This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unification Church of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
We actually have more reliable numbers, and much better sources, for the U.S. church membership than for the world membership. The most reliable numbers are from Melton, who is not only widely respected as one of foremost experts on this issue (membership in new religious movements), but actual did some of his own empirical investigation of the U.S. numbers. Stark is also a respected researcher. I'm adding the references. Let me know what you think of the phrasing. - Exucmember ( talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
copypasta from Wikipedia:DYK
-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the article because I am interested in the topic. BTW I am a Unification Church member and took part in most of the events mentioned in the article. If you feel that there is anything inaccurate or left out, please make whatever changes you like. Steve Dufour ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Reposting from Steve's talk page:
Please don't dramatize. I am not accusing you of being a "liar". You may simply have made a misjudgement. But when someone says to you that a hook statement isn't supported by the sources, it isn't a solution to change the hook statement to make it conform even less to the sources. I also thought at the time you had also altered the content of the article to promote the "5,000" number, but I see that was done by another user.
It might still be possible to resurrect the article for DYK - which is why I put a "possible vote" symbol on it rather than an "ineligible" symbol - but there needs to be some sort of consensus about the numbers, and the hook cannot make an absolute statement about the numbers, as it does now, when there are clearly other estimates. I'm going to repost this at the article talk page, where I think the discussion is more appropriate. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 06:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In doing background reading for List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, I came across this Washington Post article: Stymied in U.S., Moon's Church Sounds a Retreat, that talks of a membership crisis in the US. Coming here, I find that Moon at Twilight, which the article cites, also gives this issue prominence -- yet the article itself makes no mention of it. How is this WP:DUE & therefore WP:NPOV? Admittedly, these articles are now a decade old -- but it was obviously a major issue at the time, and this trend (and whether it continued or was reversed since) requires coverage. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "The Unification Church of the United States has introduced a number of neologisms into the English language". However:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Steve and Hrafn are quibbling about how to classify these new terms. "Moonies" is short for "Moon children", both media creations. The church adopted Moonies (as in in word), and it still enjoys some minor internal currency (compare the N-word).
I have to agree that indemnity (as Unification Church theology) has not emerged from our ivory tower. My thanks to Hrafn for labeling it a term of art. (Nice ring to that! :-) No one says "crazy for God"; it's just a phrase that guy (Chris Edwards?) took for his book title from a random "Moonism".
I wonder about love bombing. It might not be specific to our church.
But hardly any of these is of great importance. Let's spend more time describing Unification thought or Divine Principle, or how church teaching impact the daily life of members. We might even write more about church-related organizations: PR type (like the Little Angels Korean Folk Ballet troupe), educational, and ecumenical. Then there are all the various God-centered conferences on science, media, international relations and so forth. That should keep us busy during the new year.
Peace out, dawgs! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest we rephrase the intro for this section to state: "A number of neologisms have been introduced by or about the Unification Church of the United States." Then list "love bombing" and "moonies". (In response to Ed, I'd say that "love bombing" refers to a particular form of (purported) psychological manipulation -- and would be used whether or not it's in relation to the UC.) The other two really aren't in general enough usage to qualify. Anybody have problems with this? Hrafn Talk Stalk 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested on its talk page that the article Moonie (nickname) be merged here. I support this because the other article is really about a controversy which took place in the US involving the Unification Church. The article was never about the word itself, which would be against WP policy anyway. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is disorganized and contains no information about the church's beliefs or links to other relevant articles, such as the main unification church article, the moonie article etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.128.195 ( talk) 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Unification Church of the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I just started the article. I think it is mid class in importance and B in quality. It could use some input from other points of view. Steve Dufour ( talk) 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The "criticisms" section in this article are uncritical, or have been practically edited out of existence.
The first paragraph starts with: 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. That's fine, but none of these things are really expanded on. It ends by mentioning criticisms from "leftists" including a wacky student political group having a smoke in, as if to dismiss it all as hippy nonsense.
The next paragraph has three sentences, all of which are about the church being defended from criticisms.
The next paragraph has one sentence on the US congressional investigation, but not the findings that the church had "systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws."
Instead it mentions how a Minnesota law was overturned as unconstitutional. This makes it seem like the church was somehow proven innocent, which isn't really the case.
The last paragraph is about how Sun Myung Moon was sent to prison for tax evasion. A simple statement of the fact, with no background or history, followed by a list of people defending the church, and ending with the note that his conviction "was a good thing" for the church. Somehow a criminal conviction is presented as positive.
These aren't criticisms, these are weasely negations of criticism. Beyond this, the most well known criticisms aren't even here. Notably absent are:
A lot of that could in Moon's page, but since the True Family is central to the church, it belongs here as well. Whether or not the criticisms are valid, they deserve to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.92.166 ( talk) 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Unification Church of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/diskus/chryssides.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5765When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
See page Unification Church -- some content on this page needs to be altered to clarify that the term "Unification Church" does not refer to a singular entity or organization but is a broad movement of entities and people inspired by or founded by Sun Myung Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PineSky ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This article gives several misperceptions because it portends that the "Unification Church of the United States" is a monolithic and united entity, yet this is not the case. See page Unification Church.
