Talk:Unity Church

message: I have read the entire discussion above and I am confused. I am not a member of the Unity church but this makes no sense to me. There are editors who say that Unity cannot be Christian because it is Panentheistic. How is the idea that all creation (from the galaxies down to subatomic particles) is a part of God anti-Christian? Is the editor possibly confusing Panentheism with Pantheism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.206.114 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The straight answer to your last question is: "yes". The basic theological perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, and also of today's mainline Protestant denominations, can very readily and correctly be classified as panentheistic. To some extent, it's also part of the basic theology of many or most Evangelical denominations. The stance is more commonly expressed by saying that the Divine, or God if you will, is both "transcendent" and "immanent". This much is fairly standard, and is merely a starting point for countless theological debates that follow from this basic theological assertion.  Perhaps needless to say, the same view is not necessarily held by all followers of denominations whose theologians hold this basic view. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that this person is confusing panentheism with pantheism, of which only the former is relevent to disccusion of Unity. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panentheism? 

message: Our anonymous friend from New York wants to add the :Category:Feminism and spirituality to the article. I'm OK with that - IF it is based on a sourced statement that occurs in the article. At the moment, the word "feminism" does not appear - one may argue that the prominent position of women in the movement means that it's "feminist" - but that would be original research, and might not even be true - there are many cases of women opposing positions labelled as "feminist". So I'm reverting until documentation of the claim is added to the article. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This applies also to :Category:Feminist theology. Addition reverted today. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be referencing information from the New thought article pertaining to Feminist theology - Feminist movement. Unity fall under the umbrella of New Thought. Women from the begining of New Thought redefined (which includes Unity) women roles in all three of the major denominations in Unity,Religious Science and Divine Science, spirituality in general. Not to mention New Thought organizations. I have not had time to do it.If it were not for women there would not be NT. Unity was co-founded by a women. It will all be referenced Thanks74.73.176.161 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, simply involving women does not make it feminist, nor am I saying that it isn't, but that seems to be your argument.  That's like arguing that Sarah Palin is a feminist because she is in a position of power, which is ludicrous.  --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the references do make the connections between the suffragettes (feminist) and the political environment of the day and the spiritual movements  which includes New Thought, "Mental Sciences", spiritualism and Theosophy. I Will reference the article.74.73.176.161 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feminism and spirituality" category 

message: I have a fiend who goes to the Unity Church in Houston and was curious on just what they believe. I read this article and still don't know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attended (and enjoyed) Unity services as well. The church seemed rather substantial to me. I wonder why there are so few secondary sources which could give even some basic understanding of the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I get around to it I will go to the library and try to find more information and sources, maybe a directory of American religions. Unity's problem seems to be that it is, on one hand, not mainstream enough and, on the other, not controversial enough to attract much attention. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vahle book that some anonymous editor is trying to remove from the article (been reverted three times now) is probably a good source. Information from that book should be OK to add (as long as we keep making references to it). (disclaimer:Have not seen the book myself.... it is on Google Books at , but has no preview available) --Alvestrand (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles Braden's Spirits in Rebellion, which is about the history of the New Thoguth Movement with a chapter on each and is cited only once in this article, is a good start for a neutral presentation of Unity from a non-Unity source.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is little more than a stub 

message: There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others,  here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed work group 

message: This is my first attempt to edit in Wikipedia, so I'm trying to do it correctly.
I've been a member of Unity for over 35 years.
Before I started revising, I was distressed because I felt the explanation of Unity was not clear or accurate.  
In materials from authors outside the Unity movement, there is much misunderstanding.  
 
It seems to me that people within the Unity movement are better able to explain it than those who have no experience or knowledge of the teachings.
24.255.27.207 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. All information must be verifiable to a reliable source. Ideally, they should be reliable, objective secondary sources, though primary sources may be used with care as described in WP:PSTS. The Unity website appears to be a reasonably reliable source for statements of what Unity believes and holds. In general, I'd want to be cautious about using Fillmore too much, except in very specific limited instances, because of the large volume of written material he published and also because Unity has evolved somewhat through the 20th Century. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to Unity Church 

