Battle of Old Fort Wayne

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance). Missouri Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Kansas City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am removing items from Category:Christian denominations and adding them in more specific subcategories thereof. Unity Church shows no signs of belonging in and any denominational subcategory, nor even in Category:Christian denominations in general. It is, for example, clearly Panentheistic. No related page identifies any link to Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs)

Since this has been a controversial topic on this page before - and partially discussed to death - I'm making this a separate section.

Did you read the section of the article called "Relationship to Christianity"? What, in that section or elsewhere, compelled you to the conclusion that it "does not belong in .... Christian denominations"? I've restored the cat for now. Let's resolve this in discussion based on sources, not by unsourced declarations. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This came up for debate recently on UnitySocial.com. [1]

The Fillmores clearly identified Unity as Christian. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Relationship to Christianity section says:

Unity was founded in 1889 by Charles Fillmore (1854-1948) and Myrtle Fillmore (1845-1931), in Kansas City, Missouri. The Fillmores considered themselves Christians, though they did not subscribe to the Nicaean Creed. Unity minister Eric Butterworth stated that the Council of Nicaea was "a bitterly contested struggle, during which Arius got up to speak and Nicholas of Myra punched him in the nose." He describes this as a meeting concerning a "religion about Jesus" rather than the "religion of Jesus" as presented through Jesus's teachings.^[1]

So the Fillmores consider the Unity Church to be the religion of Jesus, rather than the religion about Jesus.

This not make it part of Christianity. Christianity has always been the religion about Jesus. Read Wikipedia's Christianity and see.

You will also notw there that it is a Monotheistic religion #Christian view -- not Panentheistic as the Unity Church is. No group can be Panentheistic and a Christian denomination.

Even Arius considered Christianity about Jesus and not Panentheistic.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting the source. The quotation says that Fillmore claimed that the council of Nicaea was a meeting concerning "a religion about Jesus". It doesn't say what he says about Unity Church. And the Christianity article doesn't use the words "religion of Jesus" or "religion about Jesus".

Also, your claim that no group can be panentheistic and a Christian denomination will, if we believe the Panentheism article, declare that all Eastern and Orthodox churches are non-Christian, together with the Unitarian church. That seems like a radical departure from common terminology to me.

Note that at the same time, the New Thought churches, of which Unity is (I think, can't locate the source) thought to be the most closely aligned with Christianity, are all listed on List of Christian denominations. (I know that this is only true until a Wikipedia editor changes it, but still.) I do not see any documentation from a reliable source stating that the commonly held view is that Unity Church is non-Christian. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was learning about the Unity Church's relationship to Christianity. It would seem then the that that section tells us nothing about the Unity Church's relationship to Christianity. As I said above the Unity Church shows no signs of belonging in and any Christian denominational subcategory.

The key sentence in that section is "The Fillmores considered themselves Christians". --Alvestrand (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern Orthodox churches and Oriental Orthodox churches do not claim to be panentheistic and their articles do not decribe them as such. I also note well that Panentheism#Eastern_and_Oriental_Orthodox_Christianity page has no citations for its claims.

As for the Unitarian Universalist Association it stopped claiming to be part of Christianity (and made clear otherwise) some years ago.

Since Category:Christian denominations is way overpopulated I removing all groups from it and putting them in the type of denominations they are-- such as Category:Methodist denominations. Even if you could be Panentheistic and a Christian denomination-- this is not the way to do it. You would have Unity Church in Category:New Thought churches (already there) or Category:Panentheistic denominations or such and then make that a subcategory of Category:Christian denominations. Can you cite a souce for the New Thought churches being Christian denominations?--Carlaude ^(talk) 06:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the cleanup. I do mind the "I own the definition of what's Christian and what's not".

I'll suggest a change that we might both be able to accept: Let's make Category:New Thought churches, of which Unity Church is a member, a subcategory of Christian denominations, and make a note on the category that the churches vary in both their self-perception of their relation to Christianity and in other Christian churches' opinion of them. Would that be an acceptable way forward? --Alvestrand (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the descriptions of Unity's belief systems have been largely expunged from this page because Unity's own web pages aren't considered a reliable source, but if you go to their webpage on what they teach, you will find out that it starts out with "Unity is positive, practical Christianity". There's absolutely no doubt about their self-identification with Christianity. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not claim to own the definition of what's Christianity and what's not-- but until you have any source differ on the claims of the Christianity page (or any standard book on Christianity, etc.)-- that Christianity is not panentheistic, but "monotheistic," or until you have good source that "New Thought churches" are part of Christianity or a Christian denominational family, I think my request is totally fair.

