Talk:Unification Church/Archive 2

Creative Community Project
I took out "... as the Creative Community Project." from the discussion of the growth of the church in the San Francisco area in the 70s. The CCP was a proposed project to build a model city in Boonville. It wasn't the name of the church and it wasn't even supported by all members. It also doesn't have an article on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

External Link Proposal
I would like to restore my original link to Unificationism: a critique and counterproposal. Father Moon is still calling for the end of secular elections in his own official public speeches and this needs to be addressed somehow. "From now on, the president of a nation cannot do his job as he wishes. The next election (in Korea ) will be the last one. In the future we will not use the electoral system anymore. You have to know that. The next election will be the last one." - Sun Myung Moon, October 18, 2008 ''"Elections conducted in a purely secular way will disappear from the face of this earth." - Sun Myung Moon, February 19, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 4, 2010.'' Respectfully Marknw (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Campaign to replace the Cross with a Crown
Was this really important enough to have its own section? It seems to be mostly sourced by primary sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or else expand the section to discuss the whole issue of differences between Unificationism and main-stream Christianity. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For now I took it out of its own section, removed the opinions pro and con, and put it in the history section. More information on the larger issue would be welcome. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lovin'Life Ministries
There should be a mention of the new brand of Unification church the "Lovin' Life Ministries". They are the new outreach of the moonies.


 * No problem with that from me. The Washington Post did a story on it, but I'm not sure if they mentioned the name "Lovin' Life." Steve Dufour (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting merging Free Teens into Unification Church
Based on the following reasons(taken from here):-

Bejinhan Talk   10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This subject by itself is not warranting an article
 * 2) The article could be merged into Unification Church and the advert tone and weasel words cut away.
 * 3) Many un-sourced statements. This has to be dealt with before merge.
 * 4) Last option would be WP:AFD.

