)."

So if you're not happy with the way the article is currently structured then you can add information about the recent development. Ltwin (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarity with Islam

At the end of the "Forms" section it is stated as below:

"The psilanthropist concept of the nature of "Jesus" is similar to the viewpoint held by the Islamic faith, which regards Jesus as a non-divine and human Prophet."

And the wikipedia article on Psilanthropism defines Psilanthropism as a Christology holding the view that:

"Jesus was merely human, son of Joseph."

therefore the expression given above phrased from the "Forms" section of "Unitarianism" is false.

the major atributes that Jesus in Islam has are listed below:

Nature of Jesus in Islam

divinity:

he is a human being.

he is not a god.

he is not the god.

he is not one of three gods.

he is not 1/3 of a god.

family:

he is not son of a god.

he is not son of Joseph.

he is the son of -only- Mary.

he doesn't have a biological father nor god is his father.

he was born via virgin birth to Mary.

quality:

he is not "just a wise guy".

he is not "just a good guy".

he is a prophet like Moses and David.

a Christology which is similar to "the viewpoint held by the Islamic faith" should therefore share those believes listed above. what makes them "similar" but not "same" should be the rest of Christology, IMHO.

as for now i never heard of such a Christian sect or denomination or group or belief system. correct me if there is. or let someone correct the article.

--95.10.4.81 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Forms

This section badly needs refs. Several of these names are in the wrong section.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur. Much of the containing section (Beliefs) is supported by the general statement 'For the information that follows, see ...' followed by a cluster of titles dated between 1866 and 1891. Sorry, but this will not do as verification of a morass of fanciful-looking assertions lacking specific inline citations. It is very unhelpful and unencyclopedic, requiring firm action. That is, if the present dearth of citations is not remedied within, say, seven days then the whole subsection (at least) should be unceremoniously removed. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Wade E Cox and general comment on article

In looking at the sources which were previously assembled for this article, I have removed articles attributed to a Wade E Cox who is nowhere cited in the article and whose unexplained 'CCG' provenance presumably relates to partisan pamphlets written for the organisation Christian Churches of God for which I can find no article in WP and no other voucher of authority or authenticity. A search revealed a Wade Cox as the founding president in 1994 and a little critique of Wikipedia. The Unitarianism article seems to have become an inappropriate venue for partisan interpretation and WP: soap, none of which helps understanding of the subject, which is why I'm looking at it. I believe, too, that such issues can sometimes be helpfully clarified in discussion. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Would agree with all those comments. Though the subject "unitarianism" is always going to be a nightmare given the basic contradiction of "unitarian" as a theology (basically 3.1 in current contents below), "Unitarian" as history (1 and link to History of Unitarianism) and "Unitarian" today (5 and plenty of local denominations) being three different things BUT all these things being inextricably linked.

   * 1 History -> History of Unitarianism
   * 2 Theological and denominational distinctions
   * 3 Beliefs
         o 3.1 Distinction with Arianism
               + 3.1.1 Arianism - Personal pre-human existence
               + 3.1.2 Unitarianism - No personal pre-human existence
   * 4 Notable Unitarians 
   * 5 Organizations
         o 5.1 Development in the 21st century
         o 5.2 Ecclesiology
         o 5.3 Interfaith dialogue and relations
   * 6 See also
   * 7 References
   * 8 Sources
   * 9 External links

Seems that each section (if retained) needs a statement of what the section is in the first line to keep some structure. But as a start, I'm moving 4 to end and linking List_of_Unitarians,_Universalists,_and_Unitarian_Universalists In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the notability of 'unitarianism' as a quite-respectable minority Christian faith category has to flow on to a multitude of compatible local churches, each of which needs (imho) to establish its own separate notability. Nor does an article such as this need to include such a highly involved debate about its pros and cons, on which links (eg to Arianism) and bibliographical references should suffice. (I note, too, that the parallel article on nontrinitarianism devotes a great deal of space to 'points of dissent' and 'alternate views', whereas the article on Christianity (and likwise that on Atheism) seems free of such encumbrances to the reader's understanding. I'm for totally excising the 'soapbox' content which so distracts from clarity. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's ditch the exegesis!

It concerns me that this article has in the past been unduly expanded by well-meaning editors wishing to persuade about aspects of the Christian faith rather than explain (especially to the world's many non-Christians) what unitarianism is all about. I came to the article seeking an intelligent explanation of the unitarian movement which exacerbated more-major splits in Christian churches a couple of centuries ago. This was quickly provided in the top of the article, and I learned that other useful and detailed articles existed on nontrinitarianism, the History of Unitarianism, etc, as well as on the more notable modern forms of the creed. However, the article then goes on at interminable length purporting to repetitively dissect categories of unitarian belief (most of which, if notable enough) have their own articles--and even to argue the pros and cons of minutiae which properly belong in dusty, forgotten tomes in museums, which may certainly be referenced but should never be spelled out in Wikipedia. In fact, even where citations are given, they are incapable of easy verification because of their antiquity. I therefore give notice of a drastic pruning of the article's irrelevant content and severe abbreviation of matter which is unnecessarily repeated from corresponding linked articles. If required, this can be done piecemeal over time with chapter-and-verse discussion in advance. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Again those are fair comments. And I'll admit that I'm in the same situation to an extent, despite some knowledge of Unitarian history - particularly the Hungarian origins. The basic problem however is that this article is actually discussing 3 different animals - broadly corresponding to the 3 overlapping phases of Unitarian history - 1. Hungarian/Socinian, 2. Rationalist American, and 3. the modern Christian rump in the UU movement. And I'd agree that if content is repeated it should be deleted, if not it can be hived off to the branch articles which should be more detailed (though some of them look more like stubs).

To me the bigger problem relates more to the large amount of uncited essay content. I don't mind the aura of dusty tomes given that we're basically talking about dead people (apologies to any living Hungarians reading this talk page - but in the English speaking world, in terms of influence and numbers Unitarianism was a 19thC movement) provided those dusty tomes are refd, and some of the actual content could be bumped down into footnotes too. But I think it would be a shame to delete any content that is actually refd and not duplicated in more obvious spaces. I just checked the Arianism article to see if Unitarianism (which is not the same thing) was duplicated, but it doesn't seem to be, in fact Arianism points back to Unitarianism which is probably right given that Arianism is the major stream, and Unitarianism the minor stream in historical and modern terms. And, boring or not exegesis was the whole reason for Arians and Unitarians being separate then and now. As long as it's accurate sourced/ref description of real historical Arian vs Unitarian exegesis, not OR, then it's relevant IMHO.

Another problem in the last 2 paragraphs (looks like OR) is that I get the sense that what it is saying is actually true and meaningful. But where's the source? And no I don't know. But it rings true.

Do you want to start on the header? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

To me, the style issue of capitalisation is quite simple. That is, "unitarian" is always a common noun or adjective unless it is part of a proper noun, eg, Unitarian Church, where that is an accepted denomination (or not just any old unitarian church). Though I'm a non-Christian, I adhere to the standards of the Oxford Dictionary in always capitalising Christ(ian) and similar faith-hallowed words in published work, including 'Bible' (but not 'biblical'). My interest was kindled by the knowledge that certain ancestors helped form a "Society of Unitarian Christians" in Cardiganshire, south Wales in the year 1802, of whom it was said they built a place of worship 'for the one God the father'. . .which was built entirely at the expence (sic) of the congregation . . . [who were] mostly of the labouring class."

Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good ref for Undodiaeth in cy.wikipedia. That group will be part of the upsurge of Unitarian Churches following on from Theophilus Lindsey and hence probably marking the beginning of the "rationalist" strand - denying the virgin birth and/or miracles.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, the header

My own library discloses two respectable encyclopedic summaries (one US, one UK) on 'unitarianism'. Funk & Wagnell's Standard Reference Encyclopedia begins

'Unitarians are those who maintain that God exists in one Person only. From the middle of the 2nd century to the end of the 3rd century there was a succession of eminent Christian teachers, Monarchians, who maintained the undivided unity of God.

Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable says in full:

[Unitarians are] Christians who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, maintaining that God exists in one Person only. Many of the early heretical sects were unitarian in belief though not in name; and, at the time of the Reformation, Servetus, Hetzer (Switzerland), Palaeologus, Sega (Italy), Flekwyk (Holland), the "Holy Maid of Kent" (England), Aikenhead (Scotland), Catherine Vogel (Poland), Dolet (France) and hundreds of others were put to death for holding this opinion. The modern Unitarians in England ascribe their foundation to John Biddle (1615-62), and among the famous men who have belonged to the body are Dr Samuel Clarke, Joseph Priestley, Dr Lardner, James Martineau, Sir Edward Bowring and Joseph Chamberlain.

This short passage includes notable content which doesn't rate a mention in the Wikipedia version. So, yes, I'll have a go at rewriting the header. CheersBjenks (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There again is the paradox - Funk & Wagnell's (1912) gives a potted Christological/theological definition - which may or may not be correct about Monarchians. While Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1898) gives a definition relating to the Reformation (which is very dated - where does Brewer get the information that the "Holy Maid of Kent" was a unitarian? Thomas Aikenhead was an atheist). Then some data about rationalist Unitarians; Who was Sir Edward Bowring? etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving notice that I've not given up on this stream, just reading more before acting. Thomas Aikenhead seems hardly worth considering in this context, and the Holy Maid of Kent seems likewise a subject obfuscated by poorly substantiated hearsay. I find that the disambiguation page offers more confusing propagandism than real disambiguation; and I can see no rational point in separating Biblical Unitarianism from Unitarianism 'as a Christian theology'. Together, these articles seem not to provide an encyclopedic understanding of the subject while overtly arguing for particular interests and belief-systems. However, there appear to be few Wikipedians who are prepared to take an interest in the subject, and I myself have no axe to grind other than wanting to see a comprehensible treatment. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Unitarianism, deletion of part of history?

Not sure about the reason for these deletes/changes. Donbodo's edits In ictu oculi (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you need to know? --Donbodo (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I would need to know why you've deleted referenced historical content.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It belongs in the History section, not the Beliefs section. There is an entirely separate Unitarian history page, and you are welcome to place it there, though I noticed it contained several inaccuracies.--Donbodo (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Unitarians

I note that biblical unitarians have been trying to retool this page for their own purposes. I ask that that please redirect their efforts to the Biblical Unitarianism page, rather than this one. --Donbodo (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You may need to be more specific. It isn't clear who the 'biblical unitarian editors' are to whom you're referring. Please focus on specific content rather than speculating about editors' motives.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I refer to the attempt to associate Unitarianism with conservative evangelical or fundamentalist positions. It is important to note that Unitarianism is a movement with its own history, and simply because someone denies the Trinity, this does not classify that person as a Unitarian (capital U). It may be that this article discusses the historical roots of Unitarianism, and some nontrinitarians today can trace their theological genealogy back to some of the ancestors of Unitarianism, but that doesn't mean that this makes them Unitarians. It means only that they have some of the same forebears as Unitarians do. Someone (I am not sure who) has been changing the word "Unitarian" into "Rationalist Unitarian" in some places where Unitarianism is associated with liberal ideas, so as to suggest that Unitarianism is not theologically liberal. But, in fact, it is. They also have been inserting words into the "Beliefs" sections so as to suggest that the liberal ideas of Unitarianism are to be placed in the 19th century and not today. --Donbodo (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't noticed the specific edits you're referring to, but this article is only on my 'B-list'. As my interest in the topic is limited, I'll have to stay away from the specifics of that issue. Did you have any concerns with my copyedit the other day? I do have some concerns about the unsourced sections in the article, and there also seemed to be some unnecessary POV pushing, which I had a go at removing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo. I created the "Biblical Unitarian" entry on Sept 25 (from a blanked redirect) primarily to give the confusion on this page an outlet for exactly what you describe, despite that I myself am fairly sceptical about the term "Biblical Unitarian" both in the context of Robert Spears and Samuel Sharpe (scholar), and in post-modern usage. However, as regards your edits here you have to recognise that per George Huntston Williams "Unitarian" is historically a moving target. From the original uses at the Diet of Lecfalva, Transylvania on 25 Oct. 1600, Henry Hedworth (1673) et al., through to legalisation with Theophilus Lindsey (1774) et al., through to Manchester College, Harvard and Transcendentalism, and beyond into/until merger with Universalists in 1961, "Unitarianism" is a moving target. And now effectively, in Wikipedia notable terms at least, an extinct target? Does a continuing Unitarian Church exist in North America since 1961? Are a few 2011 Christian Unitarian bloggers notable compared to a church which once numbered presidents? So basically the question is which of the various historical versions of Unitarianism do you think the article is about? 1600, 1673, 1774, 1961, 2011? And how does someone navigate an article that says that it is just one of those time points. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw your comment "I refer to the attempt to associate Unitarianism with conservative evangelical or fundamentalist positions", is a misconception of Unitarian history. The early Unitarians, from the authors of the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum quos Unitarios vocant through to Robert Spears were not "conservative evangelical or fundamentalist positions", they simply hadn't yet rejected miracles nor Bible. If you're going to make rejection of miracles the defining starting point of Unitarianism then Unitarianism begins around the time of Thomas Belsham's progressive description of more of the Bible as "fables" 1806-1820. This is all extensively documented in histories of Unitarianism, but in particular you might want to read R. K. Webb "Miracles in English Unitarian Thought" Essay, chapter 6 in Mark S. Micale, Robert L. Dietle, Peter Gay Enlightenment, passion, modernity: historical essays in European thought and culture 2000. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not necessarily referring to you when I made the complaint. I appreciate what you write above, but from a very early stage, this article clearly set itself apart from nontrinitarianism in general. It is concerned only with Unitarianism (with an upper case "U" and therefore as a proper name). It is not about unitarianism (with a lower case "u" and therefore merely a general description equivalent to nontrinitarianism). As an example, an article on the New England Patriots is not the same as an article on patriots from New England. So Unitarianism is not about unitarianism. The article Unitarianism is about Unitarianism, and the article nontrinitarianism is about unitarianism. With regard to whether Unitarians still exist today, in light of the evolution of the UUA, yes they do, and they can be found in organizations like the Unitarian Christian Association, the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship, and the American Unitarian Conference, to name a few. As you can see, they still retain the name "Unitarian." With regard to the removal of part of your contribution, the chief reason was because it belonged in the history section. You had it in the Beliefs section, which represents present beliefs. And so, yes, the views of past Unitarians certainly belong in this article, but the best place for these references is in the History section. Lastly, let me say that modern Unitarians can trace a direct theological and denominational lineage, a line of succession without gaps, back to Lindsey at least, and probably even to Hedford, but the same cannot be said about all nontrinitarians today. --Donbodo (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Donbodo.

