Talk:Unitarianism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

By the way

What is the major/main Unitarian Church in USA, Canada, Australia today? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one anymore. It has divided into factions.--Donbodo (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the major/main faction in USA, Canada, Australia today? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking me because you need to know, or because you are trying to test me in some way?--Donbodo (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking this question to make sure the article is representative. You don't have to be the only one to answer - it'd be good to check what is (or maybe are) the major/main factions in USA, Canada, Australia today, that's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say the UUCF is the main group in the US and the UCA in the UK.--Donbodo (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship and Unitarian Christian Association, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm reluctant to jump in, but since other views were explicitly asked for...The question was about USA, Canada, Australia, and the answer was about USA and UK. If the UK is under discussion, I think it's worth pointing out that "the major/main Unitarian Church" is the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. This is such a mouthful that very few people actually say it -- most of them call themselves and their churches Unitarian. For proof of this, have a listen to the BBC interview with the new president, Ann Peart. It's circa 36 minutes in, and the clip will be available only a few more days. She specifically addresses the name of the denomination. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi BrainyBabe, thanks for the link, unfortunately it's already gone. I appreciate your reluctance, but also appreciate your jumping in. I would also have thought General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches was "the major/main Unitarian Church" in UK. I'd like your input on your reading of Matthew Smith of Essex Street Chapel's 1994 letter above (not that it's a grammar, but it does come from an official source). Seems to me that Matthew Smith is using "Unitarian" for Christian-derived Unitarianism, "unitarian" for non-Christian-derived usage, and not saying that individuals with Unitarian beliefs outside formal membership of GAUFCC are small "u" "u"nitarian. What's your reading? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As we all know, the word "U/unitarian" is used in many ways. This article concerns Unitarianism as a theological movement, not as a church. Sometimes the theological movement and the church are identical and sometimes not. Recall the paragraph that begins: "The term Unitarian is sometimes applied to those who belong to a Unitarian church but who do not hold a Unitarian theological belief. In the past, the vast majority of members of Unitarian churches were Unitarians also in belief. Over time, however, some Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists moved away from the traditional Christian roots of Unitarianism...." When the theology disappears, there is no more Unitarianism (in the sense that is discussed here)--Donbodo (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My two cents

Since I've been asked. But with extreme reluctance. Two areas under discussion: grammar and focus.

Grammar

Lots of reference books could be cited. For the sake of simplicity, let's start with, and stick with, Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The relevant section, on "Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents", reads:

Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter. Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name. For example, Islam, Christianity, Catholic, Pentecostalist and Calvinist are capitalized, while evangelicalism and fundamentalism are not.

Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party (each party name being a proper noun). Even so, watch for idiom: Platonic ideas, or even Ideas, as a combination of proper nouns, but platonic love. Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin or transubstantiation.

The question then is, when do the "unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies" within Christianity become sufficiently established to warrant capitalisation? When did unitarianism morph into Unitarianism, according to the rules of Wikipedia? I am not going to offer an opinion on that, not now at any rate.

The current organised religion in Britain generally refer to themselves as "the Unitarians". You can see this usage throughout the denomination's website here.

(Backed up by an interview with the president. I'm sorry you had trouble with the BBC audio clip I provided above. It was broadcast on 2 May; iPlayer usually makes items available for at least a week. I can still play it without difficulty. Audio interviews are sadly without capital letters; the following is my transcript.

Ann Peart, new President of GAUFCC: "The Unitarian churches come from the liberal or radical end of Christianity...We now include people who believe things which would not necessarily be Christian..."

Interviewer asks how the terms "Unitarianism" and "Free Christian Churches" relate to each other.

AP: "Most of us just now call ourselves Unitarians.")

The wider question is much bigger. I raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group a few months ago. I consider many of these articles top-heavy with history, such that they poorly serve a reader searching for information. I think this article should reflect current reality, whatever that is. It should certainly include a section on history, as a good brief summary, with a pointer to History of Unitarianism. Energy could be put into improving that article too. In other words:

Focus

What should this article really be about? I found this instructive, from Wikipedia:Writing better articles:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully.

Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and metalanguage, linked to articles explaining the metalanguage, are appropriate. An article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article.

Unitarianism, to my mind, is a central article, some would say "top level". I think it should be for the layperson, not theologians or historians. It should answer the questions the average reader has. If you accept this as a determinant of the focus of the article, our challenge, then, is to find out what those questions are. The only way I can think of -- and I hope there are others -- is to look at readers' click-through patterns. How many come here, and go to DAB, or back to the search box, and try again? If we did change the article to make it more in line with current uses of the word, and moved most of the history away, could we quantitatively compare whether that version better serves its readers?

This is already too long ("but I had not time to make it shorter"). I would just draw your attention to Wikipedia:Content forking, which says that not all forks are bad; and Wikipedia:Due weight (now subsumed within NPOV), which is not just about viewpoints but also aspects of a subject. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BrainyBabe, then by Wikipedia Manual of Style, Earl Morse Wilbur and other historians of Unitarianism are correct to use to capital U to describe the Polish, Hungarian and Dutch founders of Unitarianism. I personally think weight in this umbrella article is about right, it'd be the exclusivity which might be a problem.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How did you get that out of it? I think you had better read it again. The name of the organized religion of the Polish unitarians was The Polish Brethren, and so according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, "Polish Brethren" should be capitalized. Their belief in the single personhood of God was a 'philosophy, theory, doctrine, and system of thought." As such it should not be capitalized. The unitarians in Holland did not have their own organized religion until after England did. They could be found chiefly among the Remonstrants. So no capitalization until their religion became organized. The unitarianism held by those in Holland in earlier times was a 'philosophy, theory, doctrine, and system of thought." As such, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it should not be capitalized. Right, BrainyBabe? (By the way, because it says, "Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin or transubstantiation," I am going to uncapitalize Original Sin in the lede.)--Donbodo (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I am reluctant to get embroiled in anything, but having tweaked the lede, I feel I ought to stand up for the general, non-religious (or at any rate non-Christian) reader. I think the word "nontrinitarian" is too technical for the first sentence. The non-specialist person is faced with an offputting need to parse this: what is a trinitarian and why is this group against them? The lack of the capital letter makes it even less intuitive. I think it should say something like "Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity", with wikilink and immediate gloss. Likewise, the word "subsist" is not in general use in that meaning. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of religion, and the lede should be as easy to understand as possible. Good advice from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section): "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." BrainyBabe (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi BrainyBabe. I see Donbodo has reverted part of your changes here. Just on one point though I think the word nontrinitarian is unavoidable. Anyone who doesn't know what it means can click it, and should click it before reading an article on Unitarianism. That said, as the main article in the category, it should be readable. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of nontrinitarianism is essential to a discussion of unitarianism, but the word is not. That is what the pipe trick is for. I completely disagree with the suggestion that readers who don't understand the word should click away from this article in the very first sentence. Our job as editors, in my view, is to create a lede which gives them no need to do so, i.e. one that is entirely easy to comprehend. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sold: "Christians who do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason it needs to be in the first sentence is because Unitarianism is a subdivision of that larger group. For example, let's say the article was on a specific political organization within the Democratic party. Don't you think that should be said at the outset? If, instead, we simply gave the definition of "Democrat" in the first sentence, that would cause confusion and make it seem as if the specific group was identical with Democrats. Same here. Unitarians are not identical with nontrinitarians, but are only one branch of that larger group. So if we simply put the definition of nontrinitarianism in the first sentence, this would cause confusion. --Donbodo (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the first two sentences as they now stand are:

Unitarianism is a specific type of nontrinitarian Christian theology. It is nontrinitarian in that it holds that God is only one person, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (God subsisting as three persons).

I would prefer the ideas to be laid out something like this (although I'm not satisfied with my proposed wording):

Unitarianism is a religion which holds that God is one, that is, a unity, and not, as most branches of Christianity believe, three in one, that is, a Trinity. Hence, Unitarianism is one form of non-Trinitarianism.