The board members of Free Teens USA who are not Unification Church members would object to this action. Also, since the advocates of this change have provided no evidence that Free Teens USA teaches the doctrines of this or any other church, what rationale do they have for "merging" Free Teens USA into an article about a church? ˜˜˜˜rap2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap2007 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here states that "Free Teens USA, like other Moon civic organizations, claims it has no ties to the Unification Church. But according to documents obtained by Salon under the Freedom of Information Act, the director and chief finance officer of the Free Teens USA club, as well as others listed on the group's board of directors, are former or present high-ranking Unification Church officials who omitted those leadership roles from their applications for the federal grant." This merge might be controversial due to the circumstances. In a list compiled here by Investigative Research Specialists Free Teens USA is listed as an associated entity with the Unification Church. Of course, as I said this merge is potentially controversial, but a few other opinions would be very much appreciated. Bejinhan  Talk   03:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be better to list it on List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. You can't list every project by every UC member all over the world in this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Steve Dufour on both points. Free Teens was started by a Unification Church member who at the time could in no way be called a high-ranking Unification Church official and who had no access to church funds; it was his personal project. Can you imagine someone advocating that a project started by some mainstream church member be added to the article about that person's church? -Exucmember (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. The article is notable on its own, it just needs improvements. I checked and found a good deal of secondary source coverage on the organization. Examples, http://tinyurl.com/29h32jg, http://tinyurl.com/28lj2np, http://tinyurl.com/29tmskm. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Future leadership section
This section seems kind of weak. I understand that a lot more information has come out since it was written. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Former members
Should the article have a section on people who were members and then left? This seems to be an important aspect of the church.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's some info on this in List of Unification Church members and Unification Church of the United States. I don't see a problem with a section here. It would be a little unusual though. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find some sources that say it's notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you have established that former members are notable as a group, even if some are as individuals.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Unification Church and Islam
I am considering writing an article on the Unification Church and its relationship with Islam. What do people think about that? Borock (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be okay. What's needed more is an article on the UC and mainstream Christianity.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unification Church and IslamBorock (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section
According to WP policy articles should not have controversy sections. I am working on moving material from the controversy section to relevant sections in the main article. Borock (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Non Trinitarianism and Non Chalcedonianism
"Non Trinitarianism" is a logical subset of "Non Chalcedonianism" (i.e. all non Trinitarian doctrines are, by definition, non Chalcedonian). As the Unification Church is non Trinitarian then it is also non Chalcedonian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's your own interpretation of the term and is not the one that is commonly used. Usually the term refers to those Christians who accepted the Council of Ephesus 431 but did not accept the Council of Chalcedon. See Non-Chalcedonian. We don't use our own logic to extend the meanings of terminology beyond what they typically mean in the real world. This church would never self-identify as being "non-Chalcedonian", nor are there sources that call them that. Therefore, neither should we. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that your undeerstanding of logic fails you on this point. To put it simply, can you name any church that accepts Chalcedon while rejecting Ephesus? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said they [non-Chalcedonians] accept Ephesus but reject ("do not accept") Chalcedon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is even more bizarre. He who rejects Ephesus is non Trinitarian. He who rejects Chalcedon is non Chalcedonian. By your own logic, you should have deleted the category "Non Trinitarianism" instead of "Non Chalcedonianism". I think you'd better think it out again. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to stop using your own interpretation of the terms based on your own logic and find out how the real world uses these terms. Non-Chalcedonians accept Ephesus but reject Chalcedon. If you reject both, you're not a non-Chalcedonian, at least in the real world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This desire to limit or eliminate logic in favour of illogic or, as you term it, "the real world" is your own world view and as such constitutes Original Research. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. "Original research" "refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources": see WP:OR. There are not reliable sources that refer to the Unification Church as "non-Chalcedonian". There are reliable sources that state that non-Chalcedonians are those who accept Ephesus but reject Chalcedon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the category "Non the-moon-is-made-of-blue-cheeseism" existed, I would be forbidden to add U.C.s to it because no published articles exist stating their belief or non belief in the doctrine. Is that what you're saying? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. The ridiculousness of the example you give serves more as an explanation as to why such a category does not exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If "'Non Trinitarianism' is a logical subset of 'Non Chalcedonianism'", then the logical thing to do is to place Category:Non Trinitarianism within Category:Non Chalcedonianism, NOT place this article directly ino Category:Non Chalcedonianism -- doing the latter would be overcategorisation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you may have a very valid point there. .While it would break the neat dichotomy, it would be more logical. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline article?
WP has many "Timeline of..." articles, for instance Timeline of Christianity. What do people think about a "Timeline of the Unification Church"? Borock (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The shorter time something (be it a religious movement or whatever) has been in existence, the more difficult it is to demonstrate that a timeline is needed/useful. For the UC (which has only been around for a few decades), I think we'd need a fairly compelling argument. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Any information that would be on a timeline could be put into this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Connection with "Korean CIA" ??
The source Dominic Streatfeild's "Brainwaish" (Hodder, 2006) says in passing that the UC has been linked (whether fairly or unfairly) to the "Korean CIA". Any cross-referencing for this? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is mentioned in the article and expanded upon in Fraser Committee. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable pictures
Three pictures were recently added. Two of them seem to be from a Life Magazine story on the 1982 Madison Garden wedding, so are probably copyrighted. The other one is a picture of a document in which the printing is too small to read. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Digression on antisemitism
The digression on antisemitism is too long. and it does not mention that the Unification church has many Jewish adherents. Andries (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add the information if you like. I think there are at least 4 or 5 Jewish UC members, plus some other former members, with bios here. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Matched"?
In the subsection on "Sex and Marriage", the phrase "Moon matched all of the couples except..." is rather unclear. Does this mean that he introduced these people, and all of the couples who attended other than the already-married couples had decided to marry? Or, does it mean that he arranged the marriages and his followers agreed to marry acquaintances with whom they had no previous intimacy? Or does "matched" simply mean that he officiated the marriage ceremony, and to "match" is slang for to "marry"? --TricksterWolf (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It mainly means the second, that he introduced people to each other with the intention that they marry. In some cases the "matching" took place some months or years before the wedding, in others at the same time. Also see Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the information. Based on what you say, I'd have to object to an unqualified use of matched as a euphamism for arranged marriage.  This is a somewhat deceptive description of the practice.  To suggest the cleric is a "matchmaker" when he is actually arranging blind marriages is deceptive to Western audiences (who are most likely to be on EN): matchmaking is common in the West, but arranged marriage is very rare (and for many Westerners, incompatible with their cultural values).  I have no personal objection to the idea, but the meaning needs to be clearer. TricksterWolf (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

