Talk:List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
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.
List This article has been rated as List on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Unitarian Universalism work group. If you are interested in Unitarian Universalism-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.

Contents

[edit] Self-additions

Can I add myself? :) Voyager640 08:46, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sure, if you're notable. Nick Graves 03:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The amount of cool people on this list is staggering. So not just notable, but cool as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.145 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for three lists

Since most of these people are from before Unitarianism and Universalism merged in the US, there probably ought to be three lists:

  1. Unitarians - American pre-1961 and international
  2. Universalists - American pre-1961
  3. Unitarian Universalists - American post-1961

--Palnatoke 19:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • That's an interesting thought. It is useful to note, though, that post-1961 discourse among Unitarian Universalists tends to conflate the three categories. A good example of this is the "Famous UUs" t-shirt that my sister has. If no one wants to do the work of disaggregating these lists, perhaps we could just add an explanation saying that the list includes Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists. Voyager640 16:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative to separate the U's and U's from the UU's, beginning with the Adams' and a few others (four of whom I added to the list completely). I do not have the time nor resources at the moment to sort everybody, but it is my opinion that it'd be best to start sorting properly as soon as possible, so new edits can be placed into the appropriate subcategories. --Jxn 05:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have also asked for assistance in the sorting on UUWiki. --Palnatoke 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've done some of the sorting by checking Wikipedia articles. The ones left unsorted are mostly Americans pre-1961 whose Wikipedia articles fail searches for "Unitarian" or "Universalist". Many of the names that are left (Anthony, Bell, Longfellow to hame a few) are Unitarian, I think, but I won't sort them unless I find a source. Sorry for so many small edits. Edwinstearns 18:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was skeptical about Newton at first, but according to Britannica he was: [1] --Tydaj 20:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julian of Norwich

Wow. This one really ought to be taken off this list. I think this again is just showing the tendancy that I've seen on many other religion/mysticism pages to make Christian mystics out as being somehow seperate from Christianity, as if they had caught a glimpse through the darkness of Christianity into the light of a more modern and quasi-Eastern beliefs. Corbmobile 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separating Unitarians from Universalists

I think this can be somewhat misleading. For most Unitarian Universalists today, the historical meaning of the words and the differences between the two earlier denominations is no longer important. To include some like (say) Pete Seeger as a Unitarian but not a Unitarian Universalist is making a statement about his beliefs that I don't think can be substantiated. A person who died before the merger might be considered strictly Unitarian or Universalist, but not someone who was alive after the merger took place. Shoaler 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is not too strong an objection, I am going to disaggregate the categories, listing them alphabetically with a letter index, indicating persons from Universalist and other traditions next to their name. I am also giving their birth and death dates so that persons alive during the merger can be identified. Otherwise, I am using all the information present in the lists. You can preview the article as it currently stands in User:Shoaler/List of Unitarian Universalists Shoaler 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have reordered the lists of names into one alphabetical list. Shoaler 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this change is that it lost the information about those who are sometimes called UUs but were never members, such as Thomas Jefferson. These names at least should be seperated from the rest. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 15:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of some notation for these people, indicating they were non-members, or "spiritual unitarians" or something like that. I'd be open to suggestions how to indicate that. But I think it's really valuable to be able to look for people in a single list. Shoaler 15:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Why do you refer to Unitarians and Universalists as "earlier denominations"? There are quite a number of organized UUs who consider themselves Universalists, and in many countries, there is Unitarianism but no Unitarian Universalism. Besides, waiting a couple of days for objections is a bit on the short side. --Palnatoke 18:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Alas, I confess of thinking in terms of US Unitarian Universalists, which of course I'm more familiar with. You are quite right. There are many people in the world who belong to Unitarian and Universalist organizations and consider themselves strictly Unitarians and Universalists and not UUs (even if, in the US, their society might be a member of the UUA).
And, of course, it's even more complicated than that. Members of UU churches might consider themselves only Unitarian or only Universalist. And many people on this list attended churches occasionally or regularly but never formally joined. And some churches didn't have formal membership. So it's a "best estimate" at the orientation of a group of people who considered themselves (or were considered by others) unitarians or universalists.
I still believe a single list is easier to use. And it's less likely to lump people into absolute categories. Where it falls short is that it identifies Universalists but not Unitarians, primarily because more Unitarians were well known. And the people listed are almost entirely US. We should try to rectify that too. Shoaler 18:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
And no matter what, the title of the article is wrong. This is a list of Unitarians, Universalists and Unitarian Universalists (but "List of Unitarians and Universalists" would probably do). Shoaler 16:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