That's a start, at any rate. Thoughts? BrainyBabe (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to work with you on this Brainy Babe, but we need to use the word "theology" instead of "religion." I am also not sure why explaining "nontrinitarian" in the second sentence isn't good enough. Usually in conversation, we always introduce a word first and then give its meaning. Moreover, if someone used the word nontrinitarian, and I had never heard it before, I would immediately know what it meant. Wouldn't you? If you know what the word "Trinity" means, then nontrinitarian is easy. I would caution against reducing the grade reading-level of the article too much.--Donbodo (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about this, and the more I read around related articles such as History of Unitarianism and General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches (which is far too heavy on history), the more I think that all of them need a substantial rewrite. I am considering creating a new article on History of Unitarianism in Britain, to hive off material. Any objections? Would anyone like to join me? I'll propose this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. On the word "nontrinitarian", as I said at the top of this discussion, no, I do not consider it easy to understand if the Trinity is not a significant part of one's mental furniture. It's all very well for a Christian to see the word as intuitive; I am working on the assumption that a large proportion of those reading this article will not be Christians, and the lede especially must take this into account. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But please keep in mind that it is impossible to explain everything in one sentence. The second sentence is still part of the lede. In fact, the whole first paragraph is the lede.--Donbodo (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The lede is everything before the table of contents; at the moment this is longer than it should be (four paragraphs is the maximum suggested). I'll concentrate the discussion of my proposed new article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. For the wording of the lede here, I think it doesn't help someone new to the subject to be faced with unfamiliar words in the very first sentence. Lets get back to specific proposals of wording. Can you suggest an alternative to what I have above? One problem is that Unitarianism is a religion, in Britain and other European countries. In England UUism doesn't exist. "He's a Catholic." "She's a Unitarian." "They're Quakers." The word is used far more often to identify people and places of worship (Unitarian churches, of which there are about 180) than to discuss theology, so it seems likely that a substantial proportion of those readers looking up the word will be seeking info on the current religion. And then there are the historical roots too, of course, which again will be an important [=frequent] subject of search. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I also add that it's totally possible that members belonging to Unitarian Churches can, now at least, believe in the trinity and are free to do so. There's no reason why they couldn't and we shouldn't use the term 'Unitarian' as currently understood. We have to make sure the term Unitarian isn't trapped in historical usage from the outset and ends up skewing what it means in the here and now. ZippieLips (talk 15:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also say its not helpful to say UU'ism doesn't exist in the UK. Its true that individual congregations are not affiliated to the UUA but the theological outlook and trends are very similar and continue to shift. The brand name of UU is growing, there is one congregation in the UK with this in its title already, and the trend of new congregations in Europe and elsewhere is to adopt this same trend. ZippieLips (talk 16:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you provide sources for this? Remember the standard of Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the lede is too long, but it is that long for the very reasons you cite. There are so many uses of the word "Unitarian," that there needs to be an explanation of what this article is about. It is about the theology known as Unitarianism. Hence the -ism. So that is why there are redirections at the beginning. The lede used to be shorter, but as more people come to this page revealing other uses of the name, the lede gets longer. I am open to suggestion as to how it might be shortened. The problem I noticed, however, is that moving the redirections to lower in the article causes mass confusion. And lastly let me say that, considering that it takes four paragraphs to make things clear, how impossible it would be to explain everything in the first sentence.--132.239.205.84 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I am the one who undid your revision of the lede. I thought we had this issue resolved, but apparently not. This article is about Unitarianism not nontrinitarianism. You want to put the definition of the latter as the definition of the former. The lede must show the distinction between the two. --Donbodo (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Donbodo. Unitarianism (both conservative and liberal), Arianism (both conservative and liberal), Sabellianism (both conservative and liberal) etc. are types of Christology, subsets of Nontrinitarianism. That's a different issue from your proposal to insert/define that all Unitarians are automatically liberals. Historically they weren't by most modern definitions of "liberal". And it may well be that a minority of Unitarians today are not also. So you'd either need the word "today" or you'd need a source that says "All Unitarians from the days of Ferenc Dávid, Mihály Lombard de Szentábrahám were always liberals", and then a source to make clear what liberalism meant back then.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Christologies are Trinitarianism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Socinianism, etc. But Unitrianism is far more than a Christology.--Donbodo (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added in Encyclopedia of Protestantism 2005, as source. Removed "liberal". And added "Since Joseph Priestley" - seeing as some if not all early Unitarians pre-Joseph Priestley believed the things the sentence says they didn't.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph defines Unitarianism as it is, not as it was.--Donbodo (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, I write to suggest a reworking of the lead. The first problem with the current version: as it stands, the introduction focuses mainly on explaining what Unitarian Christianity isn't, as opposed to what it is. Secondly, the last part (the claim that Unitarianism reject "widely held Christian beliefs such as original sin, etc) is not true, especially of all Unitarians. As discussed in the Other Beliefs section, Unitarians hold a wide variety of views on other orthodox Christian concepts. The one thing all Unitarians do agree upon is that God is a singular entity, separate from and greater than Jesus Christ. As such, I would suggest rewriting the lead to focus on that, and adding a bit of history. My specific suggested new lead:

"Unitarianism is a Christian theology holding that God is a single person, separate from and greater than Jesus Christ. It stands in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (God as three persons in one), and resembles monotheistic conceptions of God followed in Judaism and Islam.

Unitarianism, both as a theology and as a denominational family of churches, was first defined and developed in England and America in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, although theological ancestors are to be found in the Protestant Reformation and even as far back as the early days of Christianity. It matured and reached its classical form in the mid-1800s."

If anyone has any critiques/thoughts/etc, do share! Thanks. Dmalveaux (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dmalveaux. Please see the extended discussions below. There has been some disagreement as to whether this article should be about unitarianism as a common noun referring simply to a belief or to Unitarianism as a proper noun referring to a theological movement. This would have a direct bearing on your recommendation.--Donbodo (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing a redirect

At the moment, Unitarian goes to a disambiguation page, which seems quite helpful, but Unitarians redirects to this article. That doesn't seem right to me. I propose changing it, so that typing "Unitarians" into the search box would give a reader the same result as "Unitarian", i.e. a chance to decide what they really want to read. If no one objects within 48 hours, I'll make the change. (Normally I would WP:BE BOLD, but in the current climate am cautious instead.) BrainyBabe (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Donbodo (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New eyes and voices

I have requested help at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group page, but they are not very active, so I don't have any great expectations. If you can think of more places to request the assistance and perspective of other editors, that would be good. In addition, User:Dmalveaux has left some comments towards the top of this page. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Freeze the lede until the article is sorted

I propose that we agree not to edit the lede until the article itself is improved. This does not in any way mean that I, or anyone reading this, is happy with the lede as it now stands. But see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), especially:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible....In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. ...Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar.