 * "... It would be hard to pick a new religion that generated more controversy than the Unification Church ... ".


 * "In 1978, a Congressional subcommittee issued a report that included the results of its investigation into the UC, and into other organizations associated with Moon. Among its other conclusions, the subcommittee's report stated that "Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers."


 * "In 1981 the Unification Church's bid for U.S. tax-exempt status as a religious organization was denied when an appellate court ruled that the church's primary purpose was political rather than religious. In 1982 Moon was convicted of tax evasion, sentenced to 18 months in prison, and fined $25,000. He began serving his term in 1984, and some fellow prisoners have written statements describing him as humble, hardworking and joyful. His followers, as well as many non-Unification religious leaders, regarded the trial as religious persecution by the government." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.61 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the committee was the project of one congressman, who later lost a bid for re-election, and that the ruling by the New York court on tax-exempt status was later overturned. Rev. Moon was also not convicted of tax evasion but of filing a tax return with incomplete information.  As you mentioned many legal experts have objected to the government's action. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lopsidedly one-sided ad copy; needs balance that at least acknowledges controversy, tax evasion, political agenda, etc.
Lopsidedly one-sided ad copy; needs balance via a "controversy" section that at least acknowledges controversy, tax evasion, avowed and vigorously pursued political agenda to replace democracy with rule by self-anointed theocrats, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.61 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:CSECTION. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:RS & WP:QUOTEFARM. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At one time the article did have a controversy section but it was merged with the rest of the article, as is WP policy. There are lots of controversial points mentioned in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP policy does not require controversy sections to be merged with the article; you may have this confused with Wikimedia Commons articles written by Wikipedia authors which are not actual policy. Since the Unification Church is a small religion noteworthy in Western media for their unusual financial backings and recruitment practices, a controversy section is likely something many people coming to this article would be looking for.  The current controversial bits have been distributed between different places and each one is followed by a refutation, which gives the article an apologetic feel. TricksterWolf (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

After a more thorough examination, I must agree in part with 66.167.61.61. Some of this article feels like an ad campaign for the Unification Church, with a rather NPOV flavor. Most controversial elements are not well-described and are immediately refuted where they occur, as though this is an apologetic reference. I think this is more of an organizational problem than anything else, but there are a number of omissions as a result and sections not where one would expect them (since "accusations of antisemitism" is not a "belief" of the UC, it doesn't belong in that section).

There are several public aspects of Unification Church controversy which are not covered. For just a few: the recruitment of members by selling flowers (this once-common practice appears nowhere in the article), the pattern in the 90's of advertising sponsorship from questionable groups (both Holocaust denialists and White supremacists) due in part to staffing of the UC-owned paper by White supremacists (though notably, in 2008 the hiring of Solomon has presumably been an excellent step toward putting a stop to this, which also bears mentioning), the fact that the UC has fronted over 1 billion dollars (according to tracking by the SPLC) to maintain the paper despite low readership, the size of the tax deductions granted to the Church and its legal struggles with tax status, and controversial statements made by Moon himself on issues of race, race-mixing, homosexuality, and other religions.

