Talk:Unitarian Universalism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Parish Church in Plymouth

This church is listed in the "notable congregations" section as having been founded in 1606 and being the oldest continuously operating church in the US. However, the First Parish Church in Plymouth article points out that the 1606 founding took place in England, and the members did not come to the US until 1620. Moreover, the article states that the congregation's first church building was not built until 1648. If you compare the Oldest buildings in the United States article, the oldest church in continuous ecclesiastical use is the Old Ship Church. I know I'm nitpicking, but does anyone have insight into this question? Academic38 (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic / Anti-Trinitarian

I've read that some members of the UU were deeply anti-catholic because of the movement's Radical Reformation roots, which strongly opposed the doctrine of Trinity. There is an article here by Rod Dreher discussing the case of a UU woman discriminating against catholics for religious and ideological reasons. [2] 69.157.239.212 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual cases are irrelevant. You can also find Catholics who were anti-Jewish or non-democratic, and these cases do not imply that the RC Church is anti-Jewish or against democracy. We should concentrate on institutional policies. --jofframes (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism is the first kind of Christianity, and Christianity is partially where UUism gets its beliefs. But, some of us may be anti-Catholic or anti-Trinitarian, but we search for truth and meaning, and those members of the UU community might have already counted Catholicism out of their search, and, being UUs, they know they had a right to do so. I don't like the Christian people pushing their beliefs on me, because I am a UU. You could say that makes me anti-Christian, but I'm not, because I know that's the way that some people feel they are doing something good for their religion. Regardless, I ignore the comments about my liberalism, and reading books such as Harry Potter, when some of my friends are not allowed to do so.

As for discrimination, I know that VERY few UUs would take their beliefs that far, as they believe in religious coexistance, and a peaceful world on the religious front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.32.89 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"some of us may be anti-Catholic" is just as unpleasant as being anti-Semetic or Islamophobiac or any other kind of bigotry. There's plenty of Klansmen who claim "they had a right to do so" in bragging about their prejudices. Also, I've know UUs who've frequently made rather horrific comments about Catholic people (not just the Catholic Church as an organization or the hierachy or the Pope) but general, everyday Catholic believers. Bigotry, and that's what it is, against people who disagree with you is never "doing something good for [your] religion". If you want to pat yourself on the back for being tolerant that means being tolerant of those who DISAGREE with you. Disparaging entire groups of people (Catholics, born-again Christians) for their conservativism is just as wrong as the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell types who demonize liberals.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtminchi08 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion! That said, I do not think it is necessary to discuss Anti-Catholic feelings among the UU Church. The Southern Baptist article did not seem to have anything about Anti-Catholicism in it, even though several prominent Southern Baptists have publicly associated the Pope with the Antichrist. This is because a few speakers do not represent the entire religion. Whatever bad experiences some editors have had with UU should not color the article. Anonymous Thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.248.129 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that many individual UUs are anti-Catholic, because many of them are ex-Catholics. I have known some UUs who joined the UU church because it was the opposite of the Catholic Church they grew up in. (I am neither a Catholic nor a UU.) I have never a met a UU whose anti-Catholicism was directed at Catholics as people, just at their beliefs. Does anyone have any figures on the former religions of UUs?Bostoner (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Article focus

This has been asked before (see see archived discussion from March of 2008), but after reading this article, I am very confused. Is this article about Unitarian Universalism or is it about the Unitarian Universalist Association? Is there Unitarian Universalism outside of the UUA and the CUC? If not, then I don't see why we need separate articles.

It's not a problem with the UUA being prominent in the article. The problem is that in many places in the article, it seems to only be talking about the UUA, as if there is no other Unitarian Universalist denomination/organization. If that is the case then Wikipedia needs to reorganize these articles.

If there are only two Unitarian Universalist "denominations" - UUA and CUC - and as most of this material seems to be referring solely to the UUA, then perhaps the majority of this material needs to be at the UUA article. This article could then mainly briefly summarize what Unitarian Universalism is and provide links to the UUA and CUC articles.