It is not productive to write the lede and then try to make the rest of the article conform to it. The article needs to be improved first, and then the lede can summarise it. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to just freeze something as important as the lead, especially when no one is satisfied with it. Better to try to improve it to the extent possible. I'd welcome some specific thoughts on the edits I would like to make to it! If no one has a problem with them, I'd like to start making the suggested changes piecemeal. Thanks! Dmalveaux (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dmalveaux. Did you see my comments to you above? --Donbodo (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), there is Wikipedia:Writing better articles. The lede exists to summarise and introduce the article. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious denomination

Inasmuch as the word that is the title of this article refers to not only a specific theology but also an existing church, it might be helpful to read Religious denomination, to see different ways of handling the balance between history and present. For example:

Reform Judaism

Vaishnavism

Sunni Islam

give a wider perspective. Christian denomination may also be of use. And there are dozens of Featured Articles about religion. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brainy Babe. At one time it made sense to me that this article should refer explicitly and exclusively to the Unitarian theological movement and that common unitarianism (belief in the single personhood of God) should be discussed in the article on Nontrinitarianism. This was because I saw Nontrinitarianism (rejection of the Trinity) and unitarianism (belief in the single personhood of God) as identical. However, technically I suppose it could be said that Nontrinitarianism includes both unitarianism and binitarianism (belief in two persons as one God). If binitarianism has its own page, it now seems as if unitarianism (in the common sense) should also have its own page, and that page should be this one. So do you think we should retool this page to include BOTH unitarianism (in the common sense) and Unitarianism (as a historical movement)? The article on Vaishnavism might be a good model for this.--Donbodo (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought: it is technically possible to have an article called "unitarianism" (lower case); this can be done with DISPLAYTITLE. Now what would actually suit the reader better? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, Charles. You have the right question, what will serve the reader better? And my question above, how can we best (most accurately and quantitatively) determine what it is that the reader is looking for when typing "U/unitarian/s/ism" into the search box? BrainyBabe (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope the discussion can be more fruitful than that at humanism, at least, which is (IMO) a dreadful warning about inflexible views. If quantitative argument were enough ... Anyway, according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation we are in the second scenario (so-called Rice), with the difference that Unitarianism (disambiguation) is not presently styled according to primary topic. So, a couple of questions: should the dab page reflect the primary topic style? And, independent of that, should lower-case "unitarianism" appear in some form on the dab page? Charles Matthews (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

One concern I have is that, if we decide to make two separate pages, unitarianism (belief) and Unitarianism (theological movement), the latter will get confused for a single denomination. And there may not be significant enough difference between unitarianism (belief) and Unitarianism (theological movement) to justify two separate pages. I just don't know.--Donbodo (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that unitarianism in theology would be quite justified as a somewhat specialist page; I find it hard to believe that there aren't enough sources for it to be written. As I say, there is a gadget to ensure that the page title could be clearly low-case. I'm not a Unitarian by the way, but I have a good friend who is, and I'm pretty clear that "Unitarianism" should have a scope very different from what the theologians make of the lower-case concept. Anyway I see that I'm surrounded by experts here, without being one. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Charles, good to see you here. One problem is "lower case unitarianism" is WP:OR in that it doesn't appear to exist in sources in relation to the Unitarian religion. e.g (at random) J. D. Bowers Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America 2007 p9 "In the classic study Our Unitarian Heritage, Earl Morse Wilbur notes that Unitarianism was a uniquely American faith, a position that has been carried across the breadth of scholarship and reiterated with increasing fervor so that by..." In ictu oculi (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Likewise "lower case protestantism," "lower case methodism," "lower case anglicanism," don't exist either. Unitarianism, like Methodism has simple evolved since it started, that's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I should look in the Oxford English Dictionary to see what citations they have; and the results were not quite what I expected. In the 1780s Joseph Priestley wrote "unitarian"; and he was not alone. On the other hand it seems always to be "Unitarianism". So that seems to be fairly conclusive. And perhaps wikt:Unitarian should take all the strain of other meanings—after all if there is not enough about the lower-case concept to justify an article without a stretch of WP:NOR and WP:SYN, and yet there is a dicdef, then we might consider that linking to the dicdef in its native habitat is the solution. I see I may not be the first to follow this train of reasoning. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unitarianism falls into the same usage category as Adventism, which also refers both to a general belief (the belief in the imminent coming of Christ) as well as to a specific religious movement. I note that there is no Wikipedia article for the former, but there is for the latter.--Donbodo (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What I said about capitalization, by the way, applies only to current usage, not to past usage. It is well known that, in the 1800's and early 1900's, words were capitalized that no longer are. The real question is: When a writer from this period speaks of "Unitarians," is that person using the word as a common noun or a proper noun? When it comes to religious groups, there is an easy way to tell: If the group adopted an official name, and it wasn't "Unitarian," then any use of the word "Unitarian" for themselves is a common noun. As it stands right now, this article is only about Unitarianism used as a proper noun, but I am open to it being opened up to include the common usage as well. However, this needs to be decided before people begin changing the contents of the article. This is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. --Donbodo (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian?

The article claims that Unitarianism is Christian. Please explain. The current citations and sources suggest a rejection of the Trinity and of the divinity of Jesus. Citations and valid references are needed. Grantmidnight (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The citations are there. See, for example, the Smith reference. LadyofShalott 02:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the references suggest only an acceptance of Jesus as a teacher and not his divine nature and mission. This is not what most people consider as Christianity. I suggest the article explain this apparent contradiction further. If you want, this explanation may have a line citation to the Smith source. I will let you make this edit. Grantmidnight (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The primary definition of "Christian" in Merriam-Webster's is: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."--24.161.185.12 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Unitarianism maintains a belief in the God of the Bible. The Old and New Testaments have always been considered its primary texts. For source material, you can consult The Unitarian: a monthly magazine of liberal Christianity; The Unitarian Review; or foundational books like Unitarian Thought. The core "belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" will be readily apparent. The Wikipedia article itself uses the word "Christian" over eighty times. It doesn't, however, draw any real distinction between traditional Unitarians and more modern Unitarian Universalists, but that's a problem with the writing, not the facts. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve, see the fourth paragraph under Capitalization and Usage. --24.161.185.12 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that "Unitarianism" is distinct from "Unitarian Universalism." The former can be defined as non-Trinitarian Protestant Christianity; the later as a pluralistic, ecclectic pursuit of spiritual growth and understanding. It might be helpful to note this distinction in the lede. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"first Unitarians" and "first Unitarian church" Essex St.

I've restored this content to the lede per 2 encyclopedias. I don't believe any member of the British Unitarian Church would have any problem with this, but Unitarians in America and Australia seem to have more of a problem with early Unitarianism being mentioned. We'll see. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The lede is not supposed to be a history lesson (unless the article is about history, which it isn't). You added a statement that the first Unitarians were found in three countries beginning in the 1540's, but your reference mentions only two countries and does not give a date. The History of Unitarianism article clearly shows that the group from Poland who rejected the Trinity were called the Polish Brethren, and they described themselves theologically as "unitario" only after 1600 (and only occasionally, as it was not their official name). Please be careful that your references actually state what you are saying they do. In the meantime, please do not put history lessons in the lede. Those go in the History of Unitarianism article. --Donbodo (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That does seem too dogmatic on the lede. What WP:MOSINTRO says is this: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Which is not the same thing at all. Also, User:Donbodo, you really must use edit summaries. The article's history shows that you are simoply too casual about changes made without justification. This is a serious matter if there is contention. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted, and fixed up the verb tense. To be clear: the use of summary style (WP:SUMMARY) to place History of Unitarianism in its own article does not mean that history is banned from this article, or its lede. There is no requirement to reference everything in the lede right there, as long as it is supported by references within the article.

There seem to be several things wrong with the article, with the "citation needed" superscript in 18 places. I suggest a serious discussion about whether the content of the article as a whole is required. Revert wars are not going to help that; and in fact such neglect of basic content issues is characteristic of articles in which they are going on. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles,

Yes, I agree with those observations. Time would be better spent on improving the article.

Donbodo

The tertiary sources from the encyclopedias were very typical and very easily found. As far as handling historical sources from 1540 to 1850, we should I believe be guided by mainstream Unitarian historiography; Robert Wallace, Alexander Gordon, Earl Morse Wilbur, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the sources are easy to find is irrelevant. If they are not posted in this article, then they do us no good. The fact is, the source you provided does not say anything about the 1540's or the Netherlands. So you must provide a citation supporting your statement, or your statement must be altered. And Charles, by your own admission, "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Since this article does not discuss any of the matter that In Ictu Oculi put in the lede, then clearly it does not belong there.--Donbodo (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't chop logic. It is not true that none of the content is in the rest of the article. The rest of the article, frankly, contains parts that are in a mess; but do contain relevant historical content.