In addition to omission of details, the tone of the article is overly apologetic in places. In most places it gives a fair description, but it seems to blunt the church's official stance on some topics of controversy. I first posted on the talk page because I was concerned that matched was not a clear description for what apparently implies "arranged marriage". There are several places that the language is too euphemistic to clearly communicate with people not familiar with UC practices. (I do not assume this is an intentional obfuscation; it's more likely that UC members who edit this article use terminology familiar to them, without realizing it is not at all clear to outsiders.)

For one example, the rather extreme stance on homosexuality of the UC is reduced to two lines of text and softened in by merely suggesting "it is opposed by gay rights groups"; but the link to the only support article for this statement leads to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, which is not a gay rights group and doesn't mention the opposition of gay rights groups in its description of the UC position (taken directly from quotes of Moon and other leaders). Nowhere is it mentioned that gays and lesbians are forbidden from joining the Church, though this may be inferred in context; the infamous statement by Moon that, "Gays will be eliminated, the 3 Israels will unite. If not then they will be burned," is omitted, despite numerous sources. Given that the Unification Church believes that Moon is a prophet on par with (or is) Jesus and is the ultimate authority of the Church, controversial statements should be notable.

This article needs some major revision, mostly in organization. Despite my critique above, I have no strong opinion pro or con. I really don't want this article to become a Moonie-bashing haven for fundamentalists of other religions. However, it shouldn't be an ad for the Church either. It should be a straightforward objective description of the beliefs of the UC, its leadership, and historical context. I don't think that's what it is right now. It rambles and glows, intermittently. TricksterWolf (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The first step is to identify reliable sources covering these issues. I have not objection whatsoever to these issues being covered (assuming they are reliably sourced). I would however object to recreation of a separate 'Controversy' section -- as such segregation does not improve the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW the problems at the Washington Times are already reported in its own article, and most of the people involved were not church members. Also the arranged marriages in the UC involved only a fairly small number of people who were adults and dedicated church members, on the level of dedication of monks and nuns in other groups. The type of arranged marriages that are controversial nowdays involve young girls being forced to marry against their wills, so nothing especially related to the UC. Did I mention that I'm a member? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that WP:RS is the first step, though most of the issue I have is with how information on the page is organized. I don't agree that a "Controversy" section is a bad idea, however, because the article serves as a reference both for 1) a religion and 2) a church.  Scientology would be a good parallel, since nearly all Scientologists are affiliated with the Church of Scientology.  The descriptions of the religion should be free of bias and controversy and stick to the beliefs of its membership; information about the church and its leaders may contain controversy and this can be addressed in a single place.  Right now it's not well-organized and a "Controversy" section would help put information where people want it.


 * I mean--as much as I do not count myself among them, many people will come here simply to look for controversial issues (as with Scientology). For this reason it's appropriate to collect them rather than spread them around.  Hopefully, there is a way to do this without bashing the religion in the process (though if there are negative facts about the church or its leadership, these should be listed regardless, and the church stance on these issues can also be given).


 * Steve Dufour: I know you're a member, yes. :)  I have a former friend who was a member as well, but we had a falling out over some inappropriate behavior on his part (unrelated to his beliefs or associations), so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the Church but I'm far from being an expert.  I was concerned about my initial post because I did not wish to appear aggressive, but I do believe the article could use some reorganization.  I'm probably not the best candidate for it but I may try to help out eventually.  The problem I have with not listing the paper's controversies is that the Washington Times is so closely tied to the Church, particularly in that it seems to be the recipient of the lion's share of Church fundraising, that it is not appropriate to discuss the Church without describing how it spends its money.  Criticism and controversy resulting from the actions of the Church or its leadership could be placed in a section in this article or into a separate article.  Perhaps Unification Church views of sexuality should be merged with a controversy article; it hardly seems to merit an article of its own, as that information should be in the dogma on the religion article. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I would add that arranged marriage is in Western Culture controversial regardless as to whether or not the partners are able to consent by law, as it implies social pressure from an outside authority (the Church, seen my many as the ultimate authority) to marry a stranger. This is a striking disconnect with the Western values of individualism and personal choice, and it disagrees with just about all literature on the subject of marriage and the family which appears in mainstream psychology.  (It can also disagree with the Western view of human equality, if the arrangement is only for the female; though I understand that is not the case here it is in some denominations who use "traditional courtship".) TricksterWolf (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Moonie
The word "Moonie" now has its own article. However I would think that most people searching for that are really interested in reading about the Unification Church itself, not about the history of a word. Also, I'm guessing, the most common search term should be in the opening sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case the word seems to have a notable enough history to have its own article. WP:Not a dictionary does say that articles "should be about things not words."  In that case "Moonie" should redirect here and the other article be renamed something like "Moonie (word)". That would be my interpretation anyway. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much interesting info abouth the word beyond the fact taht some like it and some not. Therefore the current state of affairs (redirect) is fine. Last Lost (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions
While it's good that more material is added, I agree that more work needs to be done to make the article more readable. I have started working on this, mainly just correcting the wording. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
For example, the following: "The Unification Church has been criticized for alleged elements of anti-Semitism and homophobia, for poor business decisions, and for low membership retention.