1. On capitals, sorry, but no: The term "Unitarian" has been capitalized since the first use in English Henry Hedworth 1673, and also A brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians: In four brief letters to a friend Stephen Nye 1687. See A history of Unitarianism: Vol.2 Earl Morse Wilbur - 1952 "The second of these books is noteworthy for the fact that it contains the earliest known instance of the word Unitarian in English print.39 Hedworth evidently picked up this term from the Transylvanian Unitarians whom he met in Holland,"

2. Re present beliefs. Sure, it's perfectly acceptable to have the Unitarian Christian Association (1991), the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (1954), and the American Unitarian Conference, represented in the article, and presumably their beliefs are listed on their pages as well, yes? But "Unitarianism" as a religion, was evidently more significant in certain periods than others. People are likely to want to look at Unitarianism to find out about Unitarians 1600-1800, as well as John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft. etc. Maybe the solution is to use words like "present" and "past" in the relevant paragraphs? "Unitarianism proper the liberal variety" for example, is a judgement call the article shouldn't be making.

3. I'm sorry, but I really do not think your comments above are sufficient reason for these deletes/changes. your earlier deletions queried above nor for other deletes since. You can't just delete material because it refers to the heyday of Unitarianism when Unitarians were a more numerous and more influential movement.In ictu oculi (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello In ictu oculi. You miss my point. In 1774 the name Unitarian was adopted by a specific religious movement, and by Americans also in 1825. This is the same as my illustration of a sports team adopting a name. This article concerns that specific religious movement and none else. In other words, we are not concerned with whomever in history used the name Unitarian. Joe Neighbor from across the street could adopt the name "Unitarian" if he wanted to, but that doesn't suddenly make this article about him. We are concerned with one specific theological movement that called itself Unitarian, not all. Because this movement was influenced by nontrinitarian theologians and scholars from the past, their names may be included here, but appropriately in the History section, because such people were not the Unitarians that this article is about. So I request that others, who are no part of this specific theological movement, refrain from hijacking this article for their own purposes. Wikipedia is large enough for everybody. --Donbodo (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo, with the best will in the world you shouldn't really be using language such as "hijacking this article for their own purposes", (a) it's aggressive language and inappropriate, (b) frankly when seen from other perspectives you could be seen to be doing exactly this yourself for "Unitarians proper, the liberal sort". As it stands the article title is Unitarianism, not "(any specific) Unitarian Church", which means it is about Unitarians. There have evidently been many Unitarians from 1600-2011. Unitarian Church of Transylvania from 1600 for example. As regards 1774 the church which Lindsey opened was simply called "Essex-Street Chapel", though clearly an entity which shortly became known as the Unitarian Church (which someone has unhelpfully redirected to Unitarian Universalism, why, isn't there a continuing General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches in Britain?) was based in Essex Street Chapel thereafter. The British and Foreign Unitarian Association and American Unitarian Association were founded in 1825. Your objections moreover are completely out of line with Theophilus Lindsey himself, who acknowledged Unitarians 1600-1744, and Unitarian historians such as George Huntston Williams. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment about "hijacking" was not in reference to any specific person and was addressed at a future action, rather than a past one. But I apologize if I offended by it. With regard to the Unitarian Church in Transylvania (which, by the way is in communion with present-day Unitarians here in the US) and any other church that has adopted the name Unitarian, they surely are in a different category than churches that are not named Unitarian, nor ever have been. And so that is why I agree with your decision to make a separate article for "biblical unitarians." Indeed, the article on biblical unitarianism even claims that the term was chosen in order to make a distinction from liberal Unitarians. As far as I know, the churches who have "biblical unitarians" in them haven't made any official claim to the term "Unitarian." Am I right? I don't even know if they have made an official claim to the term "biblical unitarian." I know only that some of the members of these churches have very recently shown a fondness for this term. But other than a similarity in nontrinitarian Christology, which can be found also in churches not named Unitarian, these people have no genealogical link whatsoever to groups in the past who called themselves Unitarians. So I ask you, why should these persons, who are not part of a church called Unitarian, nor related to a church called Unitarian, be put into an article on Unitarianism? If you are not happy with having a separate page for biblical unitarianism, I would be interested to know what you believe the criteria should be for including a new group in this article. On the other hand, if I am misunderstanding you and your beef is only that you think I don't want you to make reference to Unitarians of times past, then you are mistaken. I have no problem with additions to this article of that nature. I only wish to point out that there is a separate page for the History of Unitarianism. This was made (by someone other than me) because it was felt the present article was getting too long. So now all contributions on the history of Unitarianism have been going to the History of Unitarianism page. Add whatever historical details you like to that page. You'll get no complaints from me. --Donbodo (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo. Well, like it or not Unitarianism is a "main article". The existence of a separate "History" article does not change the fact that history (albeit more briefly) also belongs in the main article. Likewise the 7 or 8 separate Unitarian denominations with their own pages also belong as links in the main article. Your deletions here have removed too much; there needs to be some indication to the general reader that Unitarianism 1600, 1800 and 2000 are different things. And no, I'm not unhappy with a separate article for Biblical Unitarianism (I created it, remember) since, despite my personal misgivings about the term, it was a term in currency in the conservative Unitarian movement embodied by Robert Spears compared to Transcendentalism, and it does describe a particular strand of Unitarian history. I'm not quite clear what a "genealogical link" would be, Unitarianism isn't an ethnic group, and if it were, then only Poles and Transylvanians would be Unitarian. I personally don't think there is a need for extensive discussion of what we could call "new Biblical Unitarianism" post Robert Spears in the main article, no. However there is a need for discussion of Unitarianism 1600-1800, as the "liberal" traditions you're referring to did not spring out of a vacuum with the Revolution Society etc. in the 1780s, there had been a call for social tolerance from Samuel Przypkowski and before. It cannot be helped that 1600-1800 Unitarians were fundamentalists and took their socially liberal leanings from Christianity, that's how the history is. So on that basis, when I get time to look at the article again I will be restoring some of the removed material where it is relevant to 1600-1800, or even 1800-1900.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an abbreviated History section also in this main article, so again, there is space there to put whatever you like. I am not sure what the problem is. I apologize for the deletion. I should have simply moved it. And by "genealogical link," I meant church genealogy, where one group spawns another, etc. --Donbodo (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tuggy

1999. Page number? Also there a couple of paragraphs of well meaning waffle at the bottom of the article with "citations needed" from June 2010. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no pages. It is an internet article. Besides, I just pasted it from the article on Biblical Unitarianism. There was no page number there either. Didn't you make that citation? Donbodo (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No. But thanks for identifying it.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See what I have done with Development in the 21st century, that should address some of your points (some of which I share in fact).In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Unitarianism as it is not as it was

Hi Donbodo, sorry but a couple of problems with this change

• 1. Wikipedia isn't just about 2011.
• 2. Even if it was you'd still need a source that defines that all Unitarianism in 2011 must be "liberal."
• 3. The ref you have taken out: J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedia of Protestantism 2005 p543 "Unitarianism - The word unitarian means one who believes in the oneness of God; historically it refers to those in the Christian community who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity (one God expressed in three persons). Non-Trinitarian Protestant churches emerged in the 16th century in ITALY, POLAND, and TRANSYLVANIA." still is present tense The word unitarian means (not meant) one who believes in the oneness of God. You need a source which supports your view that "unitarian means a liberal theology.
• 4. There's a problem in describing what is numerically a religion of the past by modern terms. Unitarianism was a religion of the millions in the 18th/19thC. Today (in America) does it even number 100s? Just as an article on Huguenots describes the heyday of the Huguenots, so any other article should at least allow the peak period.