Let's concentrate on improving the article. It is well known how to do this, and it is not by constant reversion. Before reverting any more, please do this: state clearly your issues with the version that is current. Allow some time for these to be addressed. Only when the places where there is actual disgreement on that substantive content that should be in the article have been properly clarified, issue by issue, make tentative changes of version, to illustrate your preferred approach. This is the tried and tested method for narrowing areas under debate to points that can actually be addressed by proper referencing and NPOV. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the statement that only English-speaking Unitarians reject the doctrines of original sin, etc., is false. --Donbodo (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo,

Reverted your edit. The 3 things you've said about all Unitarians aren't all true pre Joseph Priestley. As Charles said, the detail can be mentioned elsewhere in the article cf. The encyclopedia of Protestantism 137 Hans Joachim Hillerbrand - 2004 "The so-called Golden Age of Unitarianism in Transylvania (1540–1571) resulted in a rich production of works both in Hungarian and Latin". In any case your complaint is not the accuracy of the history, but the inclusion of history. The Netherlands was the transit point of Italian/Polish/Hungarian Unitarianism to England, and as such is notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, what I said didn't seem to register in your mind at all. The lede is supposed to summarize what is already in the article. Yet you are putting new information in the lede. Please explain yourself. This is from WP:Lead: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Also, please explain why it is justifiable to include something "notable" without a reference to support it. --Donbodo (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Notability" applies here to topics, not facts. For a given topic, a fact included should be "salient"; and it should be verifiable. If you think something is included in the lede but not in the body of the article, wouldn't it be more constructive to ask for it to be clearly placed in the body? Charles Matthews (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have both asked for it to be moved and moved it myself, but In Ictu Oculi keeps moving it back. It really belongs in the History of Unitarianism article, but he insists on keeping it in the lede. Actually, he has a history of placing material in the wrong sections. --Donbodo (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo,

1. I have deleted "Netherlands". I'm not going to be drawn into the red herring discussion of the inclusion of "Netherlands" in the list of relevant origin countries when I know that your reason for putting a on "Netherlands" is not the historical detail, but your objection to having the Hungarian, Italian and Polish founders of Unitarianism mentioned at all.

2. I have added the above encyclopedia ref on "Hungary" and "1540" in the gaps.

3. I have removed the disputed section to Talk. below: In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You have removed the section that YOU dispute but have kept the section that I dispute. Not exactly a balanced approach. I also asked you to explain why you included material in the lede that is not in the main article, and you did not explain. --Donbodo (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed-tagged rewrite section moved here to Talk, editing needed:

Moved here following mark with rewrite/dispute tags. Probably doesn't belong in the lede in any case.

From the 18th Century onwards English-speaking Unitarianism has also been known for the rejection of several orthodox Protestant doctrines besides the Trinity, ref Joseph Priestley, one of the founders of the Unitarian movement, 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 (Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, Harvard University Press 1952, pp. 302-303). /ref ------ probably true but this doesn't read like Wilbur's style. Are we sure this ref isn't a paraphrase?

• including the soteriological doctrines of original sin
• and predestination, ref From The Catechism of the Hungarian Unitarian Church in Transylvanian Romania: "Unitarians do not teach original sin. We do not believe that through the sin of the first human couple we all became corrupted. It would contradict the love and justice of God to attribute to us the sin of others, because sin is one's own personal action" (Ferencz Jozsef, 20th ed., 1991. Translated from Hungarian by Gyorgy Andrasi, published in The Unitarian Universalist Christian, FALL/WINTER, 1994, Volume 49, Nos.3-4; VII:107). ref ref 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." (D. Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists, Greenwood Press, 1985, pp. 3, 17).
• and biblical inerrancy. ref "Although considering it, on the whole, an inspired book, Unitarians also regard the Bible as coming not only from God, but also from humans.... Unitarians therefore do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, as some other Christians do." (D. Miano, An Explanation of Unitarian Christianity, AUC, 2003, 2007) /ref --- Problem: Present tense ref for past tense statement

Seems to me that this section needs filling out in the article, before partly representative statements in the lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The statements about the doctrines of original sin, predestination, and biblical inerrancy ARE in the main article and therefore it is justifiable, even necessary, to put it in the lede. This cannot be said about the section YOU have included in the lede. And as regard your reasons for dispute, they are no reasons at all: 1) You THINK?? that it is a paraphrase from Wilbur and that is why you have removed it? Why don't you go check it first? I can assure you it is an exact quote. Don't remove a section based on suspicion. 2) The citations for original sin are the same citations for predestination, so the proper references are there, even though the footnote does not immediate follow the words "original sin." This can be seen immediately if a person takes the time to actually read the references. 3) The statement is: "Unitarians ARE known..." That, my friend, is present tense. This article is about what Unitarianism IS. --Donbodo (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo

I'm sorry but (i) I have read Wilbur's book, I'm familiar with his style and I don't believe that is an exact quote from Wilbur, (ii) as the lack of a page number confirms, (iii) in fact the editing history suggests it has slipped from content to ref box. (iv) Moreover there are 2 editions of Wilbur on Google books and neither of them shows the phrase. Plus (v) the adjacent spurious quotes from J. G. Dunn, suggests fakery in this section.

Re the second point - in that case we can specify "modern Unitarians" not "Unitarianism."

In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me your email address, and I will send you an image of the page from Wilbur's book that contains those words exactly as stated. And you may need to get glasses, because the page numbers are listed in the citation (pages 302-303). As far as the quotation from Dunn goes, that was not added by me, but if you feel any quotation is a false quotation, then please show your evidence, and as soon as you show it to be spurious, we can remove it. Until then, leave it alone. Also, the expression "Unitarianism is" automatically denotes present-day Unitarianism, just as "Unitarianism was" would denote past Unitarianism. If one wrote: "Modern Unitarianism is," that would be a redundancy. And again (this is the third time now), you have not provided an explanation as to why you included in the lede something not found in the rest of the article. Lastly, it is inappropriate for you to remove the disputed lead box, as you have done twice now. I dispute what you have included. --Donbodo (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo

Thanks please do, my email address is on my user page.

>"Modern Unitarianism is," that would be a redundancy.<

Why? why shouldn't readers of Wikipedia be allowed to know that the content you have written is not true of historical Unitarianism? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said otherwise. I simply said that the word "is" is present tense and the word "was" is past tense. Changing the tense changes the meaning. Feel free to add whatever verifiable historical material you want either in the history section of this article or on the History of Unitarianism page. But the Wikipedia guidelines are that the lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article, and so no material should be in the lead that isn't in the article. So please move it to the proper location, or, if it is all right with you, I can do it. --Donbodo (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find your email address on your user page. However, I realize I spoke in error above. I did paraphrase Wilbur (that is why there are no quotation marks). His exact words are: "The thesis of Priestly's work...was that the belief of primitive Christianity was Unitarian and that all departures from the faith must be regarded as later 'corruptions.' This thesis he sought to sustain by appealing to the works of early Christian literature, and he applied it not only to the doctrine of Christ and the Trinity, but also to various other orthodox doctrines and usages." My paraphrase, therefore, is accurate.--Donbodo (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, that reads less like a paraphrase.