message: #This article's use of Unity Church sources is already extremely excessive. Please stop adding more.
#If you're going to add further references to a pre-existing source, please use a named ref (<ref name=...> (see WP:CITE#Footnote system for details).
#Please do not use semicolons between footnotes -- they are non-standard & look ugly.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've already indicated, the use of primary sources is restricted to the terms of WP:PSTS. There's a bit of work to be done here on that issue, as well as that it would be preferable to include as many as possible additional secondary sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Hrafn, other users having established WP:Notability for this article, the terms of WP:PSTS now need to be followed, in addition to any other WP policies as might be applicable. This far I haven't seen any significant departures from WP:PSTS. There are a number of published alternative views about Unity of course, which might be put on the table w.r.t. whether they are WP:RS's, and possibly included. But thus far I haven't seen any RSs that show any evidence disputing the apparent fact that the beliefs Unity puts forth are what they actually believe. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It "departs" from the opening sentence of WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." It relies primarily on primary sources, to a lesser extent on a tertiary source (New Encyclopedia Britannica) and only on a handful of marginal to negligibly reliable secondary sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put the template back at the head of the article and leave it at that. The reader already has the caveat emptor. No need for overkill. Or, leave it as is, with the templates placed section by section. But no need for both. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My main target was not readers, but editors dumping ever-increasing amounts of primary/affiliated-sourced information into the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I would point out that this issue is a longstanding problem with this article -- see Talk:Unity Church/Archive1#Primary sources problem. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. The earlier copy-and-paste job from the Unity website was unacceptable. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Hrafn, do you consider Vahle and Mosley primary or third-party? They're both published by the John Templeton Foundation's publishing arm, but otherwise I can't say anything about their independence (having seen neither). If they're valid secondaries (as previous discussion seems to indicate, at least for Vahle), more references to them would be good. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider Vahle to be third party, but uncited. Mosley's Unity Magazine piece (which is cited) would probably be affiliated, but his The History and Future NEW THOUGHT, ANCIENT WISDOM of the New Thought Movement is more ambiguous (being a work, by an at-least-semi-affiliated-writer, published in an unaffiliated source), but again uncited. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad referencing practices 

message: Having had the  at the top of the article basically ignored (by a flood of further Unity-affiliated-sourced material being added), I was attempting to highlight the worst-offending sections with their own templates. This has been reverted. The alternative would appear to be to move the sections lacking any reliable third-party sources here to talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn, other users having established WP:Notability for this article, the terms of WP:PSTS now need to be followed, in addition to any other WP policies as might be applicable. This far I haven't seen any significant departures from WP:PSTS. There are a number of published alternative views about Unity of course, which might be put on the table w.r.t. whether they are WP:RS's, and possibly included. But thus far I haven't seen any RSs that show any evidence disputing the apparent fact that the beliefs Unity puts forth are what they actually believe. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It "departs" from the opening sentence of WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." It relies primarily on primary sources, to a lesser extent on a tertiary source (New Encyclopedia Britannica) and only on a handful of marginal to negligibly reliable secondary sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put the template back at the head of the article and leave it at that. The reader already has the caveat emptor. No need for overkill. Or, leave it as is, with the templates placed section by section. But no need for both. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My main target was not readers, but editors dumping ever-increasing amounts of primary/affiliated-sourced information into the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I would point out that this issue is a longstanding problem with this article -- see Talk:Unity Church/Archive1#Primary sources problem. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. The earlier copy-and-paste job from the Unity website was unacceptable. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: Apart from the New Encyclopedia Britannica article, the reliability of the handful of third-party sources range from marginal (phillyburbs.com, www.bible.ca, en.allexperts.com) to negligible (leaderu.com, cast commentary on the Donnie Darko DVD). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn, do you consider Vahle and Mosley primary or third-party? They're both published by the John Templeton Foundation's publishing arm, but otherwise I can't say anything about their independence (having seen neither). If they're valid secondaries (as previous discussion seems to indicate, at least for Vahle), more references to them would be good. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider Vahle to be third party, but uncited. Mosley's Unity Magazine piece (which is cited) would probably be affiliated, but his The History and Future NEW THOUGHT, ANCIENT WISDOM of the New Thought Movement is more ambiguous (being a work, by an at-least-semi-affiliated-writer, published in an unaffiliated source), but again uncited. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of third party sourcing