To sum up, please find a source. Thanks.

Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo,

• 1. I see you've inserted again liberal but where is your source? This seems to have been going on for weeks if not months. If your definition of what Unitarianism is is the Wikipedia definition then you should be able to find a source.
• 2. I see you also removed that Unitarianism is a subcat of Nontrinitarianism and changed Unitarian (disambiguation)

Do you have any refs/sources for these changes? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi. In response to your questions:

• 1. I didn't make the lede about the present. It already said "Unitarianism is," not "Unitarianism was." If you would like to change it to "was," then you can revamp the lede so it is about the past.
• 2. I will get a reference as soon as I am able. There are plenty of books on Unitarianism. But please keep in mind that this article already reflected the liberalism of Unitarianism in the Beliefs section. I was merely making that explicit in the intro. You are the one wanting to change it to mean something not liberal. Look up "Liberal Christianity," and you will see that the Unitarianism described in the Beliefs section falls into this category.
• 3. I did not remove the reference. It is still there. And it supports my position. Please note that unitarianism is uncapitalized in your source: "The word unitarian means one who believes in the oneness of God."
• 4. You are correct that Unitarianism has seen its day. Again, we could make this an article about the past, but the problem is that Unitarianism is not extinct. So should we write about it as if it were? Moreover, there is already an article on the History of Unitarianism. --Donbodo (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo

Okay those are fair enough answers for the time being (re 3. Sorry I didn't word the above well, the wording "take out" wasn't what I meant to say. Apologies.) As before I'm not sure that capitalization is consistent. At some point someone should check OED. Leave it as you have it, but try and find a source ref please. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo, I'm sorry but your edits here isn't helpful. As much as you apparently wish the original Unitarians shouldn't have existed, they did exist and you cannot just expunge 200 years of history because Unitarians 1600-1744 don't share some views of some Unitarians today.In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Unitarian" is an English word, appropriated from the Latin word "unitario" used sometimes to refer to the Polish Brethren. The English who adopted this name saw similarities between their beliefs and those of the Polish Brethren, but of course they were not the same. You seem to be confusing Unitarianism (an English and American phenomenon) with Eastern European nontrinitarianism. They are not the same thing. The present article has always been about Unitarians, not unitarios, so let's not get them confused.--Donbodo (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

This line has been deleted:

• ":To avoid confusion between Unitarianism and unitarianism, the former being a developed theology and the latter being a Christology, the term Nontrinitarianism is here reserved for the latter."

for reasons that should be too obvious to warrant much discussion.In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that you are the only one who thinks it unworthy of discussion. We both know that there is a difference between Unitarianism and unitarianism, and the latter is NOT the subject of this article. The latter is discussed in the article on Nontrinitarianism. I suggest we avoid redundancy and have one article on Unitarianism and one article on unitarianism/nontrinitarianism.--Donbodo (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) There already is an article on Nontrinitarianism, have you read it? Do you understand why not all Nontrinitarians are Unitarians? (b) "We both know that there is a difference between Unitarianism and unitarianism," we both know nothing of the sort. Every dictionary I can see capitalizes Unitarian and Unitarianism, just as Trinitarian or any other religious group. You have not produced any evidence for this other than that you wish it to be so. Please consider an example picked at random : Early sources of English Unitarian Christianity Amy-Gaston C. A. Bonet-Maury 1884 "Letter from Microen to Bullinger, respecting the first Unitarians of London, 1551." is the U there capital or small? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) I think I am beginning to understand what you are saying, but it has only dawned on me this moment that, even though unitarians make up probably 99% of nontrinitarians, binitarianism can be considered another form of nontrinitarianism. I am not sure why you did not mention binitarianism sooner (it is the only nontrinitarian concept that I can think of besides unitarianism. If there is a quadritarianism, I have not heard of it). But here is the problem that we have: Unitarians (capitalized) are not identical with unitarians (uncapitalized). So what do we do about it? (b)If you are speaking of the title of an encyclopedia article being capitalized, that's what is often done with titles. If you look at the very article you yourself cited from the Encyclopedia of Protestantism, you will see that it states: "Unitarianism: The word unitarian means one who believes in the oneness of God." Note that the word, while capitalized in the title of the entry, is not capitalized in the body. The quotation you present above from an 1884 letter is about English Unitarians, and they are the ones I have been arguing deserve the capitalized form of the name.--Donbodo (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Donbodo. I'm happy that it's dawned on you. But you could have read the article on Non-Trinitarianism a year ago and found that. And no, Unitarians are not 99% of non-trinitarians, even in the 18th Century they'd have been a minority. Today the largest non-Trinitarian churches (Jehovah's Witnesses and others) are predominantly Arian.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If a unitarian is a believer in the single personhood of God, then an Arian is a unitarian. Are you not aware of the fact that in America Unitarians were predominantly Arian in the 1800's? Come on, look at the Beliefs section. Arians are included.--Donbodo (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

POV removed

This article is not a soapbox for any one kind of Unitarian:

• removed " Since their [conservative Biblical Unitarians] belief system is a conservative form of nontrinitarianism, it is not discussed here." In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't give me sufficient time to compile references. Why are you in such a hurry?--Donbodo (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo,

I'm not keeping track of time but I'm reasonably sure that line has been sitting in the article for months. Don't you see that it is rather a partisan position to insert into an encyclopedia article that "Since their 17th-Century type Unitarianism has more in common with Arianism than General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches therefore they have no place in an article with those 17th Unitarians whose faith they share." -- says who? On that basis it would be possible to go to any church where beliefs have moved on and delete any holdout groups.

• And again I ask - do you understand the difference between 17thC Arianism and 17thC Unitarianism? Do you know what the difference is? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• and again you've deleted 200 years of Unitarian history from Unitarianism (disambiguation), why? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. I simply moved it to the main article (History of Unitarianism). The reason the History of Unitarianism page was even made was because the history was too large and bulky for this page. Since the new page was created, more and more has been added to the History section on this page, so it ended up that we had two Unitarian history pages. Do you see any reason why there should be two pages?--Donbodo (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo

For the same reason the article also includes mention of General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, it's a header article. On Unitarianism, not any one time/type of Unitarianism.

When I say "deletion" there was a slight irony, I was referring to crossing out 1600 and writing 1774, what's wrong with Unitarians 1600-1773 that you say they aren't Unitarians, but from 1774 they are? A bit random. You are aware that a Unitarian 1750 and 1800 weren't that different??

And again I ask - do you understand the difference between 17thC Arianism and 17thC Unitarianism? I've asked this question more than once, if the answer is "No I don't" then that would explain some of your edits. But if the answer is "Yes I do" then that would go back to the question above. Do you know the difference? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The History of Unitarianism page concerns the same Unitarianism that is discussed in this article.--Donbodo (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As I have said, Unitarianism is a specific theological movement that is to be differentiated from unitarianism in general. And Unitarianism began in England.--Donbodo (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your message

From my talk page: Unitarianism > You and I are going to have to come to an agreement on this article, or I am just going to keep restoring it. If you want to change the meaning of an article, you can't do it unilaterally.--Donbodo (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)<

Donbodo.