But as regards putting things in the lede which we know are not true of all Unitarians 1540-2010, and claiming that they are, that's a no-no. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement says, "Unitarians are known for..." rather than "All Unitarians believe...." Keep that in mind. Also, the rejection of the doctrines of original sin and predestination were characteristics of Unitarians in Poland and Transylvania, just as much as England and America. And the rejection of biblical inerrancy was later embraced by Unitarians in all four countries. Nevertheless, because you (one person) dispute this, I will leave the box up that says the point is disputed. --Donbodo (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Donbodo

Actually you are also "(one person)" and judging by Charles' comments above he shares my view that historical Unitarian positions should be given weight. As regards the citation for the third view, well same thing, historically Unitarians weren't known for the third view, for which the source is the webpage of David Miano of the American Unitarian Conference. There are better sources than this, I can think of 2 or 3 which describe in detail the gradual rejection of biblical inerrancy in the Thomas Belsham era. Since this is a historical developement taking palce midway in Unitarian history it shouldn't be placed without qualification in the lede. Do you agree? Is there any reason why this should be misrepresented in the lede?In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am in agreement that the history of Unitarianism should be given weight, so there is no disagreement there. I am fully supportive of that position and always have been. That is why I have never removed the History section from this article, nor have I tried to get the History of Unitarianism article removed, but instead have been promoting it. You, however, are taking this matter to an extreme, because you want to eliminate any references to the beliefs of Unitarians today. The fact of the matter is, Unitarians ARE known for rejecting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and they have been known for this for at least 150 years. It is a factual statement, and it would be inappropriate, according to Wikipedia guidelines, to place the entire history of Unitarian doctrine in the lead. That should go in the History section, and I am sure Charles will back me up on this. The lead is simply a brief summary of what is in the article.--Donbodo (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, everyone, follow the principle "discuss the article not the editor". What is in the lead section should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#relative emphasis. Normally this means boiling down a lengthy article, such as this one, to a three-paragraph "executive summary". I should say that, for any religion, information about its founding, when available, is very much salient information; as is a summary of the teaching, and information about the organizational side. That gives plenty to fill up three paras. What exactly those three paras should contain is easier to say when in possession of a worked-out treatment in the rest of the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But the summary should not misrepresent what is in the article. The two statements about two of characteristic beliefs are broadly correct (it isn't quite so simply given the ongoing debates among Hungarians and Poles but more or less its true), but the inerrancy thing clearly isn't correct - this is a well documented controversy around Belsham's time, and doesn't have to be in the lede if it can't be expressed accurately. It isn't even true of the first generation of the Essex St chapel, nor for many Scottish and Welsh congregations in generations afterward. NB>> you want to eliminate any references to the beliefs of Unitarians today<< Inserting "today" "from 1800" etc. in front of references references to the beliefs of Unitarians today is not eliminating them. On the contrary, this article is weak on the beliefs of Unitarians today, since (apart from in UK) there is not much in the way of sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. --Donbodo (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You did, well done. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Donbodo, these seem basically okay, but I'm a little concerned with the speed and confidence of some of the edits to related history pages Socinianism, Polish Brethren etc. I just reverted an edit per Talk:Ferenc Dávid which imposed 1920s Unitarian belief over a Latin source text. If in doubt, discuss on Talk first please before "modernizing" the beliefs of 16th-17thC individuals. Thanks 02:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Person vs Being

Recently there have been a couple of edits that expressed disagreement with the word "person" to describe what there are three of in the Trinity or what there is one of in the Unity. The Trinity says that there are three hypostases (persons) in one ousia (being). I am perfectly aware that in the minds of many, there really isn't a difference between a person and a being, but in the Trinity there is. Unitarians have rejected the idea that there are three persons in one being and instead argue that God is one person and one being. Hence the "unit" in the word "Unitarian." Because Unitarians developed their Christology in contradistinction to the Trinity, they always have, and could only, use the words "person" and "being" when comparing their beliefs to those of Trinitarians. So if these terms are rejected, then a contrast between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism is no longer possible. I am also aware that in the minds of some a "person" must necessarily be a human. So they have expressed a preference for "being." But if that word is used, then Unitarians are now in agreement with Trinitarians, because Trinitarians also believe that God is one being. No more difference between the two. Anyway, a person does not have to be a human. If we ever meet an intelligent life form from another planet, I am certain we will apply the word "person" to them just as much as to us. --Donbodo (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Unitarianism does not believe in the Trintarian belief of three persons in one God, and that they do not believe that Jesus Christ is God. Shouldn't the definition stating they are under the Christian banner be deleted?? If Unitiarianism doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as True God and Trud Man, then they are not Christian. Betrue2011 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Betrue2011

A Christian is a disciple or follower of Christ. Unitarians are such. --Donbodo (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was recently removed from the list of American Presidents. His inclusion is controversial because he was never a member of a Unitarian congregation, but he did express sympathies in his writings. Unitarians frequently claim him as one of them.

I know that in a letter to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jefferson wrote, "I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. But the popul’n of my neighb’hood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, although I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated." And George Tucker, a professor at the University of Virginia when Jefferson was associated with it, wrote, "In the last years of his life, when questioned by any of his friends on this subject, he used to say he was 'an Unitarian.'" --Mac OS X 07:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Creed

The creed is referenced to Summa Universae Theologiae Christianae secundum Unitarios but that article doesn't depict the content of the document.

As I understand from this and some other articles Unitarianism holds the beliefs below:

• There is only one god.
• Jesus is not a god.
• Jesus is a human being.
• Jesus is a prophet.

What I can't find are those below:

1. Jesus was born via virgin birth (he doesn't have a biological human father) (?)
2. Jesus is not the son of god (?)

Could someone please confirm if the first 4 are true and please indicate the position of Unitarianism for 1 and 2?

It is also necessary to put those information in the article to make it clear about the beliefs of Unitariansim.--98.196.232.128 (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Unitarianism was simpler when it was strictly Socinian, but once American Unitarians came into the picture, Arian belief became a part of Unitarianism. So this means that some Unitarians believe in Jesus as a powerful spirit before and after his human life. Also most Unitarians accept that Jesus was the "Son of God," but they have different opinions as to what that means. Some of them do accept the virgin birth, but I think most do not. --Don Bodo (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If 4 is right, shouldn't Islam also be included as a branch of Unitarianism, probably historically related with Arianism? 41.139.185.58 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Mortran

Of course not. No one classifies Islam as a branch of Unitarianism or vice versa. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unitarianism is Christian, so Jesus, as prophet, is the prophet par excellence, and not Muhammad, as Muslims believe. --Don Bodo (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Unitarianism, and its meaning

There have been a number of edits recently to change the lede, one to eliminate the adjective "Christian" and twice now to change the "bolded name" (which is always the article title) to Unitarian Christianity. I would like to address these edits.

This article is specifically about the set of Christian theological doctrines distinct from Trinitarianism. It is not about the beliefs or doctrines of the Unitarian Universalist Association, nor is it about the broader pan-theological body of thought which has grown out from the UUA. Those other topics are addressed adequately in other articles. We can certainly link to those other articles, but the article itself should retain its current, narrow focus. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Added: I went back to look at this article, and saw that there is a link to the disambiguation page already, right at the top of the article, between the page title and the lede. I would think this is sufficient. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Contrast with Nontrinitarianism

We have separate pages for Unitarianism and Nontrinitarianism. Either they should be merged or the distinction should be made a lot clearer here, considering that the first line contrasts with trinitarianism. The Enlightened (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a great many divergent nontrinitarian theologies, including Arianism (the Son is God, but was created and is not eternal), Sabellianism (the three Persons exist, but are different aspects or modes of a single being) and Adoptionism (Jesus was a mortal until he was elevated to godhood), just to name three of the major ones. Unitarianism is a specific form of nontrinitarianism; like these other forms, unitarianism represents a distinct thread of Christian belief with its own history. I see no reason to combine this article with the other one. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 02:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

