The Universist Movement is quickly gaining notable attention worldwide. Could this possibly warrant a new review on submitting an article about them? See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-33,GGLD:en&q=%22Universist%22 kkawohl
In a world inundated by religiosity, the more info about free-thought, reason and non-theist-based though, and more important, more info for those who are waverng toward reason and unbelief, the better. Chuck
Keep! As one of the 5,000-plus who have signed on to Universism, I say it would be an unconscionable error to deprive others of the right to learn about this important outlook on life. I have a "Universist" bumper sticker on my car, and am willing to discuss the subject with anyone.--Askswhy84
Keep! I am a Universist. Before Universism I did not have a place where I could discuss my philosphical beliefs. Universism is not a religion in my view, it just people who are trying to discover truth through reason and science. Granted some Universists are Deists, but their beliefs are their own and do not represent all Universists. It has grown in the last year as a movement. Perhaps, it is not well known enough for Wikipedia standards. However, many groups start small and grow into larger movements. If you research Universism you could write an article about it. As a philosophy it stands alone and I am proud to be part of it whether or not it remains here. Freddy
This is NOT the place to vote. Vote on the project page itself. This is the talk page, which is rarely used for on VfD vote. However, you should know that votes from people who haven't made any edits prior to the start of the vote are usually not counted. -- BM 13:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added myself to the recap table, but am waiting on another Arbitrary break to vote in the main body of votes. Samaritan 01:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is where you use the word "Irony." Just as the Wikipedia article was being deleted for not being "notable" enough, an article and illustration on Universism takes up about half of the Sunday New York Times Op-Ed. I think the Sunday NY Times is the most read paper in the world, or second to something in India no doubt. I have my suspicions based on the amount of email today. No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV and was fine. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/opinion/12horgan.html -- Deist 05:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deist, this piece wasn't "on" Universism, was it? Universism is mentioned three times, and in particular the writer used the question on the front page of your web site "Who will fight for the faithless?" as the introductory hook for his essay. But the article is about the phenomenon in general, and mentions several groups. Indeed, Horgan (the author) ends the essay with a sarcastic sentence about starting his own religion, too, horganism. Somehow, I don't you'll get much competition from him. Incidentally, I also think the phenomenon is notable, and if there were a Wikipedia article on it, Universism would merit a mention, along with the Brights, and several other groups that by themselves might not be sufficiently large or notable (yet) to merit a separate article -- especially not an article which they would write and treat as a promotional vehicle. -- BM 13:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV, was the product of group effort including BM, and was fine. As for your comments about the Times article, I can't even respond. I look forward to being equally flabbergasted by your minimization of a newsweek feature. -- Deist 21:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, in fairness I think you have to give me credit for most of the final version, although also in fairness I have to give credit for prompting from several other people. So, Deist, when can we expect to see you on the Newsweek cover? Have you given any thought to what the Pope of Universism should wear? -- BM 22:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The New York Times seemed to think the article was about Universism. They printed our letter to the editor first on Sunday. You and Scott did a great job of removing all references to Universism from Wikipedia by the way under the lame claim that they linked to a deleted page. If you didn't really have a vendetta you would have changed the link to text, leaving the reference. At several points in this debate it was conceded that Universism deserves mentions in related articles like freethought but you felt it didn't deserve its own article. Now of course your entire premise that Universism consists of one guy and his dog has been blown to smithereens. At the very least Universism deserves mentions in related articles. -- Deist 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about Scott, but for me to have changed the link to text in such articles as Atheism, pantheism, etc would have required me to believe that universism was significant in relation to these topics -- and I don't. -- BM 19:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My point exactly. I rest my case. -- Deist 01:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Universist Movement is quickly gaining notable attention worldwide. Could this possibly warrant a new review on submitting an article about them? See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-33,GGLD:en&q=%22Universist%22 kkawohl
In a world inundated by religiosity, the more info about free-thought, reason and non-theist-based though, and more important, more info for those who are waverng toward reason and unbelief, the better. Chuck
Keep! As one of the 5,000-plus who have signed on to Universism, I say it would be an unconscionable error to deprive others of the right to learn about this important outlook on life. I have a "Universist" bumper sticker on my car, and am willing to discuss the subject with anyone.--Askswhy84
Keep! I am a Universist. Before Universism I did not have a place where I could discuss my philosphical beliefs. Universism is not a religion in my view, it just people who are trying to discover truth through reason and science. Granted some Universists are Deists, but their beliefs are their own and do not represent all Universists. It has grown in the last year as a movement. Perhaps, it is not well known enough for Wikipedia standards. However, many groups start small and grow into larger movements. If you research Universism you could write an article about it. As a philosophy it stands alone and I am proud to be part of it whether or not it remains here. Freddy
This is NOT the place to vote. Vote on the project page itself. This is the talk page, which is rarely used for on VfD vote. However, you should know that votes from people who haven't made any edits prior to the start of the vote are usually not counted. -- BM 13:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added myself to the recap table, but am waiting on another Arbitrary break to vote in the main body of votes. Samaritan 01:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is where you use the word "Irony." Just as the Wikipedia article was being deleted for not being "notable" enough, an article and illustration on Universism takes up about half of the Sunday New York Times Op-Ed. I think the Sunday NY Times is the most read paper in the world, or second to something in India no doubt. I have my suspicions based on the amount of email today. No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV and was fine. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/opinion/12horgan.html -- Deist 05:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deist, this piece wasn't "on" Universism, was it? Universism is mentioned three times, and in particular the writer used the question on the front page of your web site "Who will fight for the faithless?" as the introductory hook for his essay. But the article is about the phenomenon in general, and mentions several groups. Indeed, Horgan (the author) ends the essay with a sarcastic sentence about starting his own religion, too, horganism. Somehow, I don't you'll get much competition from him. Incidentally, I also think the phenomenon is notable, and if there were a Wikipedia article on it, Universism would merit a mention, along with the Brights, and several other groups that by themselves might not be sufficiently large or notable (yet) to merit a separate article -- especially not an article which they would write and treat as a promotional vehicle. -- BM 13:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No doubt someone will start an article on Universism again, my only concern is that the article not be POV, which BM's early edits clearly were. The last version of the article wasn't POV, was the product of group effort including BM, and was fine. As for your comments about the Times article, I can't even respond. I look forward to being equally flabbergasted by your minimization of a newsweek feature. -- Deist 21:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, in fairness I think you have to give me credit for most of the final version, although also in fairness I have to give credit for prompting from several other people. So, Deist, when can we expect to see you on the Newsweek cover? Have you given any thought to what the Pope of Universism should wear? -- BM 22:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The New York Times seemed to think the article was about Universism. They printed our letter to the editor first on Sunday. You and Scott did a great job of removing all references to Universism from Wikipedia by the way under the lame claim that they linked to a deleted page. If you didn't really have a vendetta you would have changed the link to text, leaving the reference. At several points in this debate it was conceded that Universism deserves mentions in related articles like freethought but you felt it didn't deserve its own article. Now of course your entire premise that Universism consists of one guy and his dog has been blown to smithereens. At the very least Universism deserves mentions in related articles. -- Deist 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about Scott, but for me to have changed the link to text in such articles as Atheism, pantheism, etc would have required me to believe that universism was significant in relation to these topics -- and I don't. -- BM 19:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My point exactly. I rest my case. -- Deist 01:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)