This list is for "notable" Unitarians and Universalists, not just anyone who happens to belong to a UU church (which would be a fairly large list). It is a similar criterion as the one for Wikipedia articles and everyone on this list should probably have a Wikipedia article also. So here's an opportunity for people who like to research and write articles. With this in mind, does anyone know who Robert Dillman and Angela Moffett are? Shoaler 10:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do actors count as notable people?--HistoricalPisces 17:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If a person is sufficiently notable to have an entry in Wikipedia, they are notable enough for this list. –Shoaler (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if people who do not have a Wikipedia article should remain in the list. My inclination is to take them out. As time permits, I intend to do a Google search on names without articles and see if they truly are notable. Any thoughts on that?--Mikebrand 01:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several people on the list who are notable in UU circles but do not have articles written about them yet. I would check the UUA website and see what it says. But yes, if they're not notable, we should take them out. –Shoaler (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they should stay (or go) based on whether they're notable or not, rather than whether or not an article exists. If they're non-notable, feel free to remove them. But if they're notable, they should stay even if there's no article written just yet. One of the biggest advantages of list articles over categories is that you can include entries for which there is no individual article. --Craig Stuntz 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I managed to clean up all the "red" enteries without deleting anyone. Most were a matter of changing the link to the proper Wikipedia article. For several others I added a link to an external page. The few remaining "red" names are at least sufficiently notable to be listed here: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_unitarian.html --Mikebrand 04:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It took just another 30 minutes to added an external reference to everyone who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Now all the notables have either internal or external references. If time permits I hope to use those external references as sources for Wikipedia articles --Mikebrand 13:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Tolstoy?

After reading some of Leo Tolstoy's religious texts (just a few, not all) and autobiographical works, I am tempted to add him to the list. While defining himself as a Christian, in his later life he adhered to the belief that

...a Christian should look inside his or her own heart to find inner happiness rather than looking outward toward the Church or state... [2]

However, I am an expert in neither Tolstoy nor the philosophies of UU, so I am requesting the assistance of someone more knowledgable than myself. I hope I am not embarrassingly off-the-mark here.  :) --buck 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

I disputed this because I think it's vague and hard to tell. There are three different possible groups and I think members were taken from all of these. Such as John Adams, was a Unitarian but this list said Unitarian Universalists... so, it's too convoluted. gren グレン ? 09:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are five groups if you include (small-u) unitarians and universalists. Or 120 if you consider that any of these people may be in more than one group. Assertaining a person's belief from 200 years ago is not an exact science but I think this list does the best job possible. We could rename the article "List of Unitarians and Universalists" which would probably be more (but not completely) accurate. I think some of the entries are may not be perfect either, but hanging a {{disputed}} tag on the whole article I think is a bit of an overkill. Shoaler 11:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Rather than dispute the whole article, why not just use {{fact}} on the names you believe to be questionable?--Craig Stuntz 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to rename the article "List of Unitarians and Universalists" and then remove the {{disputed}} tag, allowing the use of {{fact}}. If you have any objections, please post them. Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the new name. "List of Unitarians and Universalists" was cumbersome as it was, but at least it's precedented. --Tydaj 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Even in the US there are congregations which are strictly Unitarian or Universalist (though with only a few exceptions, are all part of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) - It would be helpful if someone could cite an example in the US. There are certainly congregations that haven't changed their names to include both u's, and individuals who would still classify themselves this way, but I haven't run across whole congregations that either embrace hell or the trinity. This also would argue against changing the name of the article. --NealMcB 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There are two factors which muddy the waters on this issue. While there are some UU churches in the US which have not (yet?) changed their name to include the other "U", there are some which see themselves as strictly Unitarian or Universalist without espousing either hell or the trinity. It's more a matter of tradition than specific theology. There are churches which have been Unitarian for 150 years and are not about to add Universalist to their name. Do they believe in hell? Probably not. And there are other churches which are Universalist and not UU. Why? Either because they have always been Universalist or because they believe that "Universalist" churches are more traditional. And that's just in the US. In Britain, for example, a Unitarian church is a member of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. There are very few if any Universalist churches in Britain. But I doubt if many of the Unitarians there believe in hell. –Shoaler (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Justice John Marshall, a Unitarian ? ? ? No, not that John Marshall

This is to explain why I'll be deleting from the list of famous Unitarians this entry for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall:

 John Marshall (1755–1835) (Chief Justice)

Simply put, Chief Justice John Marshall was not a Unitarian. He was an Episcopalian, who figured prominently in the history of St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in Richmond Virginia.