Greetings. Please look at below and note in particular the need for sources in Wikipedia edits:

1. In the absence of other editors your own edits are also unilateral, but more importantly, unsupported by refs. However strongly you may feel that Unitarians 1600-1744 (or 1600-1850? why stop at 1744?) are not Unitarians by your definition, the fact is that to historians of Unitarianism such as Alexander Gordon and George Huntston Williams they are.

2. Unitarianism did not begin in England (please see the article, this is completely incorrect). Unitarianism in word/idea/theology existed 170 years earlier in Hungary, Poland and Holland. Unitarianism is a European import to Britain.

3. I have repeatedly asked for any source for this idea you have that "u" and "U" are different. Given the lack of source (and the same logic being unapplicable to anglican/Anglican methodist/Methodist, etc.) your view on "u"nitarian constitutes WP:Original research

4. Re my questions:

"Some Arians are Unitarians" - There's certainly confusion in Trinitarian texts on this point, but is there in the works of George Huntston Williams and other scholars?

"Unitarianism is more than a Christology." Again the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches is more than a Christology, but what else is Unitarianism other than Unitarianism?

5. You've restored your edits (deleting tags) saying "Refs were given". Just saying "Refs were given" is not the way to deal with tags. Your views on the meaning of the word Unitarian are outside of the norm of scholarly sources, and to present them in the article requires source evidence.

e.g.:

- where's your evidence for this "u" "U" distinction?

- where's your evidence that all Unitarians who ever existed rejected (i) Original Sin, (ii) biblical inerrancy, and (iii) predestination.?

- etc.

Best wishes

In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, in response to your comments: (1) You keep ignoring my evidences that unitarianism is not the same as Unitarianism. I don't know how many more times I need to explain it and how many more references you are going to require. Unitarianism (capitalized) is an English proper noun. It refers to a specific (not general) theological movement. That movement cannot have begun before the proper noun was invented; (2) unitarianism (small u) existed before the English movement, but Unitarianism (big u) did not. This article, up until the time that you started changing it, was not about unitarianism (small u). It was about Unitarianism (big u). If you want to change the subject of the article, you need to justify it. That justification cannot simply be that unitarianism (small u) existed before the English movement, because, as I said, this article was not about unitarianism (small u). The only grounds you have for justifying your changes would be if we all agreed that we need to add unitarianism (small us) to this article. The reason for this would only be if unitarianism (small u) did not have an article of its own; (3) You are not reading my posts in this discussion. Please read them, because your own reference demonstrate my point. Case in point: World faiths encounter: 7-12 World Congress of Faiths - 1994 - "A correct definition of 'unitarianism' (small 'u') is the monotheistic belief system of someone not directly associated with the Unitarian movement, almost always applied to a person from the Christian tradition, as the word was coined." This is a quotation YOU provided, and it couldn't be more clear. Note the difference it makes between unitarianism and Unitarianism; (4) Unitarianism is a specific theological movement, containing some Arians and some Socinians. Not all Arians are in this movement. Some Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are Arians. Again, Unitarianism is not unitarianism. I request that in future discussions, you please differentiate between the capitalized and uncapitalized form in order to avoid confusion. As far as Original Sin and predestination go, when the Unitarian movement began in England and America, these concepts had already been rejected. By the time the movement matured in the mid-1800's, it had also rejected biblical inerrancy.--Donbodo (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

.

Hi Donbodo

Re. 1: Sorry, but so far we have not seen 1 reference apart from this paper from 1994. A reference is a reference, not continually restating an opinion.

Re. 2: As before this requires a reference, If I cited this World Congress of Faiths, 1994 paper, then I did so incorrectly. Who is the author of that statement, it's clearly not mainstream.

Re. 3: Well, it's wrong, it was an uninformed ref. All dictionaries clearly say the opposite.

Re. 4: Do you have a source that that Unitarians include Arians?

Re. 5: Do you have 'a source. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians and not Unitarians.

Re. 6: Sorry, no, that World Congress of Faiths - 1994 paper, whoever it is by, is not representative of mainstream scholars such as George Huntston Williams or tertiary sources such as lexicons.

Re. 7: Unitarianism began in Poland, Hungary, Italy and Holland. If that Original Sin and predestination true (is it?) then it may or may not be true of Poland, Hungary, Italy and Holland. 1600-1850. Is it?

Re. 8: By that you're admitting that the statement in the lede is incorrect. Best regards In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

.

Boy, you really butchered my message. It is best to leave other people's messages untouched and then just write your own. Again, do not edit other people's messages. You still have not addressed the most important issue of all: that you are changing the subject of this article from what it was to something new. What is your reason for this? You did not provide one. I requested that we discuss this main issue before we make any changes, and you have not agreed to this. Why not? You also say I need to provide more references, and yet you provide none of your own that demonstrates that the proper name Unitarianism is the same as unitarianism. Everyone who knows the English language knows that capitalization means something. You apparently are the only one who doesn't. I refer you to the article on capitalization, where we are told that proper nouns are capitalized. Now go look at proper noun, and you will see that a proper noun "is a noun representing a unique entity, as distinguished from a common noun, which describes a class of entities." Provide us with a reference that demonstrates that Unitarianism is not a proper noun and unitarianism is not a common noun, and then I will concede the point. Until then, I have to go with commonly-accepted English grammar. You also completely ignored my message in "Original Research" above in which I show a reference that specifically uses the lower case "u." It was another one of your own references. Every reference you have provided supports what I am saying. Lastly, I am undoing your last edit to the lede, because you removed my references.--Donbodo (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo

A. I did not "butcher"/"edit" your message on the Talk page, I merely answered in line points 1-8. However since you find answering in line unhelpful I have returned to answer in block.

B. I specifically did not "remove your references." Please look: can you see a reference that has been removed?

C. Re. >you provide none of your own that demonstrates that the proper name Unitarianism is the same as unitarianism.< I provided here Pocket Dictionary of Church History Nathan P. Feldmeth p135 . Gordon Melton Encyclopedia of Protestantism 2005 p543, both showing "Unitarianism" capitalised referring to 1600-1800 Unitarians. what are your reasons for deleting these two sources?

D. Re English capitalization rules, I will now add into the article (though this is ridiculous to have to add this in) L. Sue Baugh Essentials of English Grammar: A Practical Guide to the Mastery of English (9780844258218) Second Edition 1994 p59 "Religious Names and Terms: The names of all religions, denominations, and local groups are capitalized."

Does that answer your question?

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A. Thank you.

B. I see what you are doing. By couching my references in phrases like: "So-and-so claims this," you are casting doubt upon the correctness of the reference. How would you like it if I did that to your references?

C. I didn't delete any sources. And as I said in a comment above (which you ignored), the reference you gave from the Encyclopedia of Protestantism uses the UNcapitalized term. Both sources only use the capitalized term in the entry title, which is always capitalized, no matter what. I explained this already.

D. No, no it doesn't. Don't you see that by agreeing that "religions, denominations, and local groups are capitalized," you are reinforcing the idea that this article is about a denominational movement and NOT about a general theology? That strengthens what I am saying, not what you are saying!