Many outside the the UC, including most Christian denominations, conclude that it is a cult."

Please help to move the other existing critism to this paragraph. Borovv (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:Criticism says: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic." Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unification Church of the United States has a section titled "Criticism, opposition, and controversy." I think it works there because the section is about reporting the facts of the criticism, opposition, and controversy which the church encountered, not just listing possible criticisms.  Obviously for there to be criticism there must be critics.  And they all have their own reasons for criticizing.  Of course there are legitimate points to criticize as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This was an incorrect move from the intro to an extra section. According to wikipedia rules about the intro, the intro must contain the summary of the article contents. The article does contain elements of criticism, and therefore it was summarized in a single sentence of the intro: "The Unification Church has been criticized for alleged elements of anti-Semitism and homophobia, and for low membership retention. The leadership of the Church disagrees with these allegations." Please restore and don't edit introduction heavily without discussion. Last Lost (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, for the same reason that the intro is the summary of the article (see WP:LEAD), it should not be heavily littered with references. (And it looks UGLY otherwise). All statements that require references (besides the basic facts which are discussed only in the intro) must be made somewhere in the article body. If some statement cannot find its proper place in the article bosy, then it is probably unfit for the intro as well. Last Lost (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a church member I disagree that "the leadership of the Church disagrees with these allegations." The church has also been criticized for anti-communism, being too friendly with Islam, promoting inter-racial marriage, and many other things. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you didn't quite understand what I wrote. I don't care what the church was criticized for. I care about the correspondence of the intro to our article content. It is also irrelevant whether you personally disagree with "the leadership of the Church disagrees with these allegations." You, as a wikipedia etitor may only disagree that this sentence from the intro correctly represents the article content. Assuming that you meant this second interpretation, I may accept this, although it seemed to me that the article says something about rejecting the accusations. Now, do you agree or disagree that the article does indeed contain the descriptions of accusations in anti-Seminism, homophobia and low memberhip retention? Last Lost (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It also mentions some other points of criticism. Unification Church of the United States says: "The main points of criticism were the church's unorthodox theology, especially its belief that Moon is the second coming of Christ; the church's political involvement; and the extreme lifestyle of most members, which involved full-time dedication to church activities often at the neglect of family, school, and career." I think this is a much better summary of criticism. The antisemitism charge is mainly due to one New York Times story in the 1970s and doesn't deserve so much space in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . It is irrelevant what other articles, such as Unification Church of the United States or Unification Church of Zamunda, say. This intro is for this article and must correspond to the content of this article. Period. If something wrong with article content, fix it and then fix the intro, to match article content. Last Lost (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have my support. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also if you or anyone else wants to write a sensible intro you have my support. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible bias in "spiritualism" section (2.1)?
The list of the twelve ideas in the "spirituality" section seems written with a bit of bias. Perhaps it could be written with a little more neutrality or objectivity? It just seems like it's trying to make people think what it's saying is definitely true. Crmonty (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. The section starts out: "The Unification Church upholds a belief in spiritualism..." It then gives some examples, and ends with: "This has distanced the church further from mainstream Christianity as well as from Islam." That seems pretty neutral to me.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My mistake. You are talking about the section right above it where the beliefs of the church are posted. I agree it would be better to have this sourced to third parties' observations.  However it is clearly labeled for what it is, and it's not so out of line with lots of other articles where an organization's positions are quoted from their own publications. (I'm a UC member BTW.) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Article uses 8 1/2 year old quote from Washington Post to make claim of Church's influence on N.Korea
This article uses a quote from September 2003 to back up the make claim that the Unification Church influenced North Korea to make a "major" break with command economy (though the Wiki article on N. Korea claims it is a command economy. "...[T]hus, Unification Church persuaded the North Korean government to make gradual steps towards a major break with its communism ideology through business enterprises which shift the economy from the planned to market economy." I had to rewrite it to make it relevant and accurate. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Richer than God!

