Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Unitheism

Moved from AfD to talk page
Here is a reference for its use in Pantheism, in the form of the thousands year old belief system of Native Indians. http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:S3xu_J3QXjUJ:www.usbr.gov/pmts/economics/reports/Valuation%2520of%2520Indian%2520Resources%2520Land%2520and%2520Water%2520Resources.pdf+unitheism&hl=en&client=firefox-a
 * Comment: Quote removed to shorten discussion page.--The Boomer 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism: a guidebook for valuing land and water resources is not a treatise on theology. Durova 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reference to another meaning and usage - a unification of beliefs http://users.skynet.be/horizons/unitheisme/indexeng.html
 * Comment: Quote removed to shorten discussion page.--The Boomer 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism: this is someone's personal webpage. Durova 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This page contains a broken link to a Wiccan/Pagan's use of the word. Many Wiccans use this word. http://members.tripod.com/torann_2/links/pagan.htm "UniTheism: My definition - Personal page's about UniTheism. A few of my favourite Pagan links pages."
 * Criticism: Tripod site. Durova 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a web article that discusses the Vedra/Mithra use of the word. http://assoc.wanadoo.fr/cercle.ernest-renan/Mithrandmithriacism.htm
 * Comment: Quote removed to shorten discussion page.--The Boomer 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism: Self-published essay by a non-notable person. Durova 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is used in this outline of an article on Islam. http://users.skynet.be/horizons/islam/indexeng.html
 * Comment: Quote removed to shorten discussion page.--The Boomer 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism: second citation of someone's personal website. Durova 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is used in reference to Unitarian Universalists here. http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=8215&discussionID=405731
 * Comment: Quote removed to shorten discussion page.--The Boomer 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism: message board post. Durova 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Other references have been found to its use in all 4 of the major meanings overviewed. Some of the links are now broken. Also realize that the internet is a relatively new medium. The result is that it does not yet represent a very big portion of the greater pool of literature. Some references to the word are very old and not all of them on are the internet. Mr. King uses this shortcoming of the internet to create a personal soapbox where searches of this word are overwhelmed by his singular and personal use of it and his claims to its authorship. It should not be allowed in a serious collection of uses such as Wikipedia.
 * Criticism: no citation comes from a news report, academic journal, or other reliable source. The only only semi-reliable source is a guidebook on water resource management. Durova 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation entry was a fair summary of the previous article which DID contain some references to alternate uses. More references have been provided. Non-English references exist including French and Hebrew. Even more references exist off of the internet. If Wikipedia drops this entry, the use of an old word threatens to be co-opted by personal agendas and increasingly voluminous recent internet entries of a retired crack pot with too much time on his hands. He will persist in his agenda as the history of entries clearly shows. These actions and silent acceptance of them, do not lend much credibility to the internet or sources such as Wikipedia.

I am the author of the article that outlined 4 supported usages and meanings of the word. I have made the above comments in support of the current disambiguation entry to clarify this. My intentiion is not to denigrate Mr. King and his associate Mr. Farr, but rather to clarify how Mr. King has been trying to use Wikipedia to add legitimacy to his disproven claim that he coined a new word. I have opened this user account to clarify my intentions and actions and to receive comments in these regards.--The Boomer 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply by GTBacchus (written before I saw Durova's more succinct criticims)
Ok, the links you provided consist of:


 * 1) A document by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. It references Kaelin, as you cite, who used the word in this book to describe Native American spiritual systems.
 * 2) An attempt at neologism by someone in France writing essays about how he thinks things oughtta be.
 * 3) A broken link to a personal page by some Wiccan figuring they thought of the word first. Maybe many Wiccans use the word "unitheism", but this link doesn't convince me of that.
 * 4) An essay on Mithra by Louis Prat, who seems to be a currently active French Philosopher, but it's hard to find much info about him w/ Google. It's not clear to me what he's using the word to mean.  Maybe "unitheism" is in his dictionary.
 * 5) Same website as #2, creepier page. Again, this is some cat who figures there's an unused word and they found it first.
 * 6) A messageboard post at beliefnet in which some Unitarian is listing every alternative church they can think of that begins with a 'U'? What could they be referring to as "Unitheism"?  We have no way of knowing.  I'll bet you a dollar they don't know either.

Then you make an argument why Mr. King's claim to originating the word shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia, on account of it being an already established word. My reply is that no, it isn't an established word at all, and we don't accept neologisms, no matter how spotty their pedigree. For those two reasons (it wasn't a word before Mr King got to it, and it still isn't), I think the article should be deleted. Wikipedia's job is neither to promote new usages, nor to prevent them by attempting to establish slightly older neologisic usages lest newer ones catch on. If King and Farr can get the world (or just a noticable fraction of it) talking about their version of Unitheism, then other people will write about it here without being asked to, but that hasn't happened yet. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply I disagree that it is not an established word.  Many references have been provided.  I could provide even more references to it and was in the process of doing so when I had newbie technical difficulties.  Are you saying that a word has to be an existing Dictionary entry to be an entry here?  I once found it in a translated Hebrew dictionary.  I havfe also seen it in a Wiccan dictionary.  Does it have to be in a published book?  One had been provided and it can be provided again.  I believe others could be provided as well.  Does it have to have a single undisputed meaning?  Why?  I can find other entries here that talk about things in different meanings and uses.  Are there not enough references to it?  How many is required? I believe that you should clearly outline what you would accept and be able to defend that standard against other accepted Wikipedia/Wiktionary entries.  How do new views get weighed against existing members here?  Do non-internet references count and how are they demonstrated?--The Boomer 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 1 in a book on Islam--The Boomer 21:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.beliefnet.com/study_groups/studygroup_message_list.asp?studyGroupID=4561&discussionID=244886 A discussion of it from Wiccans. The following defiunition was provided:] "Unitheism: The belief that all the gods/goddesses are one god/goddess, and that by worshiping different gods/goddesses we are merely worshiping a different aspect of the divine. Hindus also believe in this, but they believe that all the gods/goddesses are aspects of ONE god."--The Boomer 21:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A reference to the Unitheist Temple Assembly Church in Roselle Park, NJ--The Boomer 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=4005693292 A Mister Poll option for choice of faith. ("unitheist / all beings are holy")]--The Boomer 21:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Gurian, a well published author, talks about his concept of unitheism in this book It is not available online. --The Boomer 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)