Talk:Unarius Academy of Science

message: Okay that quote is a tad unprofessional, although it's genuinely a description at a book site, but I'm at times fascinated by eccentric subcultures. Maybe a professional job on this one can be done.--T. Anthony 09:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought twice about adding this. It may be deemed as irrelevant. Ideocentric RoyBot69.248.43.27 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back. It's from an actual book and everything. Although the quote might be copyvio.--T. Anthony 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere does it state in the article that this is a cult. I suspect the author is a cult member themselves, and this is a bias representation.--Senhuan (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus (as he appeared as a form of Jehovah) told me that if ever the channels of communication were to evolve into the form intended, this particular file must be updated to full form by those chosen by the creator at the time of creation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.173.206 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information added

message: This article takes extremely implausible claims from the unariun doctrine and presents them as fact. Furthermore, the article contains unsourced assertions which are highly improbable. Furthermore, the "criticism" section of the article contains only some remarks about the clothing of the founder, and does not mention the sociological studies which have focused on this particular group.
I intend to make a few changes presently.Twerges (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a criticism section for this article? --Enwilson (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article requires major cleanup 

message: I removed an unsourced assertion from the introduction that this group has 100,000 members.
The claim seems extremely unlikely to me. I went to their website and it looked as if they cannot even afford to hire a single competent web designer.
Groups such as these are prone to exaggerate their membership drastically. Unless some serious evidence for the assertion can be found, it must be omitted.Twerges (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed assertion 

message: This article is filled with material that's far below the standards of a scholarly encyclopedia. It appears that the article was written by an adherent of this group, without any input from anyone else.
When I attempted to make some changes, all of the changes were reverted, without discussion. The reversions constituted edit warring.
Do not "undo" any further without adding to discussion first.Twerges (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I have again removed the claim that the group has 100,000 practicing members. There was no source for that claim. As per WP:proveit, there must be a source for that claim or it will be removed.
My prior edit was reverted, with the comment that the group had been "on tv for 30 years", which is not relevant to the wikipedia criteria of reliability and frankly does not make the claim seem any more plausible. I realize that the group has purchased local public-access air time on occasion. But that does not demonstrate that the group is large, well-funded, or popular; and it certainly doesn't demonstrate that the group has 100,000 members.
There was also the comments that I had not provided a more reliable figure to replace the one I had removed. I obviously cannot provide more reliable figures since this group is obscure and reliable figures do not exist. But, I am not required by wikipedia policy to provide reliable figures before removing fanciful ones.
If you can find some wikipedia policy which allows fanciful figures to be presented in lieu reliable information, then present that WP policy here. Otherwise, abide by WP:proveit. Twerges (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  100,000 members? 

message: These guys were a subject of The Unexplained documentary "UFO Cults":  --Niemti (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a documentary called Children of the Stars and this might be a helpful source also. There's a biography of Ruth at the beginning talking about her poverty-stricken childhood and first two (bad) marriages. I think the in-house film re-enactments of alleged adventures on other planets should be talked about more. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it helps with notability and sources 

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

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

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

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

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