What does anyone else think? Ltwin (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would add to your list of UU denominations/organizations the Australian and New Zealand Unitarian Universalist Association (ANZUUA). I guess the argument is can one be a UU outside of these groups? I would say yes but I think others would say the distinctions are so muddled that one can't really mention what UU is without going in fairly deep into discussions about the UU denominations. In fact if the UUA had never been formed there would never have been UU as we know it today. And up until 2002 the CUC was a group within the UUA to serve the needs of Canadian UUs. It is also a harder thing to determine what is a UU group rather then a Unitarian or Universalist group these days. Take for example the UK's General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. It's a group that is setup to serve Unitarian and free Christian Churches, but it's more and more having what one could describe as a UU wing. Dos this mean they all of a sodden have become a UU group? I say not. But many here on Wikipedia do so that is why I changed the UU navigation box from a UU one to a UU, Unitarian and Universalist one. So I guess this is going to be a harder article to straiten out then you or I may have first thought. --Devin Murphy (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversies: Borrowing from religions

This section seems inadequate to me, focusing only on one session at General Assembly in 2001. Concern for cultural mis-appropriation probably preceded 2001, but nevertheless continues to this day. An important milestone was creation of the UUA Task Force on Cultural Mis-appropriation, chartered in 2006. Plus, discussion of this controversy persists among UU ministers.

I propose that this section be expanded to include: a) a definition of cultural mis-appropriation (e.g. as found in http://www25.uua.org/uumn/resources/other_info/cultmisrep/fall06report.pdf) and/or a link to the Wikipedia topic cultural appropriation; b) a more complete history of the UUA and UUMN's struggle with this issue. --Tedlau (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


I agree with both of the comments here. Additionally, as a UU for 20 years and having attended services at many different fellowships across the country, I have never seen any misappropriation of other religions or their rituals. What I have experienced is where individual members will help the congregation celebrate certain holidays and educate them on their meaning, e.g., Jewish or earth-based holidays. Another example was when one of our members was Buddhist and he discussed his own journey and understanding of what that means although there were no rituals involved. I think the term 'rituals' also needs defining as it seems to be inherently connected to what is being called misappropriation.

Perhaps it is too complex to discuss on the UU page, but related to my experience, again, it has typically been members of a congregation that ask to present a service on a religion that they are closely connected to and that they hope to educate others on and share with them. This is also different than the congregation engaging in a specific ritual (and say of a specific Native American tribe) themselves as part of the service. Many religious or sacred rituals could also look similar across religions. This article needs more positive examples of appropriate sharing and balance. I sincerely doubt that there is a lot of cultural misappropriation unless that term is extremely broad and vague, but the section on this makes it appear as if it is a larger problem.Tiburonforthree (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Controversies section of this article is poorly put-together and contributes little to an otherwise informative article. It should be condensed, removed, fixed, something, anything. Ein (talk) 12:06 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

It seems that, where there are such potentially sensitive issues involved, over-zealous moderators may sometimes be apt to remove comment they disagree with and use the little bit of power they have to prevent genuine discussion. I have added to this section several times, basically saying that, as a world religion, Buddhism adapts to its environment, and that Westerners should be allowed to practise Buddhism in our own way without being accused of "appropriating" other people's culture. After all, Buddhism has been in the West for some time now, and Western Buddhists do not try to interfere with the way in which ethnic Buddhist communities practise Buddhism.

This is the first time I've used the Discussion page. Maybe not everyone can really edit, but maybe everyone can discuss? Of course, if the answer to the question is no, these words won't be on here for very long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.9.233.168 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You did the right thing bringing it here, well done. What are the reliable sources which support your proposed edit? --John (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence neutrality

Not being a christian, I wouldn't like to edit except on fact, but I was unhappy with the construction of this sentence from a point of neutrality.

'Theophilus Lindsey also revised the Book of Common Prayer to allow a more Unitarian interpretation. His efforts met with substantial criticism by the more conservative priests and bishops who held sufficient power within the Church of England to stifle his attempts at reform.'