 * Isn't this church a little too-well off to be entirely on the up-and-up?88.110.125.172 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for general discussion of Unification Church. Why wouldn't you refirect your efforts to become a devout editor of Wikipedia? Hope you'll find it cool. Borovv (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides that the UC is much less rich than many other churches, much less God the owner of the entire Universe. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Better intro
Is anyone interested in rewriting the intro so that it reflects what is in the article, and gives basic information to the general reader? Borock (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could work on it. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Accusing of cult

 * France. Here is the proof from Official Register of the French Republic, that the Church is legal (can't be a cult or sect): . Other claims besides this are trivial, because the French Republic is based on the rule of law which means that nothing and nobody is above the law. Besides, other claims are unconstitutional, because the French republic guarantees the religious freedom.
 * Germany. Same here. In 2011 Moon and his family was in Germany. Errenous ban earlier was lifted by a court of Germany which means that legal body cannot be described as a "cult". Here is the official paper from the governmental webpage of a migration service of Germany: . Borovv (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as king of the jews
Burovv deleted my edit about the section saying that it was "pro-jewish" and biased. So for clarification, jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and to say that they "accepted" Jesus as the king of Israel is an absurd. Furthermore the "source" for the claim is an article called "REV. MOON - A "JOHN THE BAPTIST" FOR ANTICHRIST?" . The rest of the website ( http://www.cuttingedge.org ) could then be used as a source to show that aliens are the antichrist, mormons are satanic, that catholics and the illuminatic have a plan for world domination in 12/12/2012 among other things. I will revert my change and I ask it to be kept until a Moderator can evaluate the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertlberman (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So hang on waiting the motherator's conclusion and don't delete the content from reliable sources like Huffington Post. Find a consensus before reverting the questionable things (for you). See WP:CONSENSUS.Borovv (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as king of the jews
Burovv deleted my edit about the section saying that it was "pro-jewish" and biased. So for clarification, jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and to say that they "accepted" Jesus as the king of Israel is an absurd. Furthermore the "source" for the claim is an article called "REV. MOON - A "JOHN THE BAPTIST" FOR ANTICHRIST?" . The rest of the website ( http://www.cuttingedge.org ) could then be used as a source to show that aliens are the antichrist, mormons are satanic, that catholics and the illuminatic have a plan for world domination in 12/12/2012 among other things. I will revert my change and I ask it to be kept until a Moderator can evaluate the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertlberman (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So hang on waiting the motherator's conclusion and don't delete the content from reliable sources like Huffington Post. Find a consensus before reverting the questionable things (for you). See WP:CONSENSUS.Borovv (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the sources for this meet our criteria as WP:RS. We don't use personal webpages, we only use blogs where they are in major media sources with editorial control, and even then we don't use 'comments' on blogs. I've deleted it and commented at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Albertlberman (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted critical material restored
I don't see the justification for removing this. I've replaced it - see WP:BRD. It was boldly removed, I've reverted it, if anyone thinks it should be removed again than please don't remove it but discuss it here first. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism generally discourages criticism sections. It's better to include critical views throughout the article.  Criticism is one of the things the Unification Church has been noted for, perhaps most by Christians who disagree with its interpretation of the Bible. Borock (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation
I recommned following source to be included into the article. There is lot of rubbish in the media, but this one look objective. Please do it as I'm not a native speaker.--DeeMusil (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is another article Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church that it might fit better with. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Existing entry
The Unification Movement is a religious movement headed by the Unification Church (renamed the Family Federation for World Peace) comprising  organizations and individuals that are dedicated to creating world peace through ideal families centered on God in accordance with the doctrines of Sun Myung Moon.