I feel this article needs to be moved to something like Unitarianism (Christian Theology). Unitarianism in many countries, such as the UK, refers mainly to the religious movement known as "Unitarian Universalism" in the USA.80.231.172.154 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree Such a move offers no clarification, and any potential confusion is already addressed by the headnote referring to the disambiguation page. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree I am a British Unitarian and it seems very wrong that most people looking up our religion automatically get taken to Christian Unitarianism. Unless one page is clearly dominant, then the disambiguation page should be the first place people are taken to. The Enlightened (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Query I was involved in this page years ago. I agree that the situation, then and now, is not ideal. Is there a way to examine the logs, and see readers' click-trails? There must be some way to measure whether we are making the public's job easier for them or more difficult. Can the average reader quickly find what they were coming for, or do they hop around in despair and confusion? Wikipedia must collect data on this sort of thing. Interpreting it intelligently is another matter. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe there are ways of doing this, but Wikipedia's policy is that the term should go to a disambiguation page unless there is clearly a primary topic Wikipedia:Disambiguation. That does not seem to be the case with the Christian theology. The Enlightened (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree I'm Canadian and Unitarianism means the non-Christian religion here. - 156.109.18.2 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am dead set against the new title "Christian Unitarianism," as it is as redundant as the phrase "Christian Protestantism." The article identifies itself as Unitarianism the theology. Apparently no one here understands what the word "theology" means. It necessarily includes the concept of God. So as a compromise, I suggest "Unitarianism (theology)" as the title. Don Bodo (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I would very much like to see it go back to Unitarianism: the lede does an excellent job of providing context and explanation in the first paragraph. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I also object to this move. Unitarianism has a long history, which is not concluded. (See for just one example, Transylvanian Unitarian Church.) That some people use "unitarianism" as short-hand to mean Unitarian Universalism is just laziness (and I don't mean that as a slight - I do it too sometimes), and laziness is not a good basis to use for deciding article titles. LadyofShalott 03:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The move was made: the question before is whether it should be moved back. I say it should be moved back. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Christian Unitarianism" sounds like an offshoot of UU. This article should be renamed to "Unitarianism" and be the default target for the term. Hatnotes to UU and Nontrinitarianism suffice – as noted above, the text already defines the broader uses of the term very well. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Move

In line with the Be Bold policy, I have moved this article as there was only one objection. The Enlightened (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've put in a WP:BRD at WP:RM, even though I might personally support such a move (undecided) the objections above are reasonable for a bold move of a major article. Typically admins will act on such WP:BRD requests within a couple of hours. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That was too jargony for even me to figure out. :) So, for anyone else who's wondering, the request is at WP:RMTR#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. LadyofShalott 04:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Merci pour la traduction! :) ...and actually after a few minutes thought unlikely to support. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anthony Appleyard. While we're here User Talk:LadyofShalott would help to have 3rd party input on early Polish Unitarian at Talk:Katarzyna Weiglowa please re consensus for changes to lead. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The invitation above is open to anyone BTW. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Unitarianism

This subject has as much place in this article as Unitarian Universalism. Someone recently added a whole new section on Biblical Unitarianism. There is no reason to discuss it in this article, other than to point out that it is not the same as Unitarianism. Biblical Unitarianism has a page of its own already. See WP:IRRELEVANT#Irrelevant_information. [User:Donbodo|Don Bodo] 01:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This I'm afraid reflects Don Bodo's personal view that the tiny churches today still holding on to the beliefs of Unitarians (in the historical sense 1600-1800) shouldn't be counted as Unitarianism because the modern Unitarian Church is not Christian. We've been round this many times before and consensus has always been that just because a modern Unitarian still holds on to the Bible does not bar them from falling under the historical heading Unitarian. Text in this article (and related articles) makes it clear enough already that most modern Unitarian Churches reject the beliefs of historical Unitarianism. It is also not true of the entire world there are still Unitarian Church members in Transylvania who hold, in some degree, to the attachment to the Bible of the founders of the Unitarian Church in Transylvania. Having said that, there is a weight issue, comment on modern [biblicist] Unitarian churches should be in proportion to the fact that they are very small compared to the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches and do not have historical continuity with General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches church buildings organizations etc. [User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi] 03:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Don Bodo's deletion per WP:BRD. Firstly because it was reasonably sourced, secondly because Don Bodo's deletion goes against previous discussion, thirdly because to me it smacks a little of the same sort of problem as with a anti-Mormon editor who recently deleted Mormons from the Godhead article because "Mormonism isn't Christianity" - experienced religion editors like User:Dougweller User:Editor2020 User:John Carter have all in the past reverted such kind of "isn't Christian" edits. This is a "Biblical Unitarism isn't Unitarianism" edit, which I think is tendentious. In the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches it is not unheard of to have some members who to some extent "believe in the Bible" probably as much as some Anglicans, without the liturgy. So I think a bit of tolerance towards Unitarians who define themselves as Christians is required here. It isn't Wikipedia's job to weed people out.

Again WP:WEIGHT is still an issue. s what the word "theology" means. But I'd feel more comfortable with User:TechBear User:LadyofShalott User:The Enlightened User:SteveStrummer or others weeding/trimming/adjusting the section, rather than a wholesale delete as User:Donbodo. [User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi] 03:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What User:In ictu oculi isn't revealing is that we had a lengthy and in-depth discussion about this last year, which he knows very well, and it was decided that Biblical Unitarianism was to have its own page, because it is not the same as Unitarianism. It was also decided that a statement would be made at the beginning of the article that Biblical Unitarianism was a different use of the word Unitarianism and was to be sought elsewhere. He let some time pass and then tried to advance his agenda yet again by adding in promotional material for Biblical Unitarianism--a conservative theology of modern origin (the name is a neologism) with no historical connection to Unitarianism except for borrowings of Christological arguments from Unitarian writers. Robert Spears and Samuel Sharpe, the first to use the term "Biblical Unitarianism" had never been members of the Unitarian movement. Biblical Unitarians have always been separate. I will again point out that Unitarianism, as this article states near the beginning, is a proper noun, not a generic noun that encompasses all non-Trinitarian points of view. Unitarianism is a whole theological system, which includes much more than non-Trinitarianism. Therefore Biblical Unitarianism is irrelevant to this page, and the only reason for its inclusion is to attract people who browse this page to Biblical Unitarianism. It's nothing more than a recruitment tool. [User:Donbodo|Don Bodo] 04:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the section on Biblical Unitarianism, which In ictu oculi restored (and which was entered under "Italy"), does not make any connection to the main article. No reference to Unitarianism proper is provided whatsoever. It's simply a tangent. Relevance must be shown. If Biblical Unitarianism is included here, then for consistency's sake, all non-Trinitarian religious groups should be included. But that would be ridiculous, because this article is not about all non-Trinitarians in the world. WP:Relevance_of_content Don Bodo (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Donbodo, please no need to be nasty, we can disagree but there's no need for WP:PA, it isn't "isn't revealing." Yes there's a page Biblical Unitarianism. Sure per WP:FORK lots of various Unitarian churches and submovements have their own sub-pages under the umbrella. See WP:FORK for the distinction. There should be a { main | Biblical Unitarianism } link on top of the relevant paragraph here.

@LadyofShalott:, I note that the sections are disrupted. 5 Modern Christian Unitarian organizations 5.10 Italy 5.10.1 Biblical Unitarian Movement, etc. Seems a mess which a neutral editor could sort out. [User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi] 04:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@LadyofShalott:, I was not trying to attack anyone. There is a history here, and that is all I was referring to. My apologies to In ictu oculi if I came off as nasty. Please note that Biblical Unitarianism is not a "submovement" or "subgroup" of Unitarianism. It is an unrelated group with a similar name.[User:Donbodo|Don Bodo] 04:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian Unitarian Church of Transylvania

It seems that the doctrines and organization of this church are contrary to the rest of the Unitarians in the world on several issues. For example predestination, apostolic succession, etc.. It seems there should be a sub-section dedicated to the distinct brand of Unitarianism held by the HUCT in contrast to other brands. References to the different brands should not be conflated together and mixed up with difference references throughout the text which ends up creating a non-existent "average Unitarianism" which does not reflect the reality of the various different Unitarian branches. [User:F.Tromble|F.Tromble] 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that this article is about the theological position as distinct from Trinitarianism, and not about specific denominations. If it gives too much weight to the theology of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the answer is to reduce that weight and bring in more varied examples, not to go into irrelevant depths about other churches. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, good idea. A more general discussion of the theological position without going into specific beliefs of various organizations will be much better. So let's remove the references to predestination etc., which really has nothing to do with unitarianism as a theological concept.[User:F.Tromble|F.Tromble] 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Modern Christian Unitarian organizations