It rather implies Lindsey was 'right' and the 'conservative bishops' were not; and that their 'sufficient' power was illegitimately used. Presumably they had as much right to their interpretation as he, and they merely acted as their offices mandated... Claverhouse (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

X is a Y

The wording of the first sentence is ugly at best. I agree that saying Unitarian Universalism is a religion characterized... is not an accurate use of the noun religion. But the current wording ("Unitarian Universalism is an interfaith new religious movement characterized...") is worse: more needlessly verbose, and arguably wrong on two counts:

  • "interfaith" organizations are explicitly joint operations conducted by (members of) separate, discreet faiths/churches/institutions, e.g. Interfaith Alliance, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Interfaith marriage;
  • new religious movements are explicitly new whereas UUism grew gradually out of already-existing Christian churches, and simply adapted already-existing beliefs from some other sources. That is, its current form may look unlike other faiths but it got there by re-mixing existing beliefs rather than inventing new ones outright in the manner of e.g. Mormonism or Scientology. And NRMs, per a sourced quote from that page, are "assigned to the fringe of the dominant religious culture". This doesn't fit, not least because most of the oldest churches in the Boston area are Unitarian Universalist churches. I understand there are plenty of people who would like to "assign [the entire New England area] to the fringe of the dominant... culture" but they haven't succeeded quite yet. And apart from that, UU churches haven't been dismissed as fringey or cultish by mainstream Christianity the way some Baptists and evangelicals have dismissed Mormons and Scientologists.

So, I don't know the best way to word it, but saying it's an interfaith NRM is worse than saying it's a religion. I'm therefore changing it back for now. I am enthusiastically open to any wording that's an improvement. Thanks, ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Religious movement"? —chaos5023 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the insights, Zen. I agree that "religion" is simpler and better for the time being. What does the UUA call Unitarian Universalism in their literature? Maybe that would provide some ideas. AtticusX (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I remember, in the 1980s, UU leadership speaking in UUA publications of Unitarian Universalism being a Christian denomination, which was a bit of a surprise to the membership. Particularly the UU Pagans. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
UUA describes itself as "a religious organization that combines two traditions" and defines Unitarian Universalism as "a liberal religion with Jewish-Christian roots. It has no creed. It affirms the worth of human beings, advocates freedom of belief and the search for advancing truth, and tries to provide a warm, open, supportive community for people who believe that ethical living is the supreme witness of religion."[3]. Not sure if that helps, but maybe.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Just had time to stop in and say that "UU" is NOT CHRISTIANITY. They deny the ressurrection of the Lord and they adhere to generally atheistic beliefs. This is obvious! THey are not a "religion" in a true sense because they have no creed (ie beliefs) and let their members believe in paganism! They might better be described as a pseudoreligion or an NRM. Though they were once Christian, they have since renounced their beliefs so thoroughly that they are a new religious movement.Axiomtalk 22:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Gee, you sound pretty bothered by that. POV much? Anyway, I agree that UU != Christianity, but I disagree with the NRM label per Zenswashbuckler, and your logic that being a religion requires a creed is assuming points not in evidence. As I hinted above, though, "religious movement" seems reasonable to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Wherever it's proceeding from, Axiom does have a point. Not that he's right about the NRM/"pseudo-" business, but Unitarian Universalism doesn't really fit in the boundaries of the word "religion." The easiest way to describe it is that they've taken the First Amendment and applied it internally - no priest or minister shall make any decree respecting an establishment of theology, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, even within this church. Axiom, some UUs "deny the resurrection" of "the Lord", but others don't. Some "adhere to... atheistic beliefs" - but many don't. Many, or even a majority, have not come anywhere close to "renouncing" the bulk of Christian ethical teachings - just some theology, about which plenty of "mainstream" Christians argue to no end amongst themselves anyway.
The whole point is that it's almost totally impossible to make blanket statements about the belief system of the community as a whole. That's the difficulty with the word "religion" (hence this whole discussion). But the definition of an NRM isn't "those who hold beliefs that are or might be significantly different from one of the five major world religions." The mark of an NRM is specifically that it is new.
As an aside, I think there's a problem with the whole concept of an NRM - briefly, if the Catholic church hadn't been so monolithic and meticulous about putting down everything that smacked of "heresy", Western history would be filled with so-called "new religious movements" to the point where they'd all be just another religion. But I digress.
Anyway, the point is that however much it may have evolved from its "original" state, Unitarian Universalism is old enough as a set of ideas about how religion and religious beliefs should be conducted, that it doesn't fall under the definition of an NRM. It can almost be described as a meta-religion - that is, the most universal belief in the system is that each person must find his/her own beliefs. But in the sense that they all get together to do this as a single group, the best term seems to me to be something like "church community" or "faith community." OK, incredibly sorry for lengthy post. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
√ Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lapsed vs Never UU?