See, e.g., http://www.stpauls-episcopal.org/Church_History.asp

The fact that Chief Justice John Marshall was an eighteenth-century Virginian should itself make one suspicious of any assertions that he was a Unitarian - - for Unitarianism's roots were in New England, not the South. Thomas Jefferson was an eighteenth-century Virginian too, of course, but we know from his relationship with the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley, and from his correspondence with John Adams, that he was a Unitarian in sympathy and theology, if not by membership in a Unitarian congregation (which was not much of an option at Monticello). I'm afraid we have no similar basis for tagging Chief Justice John Marshall as a Unitarian. And his leadership in the Espiscopalian Church, provides a compelling reason for removing him from Wikipedia's list of famous Unitarians and Universalists.

I would, however, like to offer a possible explanation for why the Chief Justice has been misidentified as a famous Unitarian. I suspectt it comes of the fact that another John Marshall was a prominent British Unitarian -- John Marshall the British industrialist and linen draper from Leeds who lived from 1765 to 1845.

See: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TEXmarshall.htm

I would guess that that John Marshall, the industrialist, earned an entry for his name in lists of prominent Unitarians. Americans then confused him with John Marshall they knew best - - the U.S. Chief Justice.

The misidentification may have been popularized by an ardent Unitarian stamp collector who assembled pages of Unitarians on postage stamps - - prominently featuring a stamp honoring John Marshall, the U.S. Chief Justice. I saw such a collection, framed, on the wall of the Unirtarian Universalist Association's Boston headquarters when I visited in early 2007, and I have seen it reproduced in Sunday school curricula that I use as a religious-education instructor at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego.

The mistake was an easy one to make, but it really needs correction.

Eric Alan Isaacson 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Then again . . . .

Doing follow-up research, I find that Chief Justice John Marshall's daughter, in the last days of her life apparently told a minister that her father for most of his life declined to take communion in the Episcopal Church that he openly supported because he could not subscribe to its dogmas - - in particular, the dogma of the Trinity. She apparently recounted that in the final months of his life, Chief Justice Marshall accepted the doctrine of the Trinity, and sought to take communion publicly, but was unable to do so on account of his illness. SeeAllan B. Magruder, John Marshall 264-65 (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1885); 2 Bishop Meade, Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia 223-24 n.* (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1891).

This would make Chief Justice a theological Unitarian (small "u" unitarian in the usage of this article) until his last days - - and some might say would justify including him in a list of prominent Unitarians and Universalists. I personally don't think it does.

Given his open support for the Episcopal church and attendance at its services throughout his life, I am not inclined to add Chief Justice John Marshall to a list of prominent Unitarians and Universalists on the basis of post-mortem hearsay reports of secretly held doubts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity -- doubts that never were a matter of public knowledge during his lifetime.

I would distinguish Chief Justice John Marshall's case from that of, say Thomas Jefferson whose Episcopalian commitments were not as ostentatious as Chief Justice John Marshall's, whose Unitarianism is known to us from his own writings (I am thinking of his correspondence with John Adams, and of Jefferson's statements endorsing Priestley's theology), who in correspondence expressed hope that Unitarianism would become the general religion of the United States, whose Notes on Virginia and correspondence with a nephew together express a theological pluralism characteristic of modern Unitarian Universalism, and who was in fact publicly identified as a Unitarian during his own lifetime in Belsham's Life of Theophilus Lindsey, which itself played a prominent role in "the Unitarian Controversy" that produced schism in New England's Congregationalist churches in the early 1800s.

I think Thomas Jefferson's Unitarianism is far clearer, and far more historically important than are Chief Justice John Marshall's secret doubts about the doctrine of the Trinity. Those doubts may warrant discussion in a biographical entry about the Chief Justice, but I do not think they warrant including him on this list of prominent Unitarians and Universalists.