message: The template on this section was removed with the edit summary "removing template. 1) Basic teachings are quoted from primary source(s) per WP:PSTS. 2) If there are sources that they're misleading or wrong, present it."
#It is normal to rely mainly upon secondary sources, which would allow analysis and interpretation of these 'basic teachings', rather than mere description.
#The 'Basic teachings' section amounts to approximately half the article. If no substantive secondary sources can be found, then emphasis should be reduced.
#Further to (but to some extent contradicting) #2, most of the remainder of the article is cited to primary sources. This is in contradiction to pervassive policy (WP:GNG, WP:OR & WP:V) that indicates that it is expected that articles should have a substantial secondary-source component.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Basic teachings' and primary sources 

message: It would seem reasonable to name the topic as 'Unity' the first time it is mentioned in a sentence, and 'it' thereafter (unless there is the potential for confusion as to what 'it' is). There seems to be no reason to employ lengthier titles such as 'Unity School of Christianity' or 'Unity Church', especially in subsequent uses within a sentence. I am therefore confused by this edit. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: A referenced claim from Adherents.com about the number of members (2 million) was here  Adherents claims to be a third party.  The number of members is important -- even if it is what Unity claims (even though I think the 2 million claim is considerably high).  I live in NYC and it's difficult to find many churches here.Americasroof (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically there are not many Unity churches in one particular community.  In New York City, there are two in Manhattan, two Spanish language congregations in the Bronx, and one in Eastern Brooklyn.  There are none in Staten Island and I'm not sure about Queens. Unity of New York:  a Spiritual Center for Creative Living, has over 2,000 people on the mailing list and over 1,000 attended last Easter's services alone. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of members

message: This was deleted from the Christianity project in this edit.  I see there is a heated debate on this.  So I am just putting the comment here.  The I.P. that did this is the same one that deleted the number of adherents.Americasroof (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored. Also restored an article IP edit that deleted all the Christian-related categories from the article. People should feel free to revert any edit like this that is not backed up with real sources. Alvestrand (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted from Christianity project

message: There seems to be a lot of information about Unity Church in the book "Self-Help and Popular Religion in Early American Culture: An Interpretive Guide (American Popular Culture) (v. 1)" by Roy M. Anker. There is a section starting on page 213.
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Self-Help-Popular-Religion-American-Culture/dp/0313311366/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442197804&sr=1-1&keywords=9780313311369
Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv8Qv5Zg0JUC&lpg=PA216&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q&f=false
I haven't read enough to know whether this would be considered a valid secondary source or not, though Anker seems to be unaffiliated with Unity. I don't have access to either the physical book or the e-book to delve into this further, but this bit of information might be useful to someone wishing to flesh out this article.Dcoleman123 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially Useful Secondary Source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Unity Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213063928/http://www.yogitimes.com/02_2005/interview.html to http://www.unity.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is like a promotional brochure. Nice to see Wikipedia being used to promote certain religious groups while others get torn apart as "cults". Double standards, much? Strike Armstrong (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, could you point out which areas of this article are biased? I agree that religions shouldn't be treated to different standards, but I'm having a hard time seeing where in this article it reads like an advertisement. Thanks! AnandaBliss (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

text: While I don't agree with Strike Armstrong's implication that wikipedia has some sort of pro-Unity bias, I agree that the article does read too much like it is written in the voice of Unity itself. This is mostly due to the fact that 90% of the sources for the article are directly from its founding texts and its own magazine. It would be much better to have secondary sources for most of the claims. The text is also highly repetitive (over half of it is just saying "they are open to all beliefs and are into positive thinking"). I think getting secondary sources that have digested their believes and can summarise them will go a long way to solving this problem. Ashmoo (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: I know that this has been discussed before, but I do not Unity think that a reader of this article would benefit from linking Unity with Christianity too directly. There are many references to the Bible and Jesus, however as an organization or movement, it is doubtful that Unity sees itself as a Christian denomination, rather they are a heavily Christian-inspired New Thought group. The website About page states: "Unity is for people who might call themselves spiritual but not religious. It is for those who sense the depths of their own being and celebrate the awareness of a power greater than themselves."  The other New Thought organizations (Religious Science, Agape) do not directly associate themselves with Christianity either, but all grew from it originally. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Thought or Christian Orientation 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus   Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unity Church →  – Unity Church is not the official name of this organization, nor is it mainly known by this name, see their website . It is known, however, as a "denomination" within the New Thought movement. AnandaBliss (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 May 2020