Indented line

The article says: "Also of note is that there are many more people who identify as UU on surveys than those who attend UU churches (by a factor of four in a recent survey),[24] reflecting lapsed members (and those who have never joined) who nonetheless consider themselves part of the UU movement." I suspect it's the other way around, with more "UU's" who have never joined (or are simply going through the motions in another denomination, perhaps to please a spouse/partner) than there are lapsed members. Reference 24 merely reports on various surveys but doesn't speculate on this particular matter. I will rearrange this sentance unless objection voiced herein.Casey (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Organizations

Under the organization section I removed this from the UUA listing as it was not just about the UUA and besides it was to long. If it is relevant and not already in the UUA article then I believe it would be better put over there and not simply but back in her under the Organization section.

"According to the United States Census Bureau 629,000 individuals identified themselves as Unitarian/Universalist in 2001.[12] A more recent survey (2007) performed by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 0.3% of U.S. adults or approximately 340,000 individuals identified themselves as Unitarian Universalist.[13] Unitarian Universalists follow a congregational model of church governance, in which power resides at the local level; individual congregations call ministers and make other decisions involving worship, theology, and day-to-day church management. The denominational headquarters in Boston in turn provides services for congregations that can more effectively be handled through joint efforts. In 1995 the UUA helped establish the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists (ICUU) to connect unitarian and universalist faith traditions around the world.[1] Other international religious groups have become affiliated with the movement, many of which predate the 1961 consolidation in the United States. Unitarian churches have persisted in Hungary and Transylvania since the sixteenth century and in Britain since the seventeenth century. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries witnessed the emergence of related communities around the world, often by single local individuals. Significant populations are now found in the Philippines and various African countries. The International Council of Unitarians and Universalists (ICUU), founded in 1995, coordinates national Unitarian and Universalist associations of churches throughout the world. National organizations may include the title "Unitarian Universalist" or "Unitarian" alone." --Devin Murphy (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1][dead link]