E. Again, you cannot change the subject of this article unilaterally. So far you have been unwilling to discuss the change and have spent all of your time behaving as if you are the authority here.--Donbodo (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

.

Hi Donbodo

A. Greetings.

B. Sorry, I need some clarification. Which specific reference do you not like the way the references are presented? Then we can amend rather than you simply delete.

C. >I didn't delete any sources< Please look again, you deleted Pocket Dictionary of Church History Nathan P. Feldmeth p135 . Gordon Melton Encyclopedia of Protestantism 2005 p543, both showing "Unitarianism" capitalised referring to 1600-1800 Unitarians.. And you've just redeleted the same refs a second time + deleted the English grammar on capitalisation.

D. Yes I'm aware that the English Grammar book (the ref I inserted, and you deleted) says "religions, denominations". Can you please read again: "religions, denominations". ≠ "denominations, denominations". The bolding illustrates that "religions" and "denominations" are different words, no? Unitarianism is a (subset in this case of a) religion, then the American Unitarian Association is a denomination. Therefore, both need capitalising. Therefore can you please restore the Grammar book ref you deleted, and also accept what it is saying.

E. As for the right kind of Unitarian, sorry but Unitarianism is what it was/is. As to whether you're spending all your time behaving as if you are the authority here, I can't judge; I see you have a long edit history on this page and some of it suggests that you wish to unilaterally restrict this article to one view of some post 1850 Unitarians (I say some because the article's edit history suggests exclusion of even those post 1850 such as Robert Spears and Samuel Sharpe who were in some respect throwbacks to John Biddle's day). The editing history on this page is not in line with the approach of Alexander Gordon or George Huntston Williams. Note also http://www.unitarian.org.uk/intro/history.shtml and http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/unitarianism/history/history.shtml treat all Unitarians of every era as part of Unitarianism, not just post 1800. Also if you want to speak with authority, then, perhaps statements such as "when the Unitarian movement began in England and America, these concepts had already been rejected" might be best avoided. Firstly because if that's true then it requires refs not statements, and secondly because Wikipedia isn't EnglandandAmericaopedia, it's supposed to be nonpartisan.

F. BTW. Thank you for not reverting/deleting the move of Hungarian Unitarianism to prominence in the list section. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm appealing now to any passers by to restore the Grammar book ref at least... In ictu oculi (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi,

B. Instead of calling Unitarianism "liberal" and having a footnoted reference, you put "Modern and historical Unitarianism are classified as part of a "liberal" family by Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. Instead of saying that Unitarianism rejected original sin and predestination, you put "Joseph Priestley, one of the founders of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches (from 1744) defined Unitarianism as the belief of primitive Christianity before later corruptions set in. Among these corruptions, he included not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but also various other orthodox doctrines and usages." And "In his history of the Unitarians, David Robinson writes: 'At their inception, both Unitarians and Universalists shared a common theological enemy: Calvinism." He explains that they "consistently attacked Calvinism on the related issues of original sin and election to salvation, doctrines that in their view undermined human moral exertion.'" This is what I am talking about. What was your motive in making these changes?

C. The Melton reference is under footnote 5. I didn't notice the Feldmeth reference, so that was an oversight. I will put it into the History of Unitarianism article, where it belongs. I hope that is satisfactory.

D. Yes, I get that. But "unitarianism" as you are using it is neither a religion nor a denomination. You are using it as a belief or opinion.

E. It is nice to see you beginning to address the real issue here. I was going to tell YOU Unitarianism is what it is. But you are unwilling to make a differentiation between the specific religious movement (Unitarianism) and the general belief (unitarianism). When this article was first created (and not by me), it was about the former, and not the latter. I did not restrict it to that. That is the way it was. You want to make a change to include both. Why do you think it should include both? (I am asking for your reasoning.) You keep citing Alexander Gordon and George Huntston Williams, but why are there no references from them in this article? The internet articles you cited state that the word "Unitarian" first appeared in Britain and that before that the term "Socinian" was used everywhere except Transylvania. I am receptive to including Transylvanians in this article, because the term unitarius was used by them (which translates into Unitarian) beginning in 1638. But it should be acknowledged that the word "Unitarian" first appeared in Britain in 1673. Both articles spend most of their time on England and America, as I am sure you noticed. --Donbodo (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

.

Hi Donbodo

B. >What was your motive in making these changes?< ....What was my motive in adding references?? Sorry but what do you think it was? I was doing you a favour, my motive was that your unsourced edits should have at least some source refs behind them, even if I couldn't find them to exactly match with your opinions. In future I will simply mark your edits with . Or better just delete them as you do mine.

C. >I didn't notice the Feldmeth reference, so that was an oversight. I will put it into the History of Unitarianism article, where it belongs. I hope that is satisfactory.< No sorry but it's not acceptable nor satisfactory, it's saying that Donbodo's opinion belongs in the lede and dictionary refs belong hidden down the article. How do I say this, your opinions require references. Please restore the reference to where you deleted it.

D. >But "unitarianism" as you are using it is neither a religion nor a denomination. You are using it as a belief or opinion.< - As it happens religion is a belief, what do you think religion is if it isn't a belief??

E. >you are unwilling to make a differentiation between the specific religious movement (Unitarianism) and the general belief (unitarianism).< - because this differentiation is original research that is contrary to the grammar book ref on spelling which you deleted.

F. >You keep citing Alexander Gordon and George Huntston Williams, but why are there no references from them in this article?< - well, because so far you won't allow them to be mentioned.

G. >I am receptive to including Transylvanians in this article, because the term unitarius was used by them (which translates into Unitarian) beginning in 1638. But it should be acknowledged that the word "Unitarian" first appeared in Britain in 1673.< - I'm gratified that the UK Unitarian page seems to have updated to 1673 to reflect an edit I made on Wikipedia. So, anyway do I take it you will allow pre-1800 Unitarianism into the article now? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi,

B. ARE YOU EVEN PAYING ATTENTION?? I told you flat out what was wrong with your altering of my source references, and you reply with a question about YOUR references. We were talking about MY references, which you altered, so that their truthfulness could be called into question. Read the above sentence over and over again until it sinks in. THEN feel free to respond.

C. I don't understand what you are talking about. The Feldmeth reference was about Unitarian history, not the definition of Unitarianism. Did you read it?

D. A religion is made up of many beliefs. This is elementary school stuff. A belief is not capitalized. A religion is. I can't believe you have me arguing about simple English usage that everyone should know.

E. No it isn't.

F. Since when? Did you even try to include them? I made every effort to preserve all of your references.

G. Sure, but only if it went by the name Unitarian. If it did not, it does not belong here. And of course, that is what I have been trying to tell you the whole time.