For legal and tax purposes in several countries, various projects inspired or directed by Sun Myung Moon or members of his church are required to maintain existence as separate entities. Under United States federal tax law, 501(c)(3) charitable institutions, like churches, may not engage in certain types of political speech without losing their tax exemption status. As such, Rev Moon, the Unification Church, and members of the church have created organisations such as CARP which operate under the less stringent requirements of a 501(c)(4) "non-profit, educational foundation".
 * What "existing entry" do you mean? The number "501" never appears in the Article, let alone 501C3. As long as you have sources, though, feel free to put this in the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Here are some comments: Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Remarkably little coverage of the many controversies
 * Too much trivia about the various meetings that the church has held. They should be summarized or moved into a separate list article. Othewise, as time passes, the article will grow indefinitely as the meetings continue.


 * Quite. I note that, while there are multiple references giving the name, "Moonies" isn't mentioned anywhere in the text of the article. Just because the group in question doesn't like the nickname in question doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedaic material. I am not suggesting more than one sentence on the subject, such as one directly stating that it's considered insulting. (I'm suggesting this in the same section on copyediting because it's related to the MOS; it's actually a Wikipedia policy that significant alternative names be mentioned in the first paragraph.) Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that. It was in the intro not long ago. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations on "Mainstream" Christianity and kidnapping/brainwashing
Could people please check the source and make sure it actually says what you are using it to provide a citation for? (I have no motive to defend Christianity, incidentally; I left that religion myself quite a while back. My interest is in accuracy.) The sources cited indeed show that Christian ministers, etc were involved; they do not indicate that mainstream Christian ministers, etc were involved. What this will require is either a direct statement in the source that the minister in question was mainstream, or a combination of a denominational attribution with another source stating that denomination to be mainstream. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the change! I may reformat the references at some point as a bit of a copyedit. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 15:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem: The article blames "Christian groups" for the "kidnapping" as well as "brainwashing". As far as I can see, it was the parents who forced their kids to attend lectures by ministers. Which would explain why, the first - and perhaps the most trustworthy source* - says the courts "treat it as a family matter". Secondly, all of this seems to be happening in Japan, not all over the world, and this should be noted. Finally, do we know who alledges 4000 people? Now again, I'm too lazy to verify my facts, but if my assumptions above are correct, I'd put it something like this:
 * In Japan. a number of cases of government-sanctioned forceful conversion attempts to were recorded[1]. Perpetrators of these were mostly parents of the UC members, in cooperation with mainstream Christian ministers who provided the lectures. For this reason, courts in Japan were reluctant to rule against the parents, dismissing the cases as a "family matter" . As alledged by Unification Church, there were around 4000 of these, as they call it, "kidnappings" and "brainwashing" cases world-wide[2]**
 * *I mean the book, not the review, although this is just an assumption - i haven't looked deep into any of these. Second source seems to be a UC newspaper (their founder is the editor). Third one is a student newspaper, reporting on claims of a student group. The [1], and [2] are still the first and the second source, though ideally, one would find an independent and trustworth source instead of both of them.
 * **I guess there might be a case or two somewhere outside of Japan, which is why I included the phrase... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.143.236 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the current sources, I don't see the material is supportable, nor its placement in the Christianity section as warranted. I have removed the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)