Talk:Indemnity (Unification Church)

Merge proposal
A single concept in Unification theology is not sufficiently notable to have its own article. -Exucmember (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel just the opposite. Many people have mentioned the Unificationist concept of indemnity. The article cites 3 books (2 of which were written by Christian authors) which made a special point of explaining it to their readers. It has also been mentioned in the context of UC related controversies.  This article is now readable (I hope) and explains the concept so people can understand it.  On the other hand, a long article on the whole of Unification theology is not going to find very many readers. (A Google search for Unification Church indemnity gives 11,700 hits. ) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I think I may change my mind on this one. Steve Dufour's arguments have merit, and even as I was nominating this for merge I thought, well, if there were any single concept that could stand on its own as notable, this might be it. There was also a substantial academic article that dealt extensively with indemnity written by Dr. Richard Quebedeaux (Currents? About 1990?) that should be referenced. -Exucmember (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wanted to include a section on how the concept of indemnity is applied (and how the word is used) within the UC but I haven't found any sources yet. (I've now made a start to the section. I'll try to find Quebedeaux's article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.unification.net/misc/powerdp.html Here it is. I have to go to work now, but I'll get back to it. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All I did was add it as a source. I'm not sure what else could be done since it seems to be mainly his own opinions. Also it's not clear if he is a UC member or not. I also checked him out on Google but it doesn't seem like he is quite notable enough for his own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article issues
This article relies primarily on UC sources (particularly DP) for the bulk of material, and employs third-party sources primarily as strings of references supporting generally short and uncontroversial statements -- thus raising WP:UNDUE weight issues. I intend to template the article for these problems. HrafnTalkStalk 06:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the article is to give information on the Unification Church concept of "indemnity", which church members, church critics, and scholars all agree is an important concept in understanding the church. Nine sources are given: 4 from the church (one of these is by a non-member critical of church members), 4 very critical of the church, and 1 neutral and informational. Please add any more sources if you like. I would like to see the article improved.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the long block quotes from UC sources could be taken out. Redddogg (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That would probably be WP policy. Like I said I started the article for people who wanted information on the topic. I couldn't find any sources, even from within the church, that say much about how UC members understand "indemnity." So I put in the quotes, which I think are useful even if not really strictly encyclopedic. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Number of sources isn't the issue -- the issue is amount of 'column inches' given to them. Also, although the article states "Christian theologians have criticized ..." it does not cite any recognised theologians -- merely a televangelist (hardly a scholarly source) and a couple of non-notable ministers. HrafnTalkStalk 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exposition Press
Exposition Press, publisher of The Phases and Faces of the Moon: A Critical Examination of the Unification Church and Its Principles "is a 'subsidy' or 'vanity' publisher". The book is therefore WP:SELFPUB and not a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. I bought the book from Amazon.com. I guess it was printed for the benefit of the members of the authors' church. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be a somewhat official publication of the Christian Church (that's a denomination) since both of the authors and the person who wrote the forward are ministers of that church. The mere fact that they outsourced the publication shouldn't make it a bad source. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try putting the material back from this source. I think it is valuable for presenting a main-stream Christian view of the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust
Perhaps this article is the best place to discuss the antisemitism controversy. Moon's remarks about Jews and the Holocaust don't make sense without reference to Hitler, God, Satan, and indemnity.

The concept of indemnity has been interpreted as "payment" or "payback", and I'm not sure how valid that is. Is payback an oversimplification? It seems to fit "equal indemnity" (a Unificationist term). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. There's also the AJC report & Sandon's accusation of a senior Unificationist's belief in Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theories -- neither of which fit within this article. Unification Church already has a stub-section for this topic, so why not move it there? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to know which article discuss UC & antisemitism better than I do. I'd love to see a list: that would help me (and others) integrate them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the only place other than Unification Church antisemitism controversy‎ where this material is currently discussed is in American Jewish Committee‎ (where Steve recently put it, although I have suggested that it is WP:UNDUE there, as the AJC/UC report seems to have been barely a blip on their radar). The AJC report would appear to overlap topically with Divine Principle, the Holocaust=Indemnity overlaps topically with this article. As far as I know, the Sandon accusation would not overlap with any UC-related article other than UCac & Unification Church itself -- making the latter the obvious merge-target. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, well I'm more interested in getting it written (and making it easily accessible to readers). I'm open to which page the bulk of it goes.


 * I have to get back to work, but maybe tonight or tomorrow I'll get back to this. Thanks for your help and guidance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)