Talk:Unarius Academy of Science

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Unarius Academy of Science be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Information added

Okay that quote is a tad unprofessional, although it's genuinely a description at a book site, but I'm at times fascinated by eccentric subcultures. Maybe a professional job on this one can be done.--T. Anthony 09:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought twice about adding this. It may be deemed as irrelevant. Ideocentric RoyBot 69.248.43.27 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. It's from an actual book and everything. Although the quote might be copyvio.--T. Anthony 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it state in the article that this is a cult. I suspect the author is a cult member themselves, and this is a bias representation.--Senhuan (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (as he appeared as a form of Jehovah) told me that if ever the channels of communication were to evolve into the form intended, this particular file must be updated to full form by those chosen by the creator at the time of creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.173.206 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article requires major cleanup

This article takes extremely implausible claims from the unariun doctrine and presents them as fact. Furthermore, the article contains unsourced assertions which are highly improbable. Furthermore, the "criticism" section of the article contains only some remarks about the clothing of the founder, and does not mention the sociological studies which have focused on this particular group.

I intend to make a few changes presently.Twerges (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a criticism section for this article? --Enwilson (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed assertion

I removed an unsourced assertion from the introduction that this group has 100,000 members.

The claim seems extremely unlikely to me. I went to their website and it looked as if they cannot even afford to hire a single competent web designer.

Groups such as these are prone to exaggerate their membership drastically. Unless some serious evidence for the assertion can be found, it must be omitted.Twerges (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

This article is filled with material that's far below the standards of a scholarly encyclopedia. It appears that the article was written by an adherent of this group, without any input from anyone else.

When I attempted to make some changes, all of the changes were reverted, without discussion. The reversions constituted edit warring.

Do not "undo" any further without adding to discussion first.Twerges (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 members?

I have again removed the claim that the group has 100,000 practicing members. There was no source for that claim. As per WP:proveit, there must be a source for that claim or it will be removed.

My prior edit was reverted, with the comment that the group had been "on tv for 30 years", which is not relevant to the wikipedia criteria of reliability and frankly does not make the claim seem any more plausible. I realize that the group has purchased local public-access air time on occasion. But that does not demonstrate that the group is large, well-funded, or popular; and it certainly doesn't demonstrate that the group has 100,000 members.

There was also the comments that I had not provided a more reliable figure to replace the one I had removed. I obviously cannot provide more reliable figures since this group is obscure and reliable figures do not exist. But, I am not required by wikipedia policy to provide reliable figures before removing fanciful ones.

If you can find some wikipedia policy which allows fanciful figures to be presented in lieu reliable information, then present that WP policy here. Otherwise, abide by WP:proveit. Twerges (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps with notability and sources

These guys were a subject of The Unexplained documentary "UFO Cults": [1] --Niemti (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a documentary called Children of the Stars and this might be a helpful source also. There's a biography of Ruth at the beginning talking about her poverty-stricken childhood and first two (bad) marriages. I think the in-house film re-enactments of alleged adventures on other planets should be talked about more. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Reliable Sources

Hi there, I'll see if I can supply some WP:RS for this entry. There's one main scholar of Unarius: Diana Tumminia, an article by Saliba, and a few other items, as far as I can see. There's a problem of repetition in the article and a lack of order in this respect, so I'll see how it goes.Jyddcc (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Jyddcc[reply]

I'm adding a few WP:RS bits that kind of overlap with present text, altho I haven't added much yet. This means that someone could go through later and delete any bits of more or less redundant info that isn't WP:RS.Jyddcc (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding more as I get thru it. Basically it can be used to replace material that's not WP:RS, thereby saving the article if this question comes up. I'm not sure whether I should delete the non WP:RS stuff myself or not. Jyddcc (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the end of Unarius. It’s an easy job to go thru and delete non WP:RS contributions where appropriate. By checking the footnotes. Tumminia, for example, has studied Unarius in depth – she was a member sociologist for over 10 years for research purposes, and was given access to its voluminous records – and any facts: dates, events, etc, she supplies are likely to be correct. Meaning that any alternate info could be safely deleted.Jyddcc (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven's Gate Incident

It seems like the group became very popular after the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, because some people thought they held similar beliefs (i.e., relating to alien communication). One of the key people in the group, Ruth Norman, her wiki page mentions the Heaven's Gate incident. And I have also found some sources here: Introduction to Collective Behavior and Collective Action: Third Edition, By David L. Miller. It looks like the incident is (seemingly?) limited to Unarius condemning Heaven's Gate's actions, as well as releasing a number of interviews and videos on it, where they are similarly condemning. But it seems like it should be included? I didn't want to add it if there had been a reasonable basis for excluding this info. Uprisingengineer (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor passing by

After copyediting this article, I think it would benefit from being reordered, with some sections being integrated as subsections under §History. They include: The 1970s, Schism, The 1980s, The 1990s, and 2001. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First- Hand Outsider Report

As an outsider w/ first- hand knowledge OF The Unarians, from having happened to be at one of their annual re- enactments of their creation myth, I can tell you that most of the supposed "scientific" aspects of Unarianism are added; for what reason, I don't know. Their main belief is that our reality was originally created by humanoid beings who traveled here, from 12 other galaxies, in space vehicles. At the re- enactment I attended, only 7 of the 12 beings were represented. They were dressed in costumes. Each one was in, or near to, a replica of the space vehicle they claimed brought them to this reality. The other 5 beings were, apparently, stuck in traffic on The 8. 174.250.212.180 (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unarius settled in El Cajon, not in Escondido, right?

In the 5th paragraph of the Early Years Section it states that Unarius "moved to different cities in California before settling in Escondido." But I'm almost certain that this is wrong. It moved to El Cajon, CA in the 1970s and then also bought 67 acres of land in the Jamul area, which is a small rural town just southeast of El Cajon. I have lived in both Escondido and El Cajon and I'm almost certain that Unarius never had any kind of headquarters in Escondido. So if I'm right about this then this ought to be corrected. But I didn't correct it immediately on the off-chance that Unarius may have had some connection with Escondido in the early 70s. If anyone has any information about this, one way or the other, please post it here. If I don't hear that Unarius was in Escondido within the next month or so, I will go ahead and make this correction. (Or if someone is absolutely certain that Unarius never was headquartered in Escondido, please go ahead and change it yourself.) Thanks. Radphilosophe1 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]