That said-- I will still offer you another compromise. Make Category:New Thought churches, a subcategory of Category:Liberal Christianity denominations, which is a subcategory Christian denominations. Adding the note on the category is also good. --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made Category:New Thought churches]] a subcategory of Category:Nontrinitarian denominations, which is a subcategory Christian denominations. Nontrinitarian would include panentheistism. Is this acceptable instead?--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people who defined the word "panentheistic" seem to have wanted to define it in such a way as to include multiple belief systems otherwise classified as "Christian", without asking the churches involved first whether they liked the term or not. So it seems to me that it's not an useful divider. For that matter, the article doesn't document Unity Church calling itself "panentheistic" either, so that label too is in doubt. But I'm completely happy with placing the New Thought churches under "Nontrinitarian denominations". Thanks for seeking and finding a resolution on this! --Alvestrand (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being extrem by coping EVERYTHING the Pantheism article says about the view of pantheism in Eastern Orthodoxy but don't want anyone saying I'm deliberatly omitting anything. Anyway it's clear and I'm might add any source on Orthodoxy would be clear that equating the universe with god is blasphemous.

As to the broader question of whether one can be pantheistic and Christian, I find myself having no opinion. So long as one "proclaims that Jesus Christ is Lord" - World Council of Churches, I'd say you are.

• * *

"In Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, creation is not considered to be "part of" God, and the Godhead is distinct from creation. There is, in other words, an eternal difference between the uncreated (ie, God) and the created (ie, everything else). This does not mean, however, that the creation is wholly separated from God, because the creation exists by and in the Divine energies. These energies are the operations of God and are God, but the created is not God in the Divine essence. God creates the world by the Divine will. It is not an "emanation" of God, an outworking or effulgence of the Divine, or any other process which implies that creation is part of or necessary to God in God's essence. Thus, to speak of panentheism as part of Orthodox theology and doctrine is problematic at best.

In the theology of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, God is not merely creator of the universe; his active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all.[7] That is, God's energies (that is, activities) maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw his presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is good in its being and is not innately evil either in whole or in part. This does not deny the existence of evil in a fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation. Evil results from the will of creatures, not from their nature per se (see the problem of evil)."

• * * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "relationship with Christianity" section needs to be improved. BTW it was shocking to learn that Saint Nicholas (that's Santa Claus) punched someone out!!! Steve Dufour (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panentheism?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This applies also to Category:Feminist theology. Addition reverted today. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2], but has no preview available) --Alvestrand (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)kwhistle[reply]

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)[reply]

I have added copyright dates to my sources today, and also made a few modifications to the text where re-wording fit the source better. As long as the request for more reference info is at the top of the page, I'll continue adding sources. Guidance in filling the source gaps is welcome. Kwhistle (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)kwhistle[reply]

1. This article's use of Unity Church sources is already extremely excessive. Please stop adding more.
2. 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).
3. Please do not use semicolons between footnotes -- they are non-standard & look ugly.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Templates

Having had the {{primarysources}} 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My main target was not readers, but editors dumping ever-increasing amounts of primary/affiliated-sourced information into the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that this issue is a longstanding problem with this article -- see Talk:Unity Church/Archive1#Primary sources problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The earlier copy-and-paste job from the Unity website was unacceptable. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of third party sourcing

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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked everywhere I can think of for secondary sources. I found unreliable and even inaccurate information about Unity Church from other sources. most are usually interested in criticizing, not understanding what Unity is about. There just isn't much intelligent discussion outside of the Unity movement about Unity.

While the principles have been adopted by other groups, they are no longer Unity ideas when others take them on.

I added the articles from Unity Magazine. I'm sure I added too many. There are many writers in that magazine who are not Unity members. They do not tell Unity what it thinks, but are just teaching a similar message. I avoided authors who do not have Unity credentials, maybe that wasn't correct....but I hesitate to add more Unity Magazine sources.

I think that's about all I can do. but I am at least more comfortable that the information given is accurate and understandable by someone who just wonders what Unity is all about.

If I find some wonderful secondary source, I'll consider entering it, but I'm not hopeful that it exists.

Kwhistle (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)kwhistle[reply]

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."

1. It is normal to rely mainly upon secondary sources, which would allow analysis and interpretation of these 'basic teachings', rather than mere description.
2. The 'Basic teachings' section amounts to approximately half the article. If no substantive secondary sources can be found, then emphasis should be reduced.
3. 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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, primary/affiliated sources -- even when properly attributed as such -- are an inadequate basis for an encyclopaedic article. This is true whether the subtopic is an overview of the movement or its beliefs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why would a church that denies the objective reality of Sin be included in Christianity in any way???

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [3] 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)[reply]