Merging YRUU article into this article

I am not the one who suggested that the YRUU article be merged into this one. But as it has been suggested I feel I should give my opinion on this. If the YRUU article was to be merged into this article it would have I feel two possible outcomes. The first possible outcome would be for the YRUU content to be minimized and downplayed and even possibly get only a few sentences. The second possible outcome for the YRUU content I feel is it giving this article a more representative view of what UUism is all about. If the first scenario is how the YRUU content would get merged into this article then I think it is a bad idea, but if the second scenario is how a merger would go dawn then lets do it. But sadly I think the first scenario is the more like outcome of such a merger. --Devin Murphy (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If if can be merged in the second way, as you put it, that would be ideal. Either way though, I think a merger is needed (and I was the one that tagged it as such). YRUU just does not seem to be notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, even if important with the history of UU. LadyofShalott 22:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the (arguably stale) merge tagging because there was never a coherent proposal opened for the merge. In any event, no, no merger is needed, and you're quite incorrect about YRUU and notability; YRUU easily satisfies the General Notability Guideline, and I am completely confident that I could defend its article at Articles for Deletion if it ever arrived there. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a coherent discussion, albeit at slow pace. Are there really reliable, independent secondary sources that satisfy GNG for YRUU? (I'm sure there's plenty in UU World, but how independent a source that is is questionable for this topic.) LadyofShalott 23:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. [4], [5], [http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Dictionary-Universalism-Dictionaries-Philosophies/dp/0810848694], [http://www.amazon.com/1998-1999-Directory-American-Youth-Organizations/dp/1575420341], [6], [http://www.amazon.com/Hippie-Dictionary-John-Bassett-McCleary/dp/1580083552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310515320&sr=1-1], [7]. That's without trying hard. If you don't believe me, put the article up for deletion and let's get the community's feedback. But I'll tell you for nothing, I've successfully defended way sketchier articles. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, what I mean by a "coherent proposal" is a discussion where the person who's nominating that action should be taken makes a concise statement of why they believe that, and other people weigh in with their views; you may have seen these around Wikipedia, with people lodging "support" or "oppose" positions and whatnot. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep mentioning AfD - if merger is appropriate, AfD is not, and since merger is what I suggested, I obviously did not think outright deletion was the way to go. So let's drop that irrelevancy, shall we? As for the proposal, I admit Devin made the first comment(and that I should have), but after that, I did say what my feelings were in a clear manner. No one else chose to respond until now. As for your sources, the first one you listed has only a trivial mention. I still have to look at the others before commenting further. LadyofShalott 01:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason AfD is relevant is that the only reason you've given for proposing the merger is that YRUU fails notability; AfD is our venue for formally making that determination. If you have reasons that aren't to do with notability, I haven't been apprised of them. I'm sure various of those sources can be picked apart; that's what AfD is for. I really do not believe all of them can be, and the KMOV coverage cited in the article already brings it halfway (current deadness of the link notwithstanding). —chaos5023 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I can see that, but there's a difference in thinking content should go away entirely or be merged. If the nominator takes something she thinks should be merged and lists it at AfD, she is likely to get a trouting, and rightfully so. Going through those sources (and an article talk page is the place for that...):
  • The Paganism book- this appears to be a brief, trivial mention.
  • A memoir - quite possibly trivial, although the snippet view makes it hard to determine for certain. I am also doubtful how reliable a source it is.
  • Hist. Dict. of UU - no doubt this is reliable, but the Amazon link (???!!!) does not give any indication of how much about YRUU is there. This would be a source worth examining further, but as is gives no evidence one way or the other.
  • A directory - again with the Amazon links, and to something that even without seeing it is almost certainly the most trivial of mentions
  • the Sci-Fi and Philosophy book - has potential, but can't tell much from the snippet view
  • the Hippie Dictionary - again, a useless Amazon link, and why this one is listed at all, I'd love to know.
Conclusion: I don't think any of these as such gives proof of notability. Nor could they be used to verify much of anything beyond the mere existence of YRUU (which was never in doubt). A couple are worthy of further looks. I did not state so before, but I think the verifiability of the information is a big part of my concern. LadyofShalott 01:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Verifiability does not require independent sources; the ridiculous abundance of information about YRUU in sources that may be disqualified from consideration for notability purposes because they have something slightly to do with the UUA will do just fine for that. For the record, not that it matters, I don't agree with your analysis of "trivial mentions". —chaos5023 (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You are certainly correct that verifiability does not (at least always) require independent sources. I'm just saying that I have concerns about both that and notability. The issue as to whether something is a trivial mention is a major concern in determination of notability, as "significant" secondary coverage is required for that. And now, I think I'm done with this for this evening. LadyofShalott 02:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'll note that earlier I dropped a note at the talk page for WP:UU about this discussion. With that, I really will leave it alone for now, and hope someone else chimes in. LadyofShalott 02:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Well, since we don't seem to be getting anywhere, I'll likewise just register my position and see if anything else happens. It would be nice if we could not leave the ugly proposed-merge tags lying around the article headers for another three months, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The issues that have been voiced are with notability and verifiability. Regarding notability, I am entirely certain that YRUU is a notable topic per WP:GNG. Regarding verifiability, there is an absolute wealth of verifiable information readily available (certainly more than enough to build an article on, which seems to me the only way verifiability is anything to do with the question of article existence), and literally no issues have been raised about verifiability other than a vague sentiment of being "concerned" about it. I see nothing that gives the proposal to merge any merit. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Hey, if you'd like to get an idea what a spectacularly bad idea this was in the first place, go check out this mess. Also note that that article passed AfD with zero coverage that was clearly completely independent of the relevant church, which YRUU is doing considerably better than. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