H. I am asking you one last time not to alter my sentence in the lede concerning original sin and predestination, because I have provided sound references to support the statement. I will also provide one for the "biblical inerrancy" statement, so please be patient. You need to take note of the fact that my wording is "Unitarianism is also known for," which is not a dogmatic statement like "always known for" or simply "is."--Donbodo (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede (2)

Unitarianism[1] is a Christian theology known primarily for holding that God is only one person,[2] in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (God as three persons in one), and that God is a separate being from Jesus Christ.[3] Modern and historical Unitarianism are classified as part of a "liberal" family by Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions.[4]

Aside from the Trinity Unitarianism is also known for the rejection of other widely believed Christian teachings, such as Original Sin and predestination (from 1600)[citation needed], and later biblical inerrancy (from the 1850s).[citation needed] John Biddle rejected original sin and eternal damnation. Joseph Priestley, one of the founders of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches (from 1744) defined Unitarianism as the belief of primitive Christianity before later corruptions set in.[5][6]

Lede requires references for these statements that Unitarianism is also known for these other characteristics. Can anyone supply? I could supply from Latin sources for Unitarian Church of Transylvania re the first two. But is it true of all Unitarianism ever? Presumably No.3 is true of the American Unitarian Conference (AUC), The Unitarian Christian Association (UCA, UK) and General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches (GAUFCC)? But can a source be provided? And does this need to be in the Lede? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo, I'm sorry but while you continue to force your content without providing requested sources as here that constitutes POV and possibly also original research. Your personal opinion does not constitute a source.

Further, you keep stating that the subject of the article is not all Unitarianism but only some Unitarians. Can you be specific about what kind of Unitarianism you want to allow in this article? Does Unitarianism only = General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches? Because there is already an article on this. Or does true Unitarianism = American Unitarian Conference or Unitarian Christian Association? Or Unitarianism today/Modern Unitarianism? Or something else? Please explain what kind of Unitarianism you consider this article should be about if it is not to be about all Unitarianism? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is about ALL Unitarians (capital U) and therefore anyone who was part of the Christian religious movement labeled "Unitarian" until its metamorphosis into a multi-denominational group. The article has always been about that. Why should you be allowed to force this article to be about something else? So far you have not justified this change of focus.--Donbodo (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo, what change of focus? I am not the one deleting content about pre-1800 Unitarians. Nor am I the one trying to argue that pre-1800 Unitarians are "unitarians" small "u" (sic).In ictu oculi (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete any content. I simply move the history parts over to the History page, where they belong. What's the big deal about that? I don't understand why it bothers you. And I am arguing that ANYONE that should be considered a Unitarian who was a member of the movement that called itself Unitarian. That movement existed since the late 1700's in England and America. The ONLY religious movement that called itself Unitarian (albeit in another language) was the Unitarian church of Transylvania. As I have recently said, they are rightly included here.--Donbodo (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Donbodo

> The ONLY religious movement that called itself Unitarian (albeit in another language) was the Unitarian church of Transylvania. < ...... can I ask how do know this? It evidently isn't by reading a book, or even the Wikipedia articles, so where's this "fact" coming from? Have you asked the other members of your own Unitarian congregation whether they share this view, if its a GAUFCC affiliated congregation it's very unlikely that the members will share this "fact".

As for your editing policy, yes a move is better than a delete, but frankly deporting historical Unitarians who don't agree with your personal convictions to the ghetto of the history page, and then ruling out any living Unitarians who disagree with you as "small-u" unitarians, is an issue; Wikipedia:POV.

It's evident that there has been a change in the article back in 2009 you didn't see the need to assert "Unitarian is a liberal" in the first statement. What's changed since 2009 that you now consider that non-liberal (by whose standard?) Unitarianism isn't Unitarianism? The 2011 article is considerably more intolerant and exclusive than the 2009 article, and that intolerance and exclusivity seems to stem from your exclusions and moves.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked how I know that the Transylvanian church was the only one that called itself Unitarian. The answer is in every book on the history of Unitarianism I have ever read (and that is many). It is also in one of the internet articles you referred me to. It is also in the book by Alexander Gordon you referred me to. And to classify good organization as deportation is silly. Can you give me a good reason why information on the history of Unitarianism should be on this page rather than the History of Unitarianism page? And the reason I put "liberal" in the lede is because you were trying to confuse everyone. But the liberal beliefs themselves have always been in the Beliefs section. So the lede simply reflects what is in the body. Your edits have done much to give this article schizophrenia--Donbodo (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

World faiths encounter: 1994

SOURCE World Congress of Faiths - 1994 A correct definition of 'unitarianism' (small 'u') is the monotheistic belief system of someone not directly associated with the Unitarian movement, almost always applied to a person from the Christian tradition, as the word was coined .. Can someone identify who wrote this letter to the editor? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Identified below, Essex Street Chapel Information Officer.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

For the information of passers-by: Essex Street Chapel, aka Essex Hall, is the headquarters for British Unitarianism. So this letter-writer would be a paid employee of the denomination. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo, please supply refs.

Donbodo, these are your edits: "such as Original Sin and predestination (from 1600)[citation needed], and later biblical inerrancy (from the 1850s).[citation needed] "- please supply refs. Don't just delete the [citation needed] tags, supply refs please. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I had references there, which you deleted.--Donbodo (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo

I did not, I moved your use of Melton back to where it was. Move isn't delete. Very very unlikely I would ever delete a relevant ref. I had been asking for so long I didn't notice that you had added the Robinson one which supports 2 of 3 (from 1600s) but I didn't delete it, The Robinson reference is still here after my restore of the content you deleted. As for the Hungarian one (also good) you just added this.

Why did remove the tag after "Unitarianism is also known for... the rejection of biblical inerrancy"? I specifically asked you not to respond to requests for references by deleting tags.

Do you intend to provide a reference for this?

Or are you just going to act unilaterally?

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Without any justification, you replaced my actual citations for Original Sin and predestination with a [citation needed] tag. So the references are now back. However, I will restore the one after biblical inerrancy. As I said above, I will provide a reference for it, if you just be a little patient. Maybe if you didn't start four different conversations here, you wouldn't be missing all of my comments. (Oh, and if move isn't delete then why did you call my moves deletions?)--Donbodo (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo

To be frank given the daily routine of deletion of tags, and restoring tags, I actually didn't notice that this time you'd added refs at the end of the sentence. Which is fair enough, that's where refs can be added other than in lists.

Re. >As I said above, I will provide a reference for it, if you just be a little patient.< Sorry, but that's not how tags work. We don't first delete the tag then go looking for something and say "be patient". A tag remains in the text until a citation comes - which may be from any Wikipedia user, it doesn't have to be from yourself.

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by patience. I meant please don't delete the claim.--Donbodo (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Generally it seems a statement that is tagged can be given a month at least even if discussion/editing is active. Thank you for having reverted your delete of the tag.

Why did you delete Sue Baugh? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That was just a casualty of the undo. You can put her back in if you like.--Donbodo (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should do it, if you made a mistake.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of grammar/spelling reference

Donbodo, deleting REF L. Sue Baugh Essentials of English Grammar: A Practical Guide to the Mastery of English (9780844258218) Second Edition 1994 p59 "Religious Names and Terms: The names of all religions, denominations, and local groups are capitalized." REF does not change that in English grammar, as the book says, "Religious Names and Terms: The names of all religions, denominations, and local groups are capitalized." In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)* Melton "The word unitarian means one who believes" the unitarian is in italics and small caps as a dict entry.