Eric Alan Isaacson 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More thoughts on attempts to "separate" Unitarians from Universalists

Separating Unitarians and Universalists may be easier said than done. Consider the Rev. Adin Ballou, who was first a Universalist minister, and then a Unitarian minister. His move from one denomination to the other was motivated, if I recall, by the fact that he objected to the "ultra-Universalism" of the Rev. Hoseah Ballou that had swept the Universalist denomination, and which rejected the idea of hell altogether. Believing that sinners should be punished in at least a temporary hell, Adin Ballou opted for a Unitarian affiliation because it was less radical than Hoseah Ballou's "ultra-Universalism." The Unitarian affiliation left left him room to argue that Universal salvation would come only after people had been soundly punished for their evil deeds.

Perhaps Adin Ballou's case argues for drawing a hard distinction between Unitarians and Universalists - - at least in the context of the eighteenth-century Restorationist Controversy. Yet the boundaries are anything but hard and fast. And terminology can become very confusing because "Unitarian" and "Universalist" can refer to theological doctrine, or to denominational affiliation, or to both.

And today many who are fervently "Unitarian Universalist" in their denominational affiliation are neither Unitarian in their theology, nor Universalist in the original sense of believing in a Universal resurrection and Universal salvation. Many members of the Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego, for example, accept Buddhist teachings - - which are neither Unitarian nor Universalist as those terms were used in eighteenth- or nineteenth-century Christian theology. But difficulties of terminology go back some time.

When the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley fled England to escape religious and political persecution, he was welcomed to preach in 1796 from the pulpit of the Rev. Elhanan Winchester, the leading Universalist minister. Thomas Brown, in his 1826 A History of the Origin and Progress of the Doctrine of Universal Salvation lauds Priestley and Winchester for placing religious fellowship above theological doctrine. For the two entertained radically different Christologies, yet could fellowship one another and share a pulpit. Brown tells us that Rev. Winchester was a "Trinitarian Universalist," while "Dr. Priestley was a Unitarian Universalist." See Thomas Brown, A History of the Origin and Progress of the Doctrine of Universal Salvation 325 n. (Thomas Brown 1826).

Ah, but we're told that there was no such thing as "a Unitarian Universalist" before 1961, when the Unitarian and Universalist denominations merged. Yet Priestley surely was both a Unitarian by denominational affiliation, and a Universalist, in his theology. And Winchester who was both a Universalist in his denominational affiliation, though anything but a Unitarian in his theology.

Then there's Benjamin Rush, whom Unitarian Universalists today claim because he accepted Winchester's Universalist theology, and even penned the resolutions of the General Convention of Universalists that met at Philadelphia in 1790. Yet Rush, if I'm not mistaken, had his children baptized as Presbyterians.

And there's Susan B. Anthony, who I am told, called herself sometimes a Quaker, and sometimes a Unitarian - - perceiving no conflict between the two.

Does Rush's Presbyterianism exclude him from the history of Universalism? I think not. His place in American Universalist history is an important one. Does Anthony's Quakerism exclude her from Unitarian history? Again I think not. No more than the Buddhist sentiments of many modern Unitarian Universalists would.

We'd best recognize that the task of identifying Unitarians and Universalists is neccessarily a messy one. And that may not be a bad thing.

Eric Alan Isaacson 04:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

I have deleted all entries that had no references. These may be added back in as references are found. See here to find the names that need references in order to be restored. They will be in the left column, highlighted in yellow. Nick Graves 03:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also deleted all entries that did not yet have their own articles. This does not necessarily mean they do not belong on the list. They are just presumed non-notable by Wikipedia standards until enough reliable, independent sources are found to justify writing an article about them. The names can be found here, highlighted in yellow in the left column. Nick Graves 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but you couldn't find any references yourself? You deleted the current president of the UUA, referenced in his article even if not here! Aleta (Sing) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you have referenced a number of them; so I've struck that portion of my previous comments. Aleta (Sing) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that was really a draconic measure. I don't have the time to track down references for every single person on the list, although I know for some of them the specific Unitarian church they attended, and where their grave can be seen in the cemetary outside that very Unitarian church!! Try this website for a start: http://www.famousuus.com/. Most of them are there, maybe all. We are NOT lying, there really are this large number of famous UUs. For all these candidates you are trying to have removed, I would like to know what religion you think they were. (although I agree with you on the notability issue, if they don't deserve their own Wikipedia article, they are not notable enough to go on this list)--KEVP March 8, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.131.111 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)