AfD was never on the table. I won't say it again. LadyofShalott 02:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
What you're proposing is a backdoor deletion. A real merge is either something like a reintegration of a WP:SPINOUT that needn't have happened, or an alternative to deletion when a topic is blatantly non-notable or consensus has been reached that it isn't. This proposal achieves the same results as a deletion (that coverage of YRUU would be merged into this article if a consensus formed to delete its own article may be taken as a given) without attracting the attention of people who are experienced in evaluating notability as AfD is intended to. And notability is still the only meaningful reason for a merge you've raised; your handwaving at verifiability when notability turned out to be contentious didn't go so far as to identify an issue anybody could evaluate or address. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Chaos, I sense a pretty decent knowledge of policy here, but a poor understanding of AGF. What is being discussed here, or what is supposed to be discussed here, is a merge. What you're discussing is someone else's motives, via the strawman of a deletion they never proposed. Please focus on the issue at hand. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Read more carefully. I haven't so much as speculated about anybody's motivations; I've commented on and interpreted actions and their expected consequences should they be carried through. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • BTW, I've looked at your links. Three of them are to Amazon books. There is no way that those could help you make your case, that the article is on an independently notable. Whatever this is, is entirely unclear--Googling can be a blessing sometimes, but not always. This is not a reliable source. What book is this? Your snippet suggests that it is not, for instance, an academic or journalistic book providing some sort of in-depth discussion of the topic. If these sources are so strong, why don't you turn them into proper references to verify statements in the article? Drmies (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Wow. The Amazon links are to books that contain coverage of YRUU, not links that are the coverage in themselves. It never occurred to me that I would have to explain that. The book you ask about is one where YRUU is discussed and information about it may be derived, under aegis of a publisher with editorial process and fact checking; "academic or journalistic" could not be less relevant. I haven't done the rescue legwork you ask after because I strongly dislike having involuntary labor extracted from me under threat of content destruction, and so tend to put it off. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
        • They contain coverage? Where? Of what kind? [http://www.amazon.com/1998-1999-Directory-American-Youth-Organizations/dp/1575420341 This] is a directory of youth organizations. Those don't provide coverage, they list information. And what does the Hippie Dictionary have to offer? FWIW, that is the kind of information that other editors need in order to assess whether something is worthwhile as a stand-alone topic or not. Involuntary labor--we're all volunteers here. You don't have to make a case here against a merge, but if you do, you should probably present evidence for your position, not a bunch of links that suggest that somewhere there may or may not be coverage or mention of a topic. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'll demonstrate that when I can get past my stark raving incomprehension of how someone can look at the WP:GNG, then an article about a 30-year-old continent-spanning organization that already has at least one notability-contributing citation in its article, and say, "oh, yeah, that's probably not notable". This may take me a while. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • In the meantime, I'd just love to hear your thoughts about the results of entering YRUU in the search box at this link. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Upon compulsion? I don't like the extraction of involuntary labor, and methinks the burden of proof lies with you. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Uh huh. Is copy and paste considered a formal rhetorical fallacy yet? There's no downside for you in not looking at my evidence, hence no compulsion; I'm not the one trying to destroy articles for specious reasons. Of course, you recognize that there's a downside for you if you do look at my evidence -- possibly having to confront how laughably wrong you are. Congratulations on taking the high road. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge given my reading, above, of the provided sources. None of the sources in the article suggest that we are dealing with an independently notable organization. Deletion is not called for, and there is a likely search term to remain as a redirect. a merge is the best solution in a case like this. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems to me that if a merger were to take place, it would be more appropriate into an article which describes its sponsoring organizations (UUA/CUC) than into an article which describes Unitarian Universalism as religion. I feel that this article should be about UU religion, not UU religious institutions. --Cantabwarrior (talk 17:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging here - Cantab's suggestion makes the most sense. I haven't looked yet to see whether I agree that YRUU needs merging or not, but if so it surely belongs at the organization/institution article rather than the religious beliefs article. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I can see this point as well. The problem is that YRUU has been affiliated with both UUA and CUC, and so merging this into either one of those, but not the other, seems problematic. LadyofShalott 03:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Another possible solution (perhaps more desireable?) would be to merge YRUU and Liberal Religious Youth into a new article titled something along the lines of Unitarian Universalist youth programs. What do people think of this idea? LadyofShalott 03:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Independent references are reliable but somewhat trivial. LoS's suggestion sounds appropriate, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unitarian_Universalism/Archive_4&oldid=1073002301"