Donbodo, your deletion of Sue Baugh's is still deleted I note.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you read the full context of Matthew F Smith's 1994 letter to World Faiths Encounter magazine:

Letter to the Editor p70

— In an otherwise excellent article by Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, 'Sikh Spirit in an Age of Plurality' (No. 6, Nov. 1993), the writer makes a number of pejorative remarks about 'unitarianism', associating the term with a striving for a monolithic polity and reductionism to a common denominator. This is a very unfortunate misuse of the word. A correct definition of 'unitarianism' (small 'u') is the monotheistic belief system of someone not directly associated with the Unitarian movement, almost always applied to a person from the Christian tradition, as the word was coined in distinction to the orthodox 'Trinitarian' doctrine of Christianity. 'Unitarians' (capital 'U') are, of course, those who follow the Unitarian approach to religion and are formally associated with the movement. In neither case can it be claimed that there is an underlying agenda towards reductionism and uniformity. Quite the reverse, in fact. Modern Unitarianism is remarkable among religions in not only welcoming the variety of faiths that there are to be found but also, as a creedless church, welcoming and encouraging acceptance of the same. We readily accept that not all our members are 'realist' theists, for example. Our long-standing commitment to interfaith understanding, evident in our practical support of the International Association for Religious Freedom, the World Cogress of Faiths and the newly-established International Interfaith centre in Oxford cannot be taken to mean that Unitarians are seeking the creation of a single world religion out of the old. I do not know a single Unitarian who believes or seeks that. On the contrary, we reject uniformity and cherish instead the highest degree of spiritual integrity, both of the existing religious traditions of the world and of religious persons as unique, thinking individuals. Matthew F Smith, Information Officer (Unitarian Church Headquarters, UK)

Now, do you read that the then Information Officer of Unitarian Church headquarters at Essex Street Chapel in 1994 was arguing that someone who belongs to the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches (GAUFCC) is a "U"nitarian capital "U", and that Henry Hedworth was a "u"nitarian, small "u" because he lived before 1744? Or that Fausto Sozzini, Johannes Crell, Jonasz Szlichtyng, Johann Ludwig von Wolzogen, and Samuel Przypkowski, are "u"nitarians because they weren't English/American as you have been arguing? ...He appears to me to be saying that Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia in 'Sikh Spirit in an Age of Plurality' (No. 6, Nov. 1993),is using "unitarianism" in some kind of political sense (where it is true that it would be "u"), wheras Smith seems to see "unitarianism" of non-Christian monotheism, such perhaps as of Swami Vivekananda and Arya Samaj. I'm not sure Smith is right, it would depend on what Ahluwalia wrote about Sikh monotheism in the earlier article, but that's not the point GAUFCC isn't claiming private ownership of capital "U", and he also isn't contradicting Sue Baugh Essentials of English Grammar: A Practical Guide to the Mastery of English (9780844258218) Second Edition 1994 p59 "Religious Names and Terms: The names of all religions', denominations, and local groups are capitalized."

Will you now please remove this Wikipedia:Original research about "u"nitarians and "U"nitarians from the article. Or I will have to place a POV tag on the entire article and an Original Research tag on the "u" "U" section. Once that's on it can't be removed without consensus of editors.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2011(UTC)

The statement in the letter that "a correct definition of 'unitarianism' (small 'u') is the monotheistic belief system of someone not directly associated with the Unitarian movement, almost always applied to a person from the Christian tradition" and that "'Unitarians' (capital 'U') are, of course, those who follow the Unitarian approach to religion and are formally associated with the movement" was just as true one hundred years ago as it is today. Surely you see that.--Donbodo (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo

Okay, well ultimately I'm going to restore the grammar book ref and add the full text ref of Matthew Smith's letter. But to help me understand your edit position, can we clarify. Per above, according to your understanding of the GAUFCC letter:

A. Was Henry Hedworth a "u"nitarian or "U"nitarian?

B. Was Fausto Sozzini a "u"nitarian or "U"nitarian?

C. Were Robert Spears and Samuel Sharpe "u"nitarians or "U"nitarians?

D. Is Sir Anthony Buzzard, 3rd Baronet a "u"nitarian or "U"nitarian?

E. Are Unitarian Universalists "u"nitarians or "U"nitarians?

F. Was Swami Vivekananda a "u"nitarian or "U"nitarian?

G. Are the Wahhabi al-Muwahhidun "u"nitarians or "U"nitarians?

H. Was General Juan Lavalle (Argentina) a "u"nitarian or "U"nitarian?

I. Was Heinrich Schliemann (Homer) a "u"nitarian or "U"nitarian?

Thanks

In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If we are only using Unitarian and unitarian in the Christian sense, then all of them are small u's except for E-I, all of which are neither. There, of course, are exceptions to E. (i.e., members of the UUCF), but as we know, most Unitarian Universalists aren't Christian.--Donbodo (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A.-D. are small "u"? Apart from the grammatical issue (no such use of small caps for religion) That is historical nonsense and, to my mind at least shows an exclusive and intolerant rewriting of history and English grammar. But there probably isn't going to be any progress here while you are convinced that your personal view of history/grammar/"U"nitarianism is the "true" history/grammar/Unitarianism. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hedworth was a Dissenter and existed before the Unitarian denomination in England came into existence. Sozzini was a member of the Polish Brethren. I made a mistake on Spears and Sharpe--they were Unitarians. Buzzard is a member of the Church of God General Conference.--Donbodo (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it's impossible for Unitarianism to exist outside the boundaries of membership of a church legally registered as "Unitarian Church of ____"? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the "u" is to be capitalized when it is a proper noun or adjective, rather than a common noun or adjective. A proper noun in this case is the name of a religious movement. One need not be a member of a Unitarian Church to be in this movement, but a person not in the movement, who simply had a belief in the single personhood of God would be a unitarian (common adjective), not a Unitarian (proper adjective).--Donbodo (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo

Okay, but this is an opinion; an opinion is not a source. How can you test your opinion with sources? For example, what percentage of academic sources call John Biddle (Unitarian) a "u"nitarian, and what percentage call John Biddle a "U"nitarian?

• The four major Unitarian historians, Robert Wallace (1850), Alexander Gordon Earl Morse Wilbur and George Huntston Williams all call Biddle a "U"nitarian.
• Donbodo, a Wikipedia editor, says Biddle was a "u"nitarian.

The article should reflect the view and usage of Robert Wallace, Alexander Gordon Earl Morse Wilbur and George Huntston Williams. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

PS - please note Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

Capitalization rules are not my opinion. It is pure, straight-up, unadulterated English grammar. Read ANY grammar, and you will see that proper nouns are to be capitalized. All historical movements are proper nouns. I don't feel I should be your grammar teacher. Just go look it up. As far as Biddle goes, the question is whether he was part of the Unitarian movement. An argument can be made that he was, and an argument can be made that he wasn't. It all depends on whether the movement began at the moment the Unitarian Church was formed or before. I am inclined to think he and Hedworth were proto-Unitarians, and that is why, when you asked me my opinion, I told you small "u." But yes, that is my opinion. If you refer to Biddle or Hedworth as Unitarians in the article, I won't protest, because they laid the foundation of the Unitarian movement.--209.129.16.78 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If ANY grammar then you should be able to provide at least 1 citation. The only citation from ONE grammar at the moment says "Religion" should be capitalised. Unitarian / Unitarianism are religions like Protestant / Protestantism - your opinion above is an opinion with no support from grammar books, no support from Robert Wallace, Alexander Gordon, Earl Morse Wilbur and George Huntston Williams, just a reflection of your opinion that a Unitarian who doesn't hold a membership card of a Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship and Unitarian Christian Association isn't a Unitarian, but is a "u"nitarian, which seems to be reserved for non-religious uses. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of the fact that rules of capitalization have changed and evolved over time. And rules of capitalization often also differ between publishing houses as well. Correctness of grammar and style is not determined by precedent. It is governed according to present rules.--Donbodo (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)