In the first sub-section under Unitarianism#Modern Christian Unitarian organizations, "Hungarian and Transylvanian Unitarian Churches", in the first sentence is a parenthetical statement including the clause "which is union with the Unitarian Church in Hungary". My question is: what is "is union with"? I've never heard that phrase before. [User:CorinneSD|CorinneSD] 14:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC) It's just a typo for "is in union with" [User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi] 01:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. I've heard that before. However, I think even that is a bit obscure for the average reader. It would be nice if a verb (or past participle) could be found that would express what is meant. [User:CorinneSD|CorinneSD] 14:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Move (again)

I came on here to look for the modern day religion Unitarianism, and have found it is listed under the American-name for the religion (Unitarian Universalism). In other countries, like the UK, Canada, India, Germany, South Africa, Norway, Denmark etc, it is just called Unitarianism. To avoid being American-centric, I propose this page is moved to Unitarianism (theology) with the default "Unitarian" page being the disambiguation one. That would put both the Christian theology and the modern day religion on an equal footing. I see there was a previous move that was reverted even though the debate seemed to be in favour of moving. [User:Deist12345|Deist12345] 18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Unitarianism is a theological position, contrasting with Trinitarianism. As the hat note on the article points out, Unitarian Universalism is a different article, oddly enough titled Unitarian Universalism. This has been brought up time and again, and the consensus is to keep this article titled as it is: please check the archives. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You did not seem to engage with my points at all. Yes, I understand it is a theological position. That's why I suggested moving it to Unitarianism (theology). Did you not bother to read my comment? Yes, I understand there is a separate article for Unitarian Universalism. That's why I mentioned I found the article under the American name. Again, did you not read my comment? My point was that Unitarian Universalism is known as Unitarianism outside the United States and that it is of equal importance. For that reason I suggest Unitarianism should be a disambiguation page, with equal status for both. You are arguing that the theology article should take precedence over the religion when it comes to the Unitarian term, which you have not justified at all. I have checked the archives and most of the debate seems to have leaned against you the last time this came up, but you moved it back anyway.[User:Deist12345|Deist12345] 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe that Trinitarianism should be moved to Trinitarianism (theology)? Why should the one theology be renamed and not the other? The religion promoted by the Unitarian Universalist Association is Unitarian Universalism: that it is known as "Universalism" for short is beside the point. As for why the theology should have precedence, the theology has been around from Christianity's beginning almost 2000 years ago, while Unitarian Universalism is less than a century old: I dare say that the theology has a significant prior claim to the name. I will again refer you to the archives, conveniently linked at the top right of this Talk page, where you can see past discussions about making the move you are suggesting and why that move was not made. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that Trinitarianism should be moved, because the term trinitarianism does not clash with anything else. One theology article should be renamed and the other should not because one clashes and one does not. Disambiguation decisions on Wikipedia are not done on creating symmetry within a class - e.g. Pluto is just Pluto while Ceres is Ceres (dwarf planet). You are also completely ignorant about the modern religion of Unitarianism. It is not "short for" Unitarian Universalism outside the United States. It is the ACTUAL name of the religion in Europe and in South Africa. The UUA is merely an American organisation for what is an international religion. Unitarian churches in the UK belong the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, for example. I have read the archives and generally it seems to be you overriding everyone else. [User:Deist12345|Deist12345] 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to clean up this article re. universalism

While some denominations such as the Unitarian Universalist Association adhere to both Unitarianism and Universalism, many denominations hold only to one or the other. This article is about the theology of unitarianism, and conflating it with universalism is incorrect. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 08:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is God incarnated, but in order to have a clearer picture of Unitarianism, I think that there's something more that must mentioned in the lede of this article: First, What do Unitarians believe about salvation? Second, What do they therefore think about condemnation/ punishment/ hell? and third, what do they believe about the ministry, teachings and the death of Jesus Christ on the cross? In short, if they say that Jesus was the Son, or a son, what relevance his figure has for them? How do Unitarians perceive Jesus and what does His ministry and death means for them?
Inquire upon these questions in the light of history and you'll have to understand that Unitarianism is sometimes a very broad category. You'll see that thought Unitarianism began as a schism in Christianity, not all Unitarians have considered themselves Christians on their own account. You'll find many that there are Christian Unitarians, who believe that Jesus' death on the cross was a Sacrifice for the salvation of those who believe. But you'll also find many Universalist Unitarians, who believe that Jesus' death on the cross was a Sacrifice for all mankind, including those who do not believe. Yes, a considerable amount of Unitarians adhere to Universalism, so, is it relevant to mention it in a neutral article, or not? And Furthermore, you'll find non-Christian unitarians who believe that Jesus' death was not a sacrifice. These can't be called Christians in the definition of the word, so they overlap with deism and may be refered to as Deistic Unitarians.
What kind of "Unitarian" are we referring to? Who is Jesus for this Unitarian? How does this Unitarian perceive the topic of condemnation/hell? Is it merely a Christian unitarian? Is it a [Christian] Universalist Unitarian, or is it a non-Christian/Deistic Unitarian? These three exist, don't they? If so, let them be mentioned.--[User:Goose friend|Goose friend] 22:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Need for the lead to somehow honestly inform and contrast the new UU theology

This article should either be moved to "Historical Unitarianism" or else somewhere reflect current Unitarianism, which it no longer does.[User:Scottperry|Scott P.] 07:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

After studying the apparent confusion about "true Unitarianism" that I initially found in this article, I now think I understand it a bit better. I believe that this confusion needs to be spoken of "straightly" in the beginning of this article, to spare readers unneccessary confusions of their own. In my humble opinion, the fact that before my most recent edits, the lead of this article did not clearly somehow address the fact that the largest group of people who call themselves Unitarians have nothing in common with the theology described in this article was not helpful and was quite confusing. Back in the 80's, I spent approx. 4 years going to a UU church before I realized that they were primarily atheists, and left. If Wikipedia had been around back then, it would have saved me 4 years!

I have no problem that the Wikipedia article on Unitarianism is reserved for the Christian branch of Unitarianism, which seems right to me, as traditional Unitarianism was always Christian, and the very name itself, "Unitarian", would seem to imply that the theology would indeed revolve around a belief in the "Unity" of God. Still, I feel that the apparently intentional confusion that is seemingly espoused by both UU's and traditional Unitarians, both camp's barely even acknowledging the existence of the other camp, should not be carried over into Wikipedia. After carefully reading through the dialogue above, it becomes clear to me that by far, I was not the only one feeling a need for greater clarity in the article's lead. Before deleting the "clarifications" that I made in my last edit, please explain to me how a "newbie" is supposed to understand from the lead of this article, that this article is actually not about the theology of the largest group of self proclaimed Unitarians, which happen to no longer hold the Unity of God as a key tenet? Please help enable this article to put an end to such confusions, and not to perpetuate them. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unitarianism is a christology. There is no "Christian branch" any more than there is a "Christian branch" of trinitarianism. It has been established through consensus that this article is about the christology, and not about the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Unitarian-Universalist religion, or other such topics. That is why the article hat note is there: to help people looking for something not this article find what they want. If you think this needs to be clarified, let's discuss how it can be clarified. But keep in mind that this article is not about UU and never has been. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I considered myself to be a Unitarian for 4 years, was a member of the largest self-proclaimed Unitarian organization in the country, and during those 4 years believed that I was a follower of "Unitarianism". Later I found out that their "Christology" was non-existent, and left. I feel that you are attempting to claim that the largest group of self proclaimed Unitarians simply does not exist here. This is quite confusing to anyone who first comes to this article, as it was to me when I first came, and as many other editors have noted above.

It is a fact that the theology of the largest group of self proclaimed Unitarians is not at all represented by this article which you want to be titled "Unitarianism". I think we agree on this point. I think it would also be safe to say that this largest group of self proclaimed Unitarians does believe that they have their own "theology", and that they would probably also want to believe that their theology should also be called a "Unitarian" theology. I think we probably agree on this too.

Whether you call UU's a "branch", or an "abortion", they do exist, they do have a theology of their own (which admittedly some might call a theology of atheism), and they consider themselves to be Unitarians too. So then, why not make every effort to steer readers to the article that they wish to read when they first start reading here? Why write this article in such a way as to imply that UU's are an "abortion"? You seem to believe that UU's are a people who call themselves Unitarians, but who have no right to call themselves Unitarians, as you obviously believe that their theology is all screwed up.

Yes, this does pose a difficult question. How can a group which is primarily humanistic/ atheistic, call itself "Unitarian", when the name Unitarian itself would seem to imply a belief in the unity of God? I agree that this article should in some way address that very difficult question, but not by what it does not say, rather I believe it should address that difficult question by what it does say. I have again rewritten the disclaimers in the lead, trying to succinctly acheive that effect. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are conflating unitarianism, the christology, with Unitarian-Universalism. They are not the same thing. This article is about unitarianism, the christology, and not Unitarian-Universalism. There is a separate article for Unitarian-Universalism and that is not this article. What part of this am I not communicating clearly? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating UU Unitarian theology from traditional Christian Unitarian theology

This was posted to my personal talk page as a continuation of the above discussion; I have copied it exactly. Since this is a discussion for editing this article, I would rather it remain part of this article's talk history. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

TechBear,

Unless you can explain to me how the disambiguation I placed in the lead of Unitarianism was "confusing" Christian Unitarian theology with UU Unitarian theology, I will be wanting to place an Rfc on this question. To me your logic still seems confusing. Granted, UU Unitarian theology is different from Christian Unitarian theology, but I cannot understand why you do not want to describe the stark differences in the article's lead, in order to assist those who read the article for the first time, to let them know what they are truly reading about. Merely essentially stating in the lead your obvious personal opinion that Unitarianism = Christian Unitarian Theology, and then implying (but not stating) that UU Unitarians have no theology, seems to me to be quite confusing. I apologize, but unless you could somehow "unconfuse me" about this within the next two days (by Thursday morning), I feel I will have no choice but to call an Rfc to the question. In such an Rfc, I would be additionally be advocating for two more things:

1. Moving the Unitarianism article to "Unitarianism (Traditional Christian)", and
2. Creating another article to be titled "Unitarianism (UU)", which would somehow minimally disambiguate for readers of that page that Humanism/ Atheism is the dominant theology of UU Unitarians.

I would also be placing a notice regarding this discussion at the UU article page, as any decisions about the Unitarianism article itself would obviously have a major impact the page about the largest self proclaimed Unitarian organization, the UU Church. If we could somehow settle this before the RFC, I would "leave good enough alone" regarding the name of that article, and will not advocate for a move . Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Unitarianism has a clearly documented history from the 16th century, and there is evidence that the christology goes back much farther than that. Unitarian Universalism, however, was created in 1961 out of two organizations formed in 1825 and 1866. That is to say, unitarianism is centuries, perhaps millennia, older than Unitarian Universalism. This article is about unitarianism, not about a specific, very new organization that has adopted some elements of unitarianism.

I am not the one confusing unitarianism with UU: I am trying very hard to keep the distinction between them sharp. For starters, there is no such thing as "Christian Unitarian" theology, as that implies there is a non-Christian unitarian theology. By definition, unitarianism is a statement about Jesus' nature and his relationship with God. That a basically non-Christian faith such as UU uses the same word to describe itself is irrelevant, and I believe it to be adequately handled in this article's current hat note: This article is about Unitarianism as a Christian theology. For the liberal religious movement, see Unitarian Universalism. For other uses, see Unitarianism (disambiguation). If this is confusing to you, please explain why and we can work out a compromise.

If you wish to make a Request for Discussion, I would welcome it. It would not be the first time we have had the discussion of painting a very old, well documented belief with the shellac of a young upstart, and I doubt it will be the last time, either. Until that discussion is concluded, I would ask that you respect the current consensus for this article and stop trying to make it all about Unitarian Universalism. TechBear | Talk Contributions 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You wrote:

I am not the one confusing unitarianism with UU: I am trying very hard to keep the distinction between them sharp. For starters, there is no such thing as "Christian Unitarian" theology, as that implies there is a non-Christian unitarian theology.

The UU's would claim to have their own "theology of sorts", a non-Christian theology I suppose, please read: The Theology of Unitarian Universalists.

You wrote:

By definition, unitarianism is a statement about Jesus' nature and his relationship with God. That a basically non-Christian faith such as UU uses the same word to describe itself is irrelevant....

Regarding what UU Unitarianism is about, one of the holders of the "majority view amongst self professed Unitarians" would beg to differ, he wrote: "Unitarianism is about becoming fully awake to the realization that we all share in the unity of life and should be one in the unity of love." See: Unitarian versus Fundamentalist Approaches to Spirituality, Religion and Life.

You wrote:

...I believe it (the UU view) to be adequately handled in this article's current hat note: This article is about Unitarianism as a Christian theology. For the liberal religious movement, see Unitarian Universalism. For other uses, see Unitarianism (disambiguation). If this is confusing to you, please explain why and we can work out a compromise.

Why did I find this "disambiguation" within the article confusing? Because first, after reading the "hat note" or disambiguation note, I really had no idea what was liberal and what was Christian. I asked myself, "Aren't many Christians liberal?" I happen to be liberal and I also consider myself to be a Christian. I didn't have any idea what was trying to be said there, so I continued to read on down the article. Next, after reading the first paragraph of the article, knowing what I personally know about the "majority view" amongst "self proclaimed Unitarians", I knew that the first paragraph did not at all represent this majority view, and please forgive me, but at first it seemed to me that the first paragraph might have been written by someone with a personal agenda. I first came to the article to get an "overview" of Unitarianism, but all I found was a "micro-view" of what I initially believed was a completely dead and nearly forgotten view of it, without any contextualization. By analogy, it felt like getting off a plane in Rome Italy might feel, knowing how to speak Italian, but the customs officer there will only agree to speak in Latin to you, and then, by his rather cavalier attitude, he seems to be implying to you that nobody else there will really speak Italian with you either, and by the way, he says (in Latin), I'm not going to tell you where the bathroom is either! Frustrating to say the least. At least that was how I felt. Please don't get me wrong. Latin is a wonderful language, and is certainly deserving of in-depth study, but not when others seem to be "forcing it upon you".

I fully agree with your apparent view that the article should not in any way legitimize the current UU theology as true Unitarianism, which indeed no longer seems to me to have any resemblance to historical Unitarianism either. But that doesn't mean that we have to pretend that UU theology is non existent, or to try to vaguely imply that UU theology is "illegitimate". I say, let our readers make this determination on their own. By stating clearly in the disambiguation area something like:

This page is about historical Unitarianism as a Christian theology which includes a belief in God and his unitary nature. For the UU Church which began in 1961, and which holds no specific beliefs in Christianity, God, or God's unitary nature, see Unitarian Universalism. For other uses, see Unitarianism (disambiguation).

I think something like this would say it all. Why not say it? And why not repeat something like it in the beginning of the first paragraph? Why now insist that a typical uninformed new reader has to stumble around in the article for several minutes before even gaining the slightest glimmering of the "big picture" of what has happened, and what is happening with the term: Unitarinism? Scott P. (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you have voiced no objections to this revised compromise, I am going to now insert it. Scott P. (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

b4 300s

kristianiti=unitarianithout?(b4triniticoncept acepted81.11.230.198 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)