Since 90% of this article is actually about the organization called Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, I suggest we move the content there and make this page a redirect to the page Unification Church. - PineSky ( talk) 23:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I propose to merge Moonie (nickname) into this article. Readers are probably looking for information on the people, the "Moonies", more than on the word itself. Why not put both in the same place? PopSci ( talk) 15:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unification Church of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
We actually have more reliable numbers, and much better sources, for the U.S. church membership than for the world membership. The most reliable numbers are from Melton, who is not only widely respected as one of foremost experts on this issue (membership in new religious movements), but actual did some of his own empirical investigation of the U.S. numbers. Stark is also a respected researcher. I'm adding the references. Let me know what you think of the phrasing. - Exucmember ( talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
copypasta from Wikipedia:DYK
-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the article because I am interested in the topic. BTW I am a Unification Church member and took part in most of the events mentioned in the article. If you feel that there is anything inaccurate or left out, please make whatever changes you like. Steve Dufour ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Reposting from Steve's talk page:
Please don't dramatize. I am not accusing you of being a "liar". You may simply have made a misjudgement. But when someone says to you that a hook statement isn't supported by the sources, it isn't a solution to change the hook statement to make it conform even less to the sources. I also thought at the time you had also altered the content of the article to promote the "5,000" number, but I see that was done by another user.
It might still be possible to resurrect the article for DYK - which is why I put a "possible vote" symbol on it rather than an "ineligible" symbol - but there needs to be some sort of consensus about the numbers, and the hook cannot make an absolute statement about the numbers, as it does now, when there are clearly other estimates. I'm going to repost this at the article talk page, where I think the discussion is more appropriate. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 06:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In doing background reading for List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, I came across this Washington Post article: Stymied in U.S., Moon's Church Sounds a Retreat, that talks of a membership crisis in the US. Coming here, I find that Moon at Twilight, which the article cites, also gives this issue prominence -- yet the article itself makes no mention of it. How is this WP:DUE & therefore WP:NPOV? Admittedly, these articles are now a decade old -- but it was obviously a major issue at the time, and this trend (and whether it continued or was reversed since) requires coverage. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "The Unification Church of the United States has introduced a number of neologisms into the English language". However:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Steve and Hrafn are quibbling about how to classify these new terms. "Moonies" is short for "Moon children", both media creations. The church adopted Moonies (as in in word), and it still enjoys some minor internal currency (compare the N-word).
I have to agree that indemnity (as Unification Church theology) has not emerged from our ivory tower. My thanks to Hrafn for labeling it a term of art. (Nice ring to that! :-) No one says "crazy for God"; it's just a phrase that guy (Chris Edwards?) took for his book title from a random "Moonism".
I wonder about love bombing. It might not be specific to our church.
But hardly any of these is of great importance. Let's spend more time describing Unification thought or Divine Principle, or how church teaching impact the daily life of members. We might even write more about church-related organizations: PR type (like the Little Angels Korean Folk Ballet troupe), educational, and ecumenical. Then there are all the various God-centered conferences on science, media, international relations and so forth. That should keep us busy during the new year.
Peace out, dawgs! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest we rephrase the intro for this section to state: "A number of neologisms have been introduced by or about the Unification Church of the United States." Then list "love bombing" and "moonies". (In response to Ed, I'd say that "love bombing" refers to a particular form of (purported) psychological manipulation -- and would be used whether or not it's in relation to the UC.) The other two really aren't in general enough usage to qualify. Anybody have problems with this? Hrafn Talk Stalk 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested on its talk page that the article Moonie (nickname) be merged here. I support this because the other article is really about a controversy which took place in the US involving the Unification Church. The article was never about the word itself, which would be against WP policy anyway. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is disorganized and contains no information about the church's beliefs or links to other relevant articles, such as the main unification church article, the moonie article etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.128.195 ( talk) 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Unification Church of the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I just started the article. I think it is mid class in importance and B in quality. It could use some input from other points of view. Steve Dufour ( talk) 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The "criticisms" section in this article are uncritical, or have been practically edited out of existence.
The first paragraph starts with: 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. That's fine, but none of these things are really expanded on. It ends by mentioning criticisms from "leftists" including a wacky student political group having a smoke in, as if to dismiss it all as hippy nonsense.
The next paragraph has three sentences, all of which are about the church being defended from criticisms.
The next paragraph has one sentence on the US congressional investigation, but not the findings that the church had "systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws."
Instead it mentions how a Minnesota law was overturned as unconstitutional. This makes it seem like the church was somehow proven innocent, which isn't really the case.
The last paragraph is about how Sun Myung Moon was sent to prison for tax evasion. A simple statement of the fact, with no background or history, followed by a list of people defending the church, and ending with the note that his conviction "was a good thing" for the church. Somehow a criminal conviction is presented as positive.
These aren't criticisms, these are weasely negations of criticism. Beyond this, the most well known criticisms aren't even here. Notably absent are:
A lot of that could in Moon's page, but since the True Family is central to the church, it belongs here as well. Whether or not the criticisms are valid, they deserve to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.92.166 ( talk) 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Unification Church of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/diskus/chryssides.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5765When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
See page Unification Church -- some content on this page needs to be altered to clarify that the term "Unification Church" does not refer to a singular entity or organization but is a broad movement of entities and people inspired by or founded by Sun Myung Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PineSky ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
This article gives several misperceptions because it portends that the "Unification Church of the United States" is a monolithic and united entity, yet this is not the case. See page Unification Church.
Since 90% of this article is actually about the organization called Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, I suggest we move the content there and make this page a redirect to the page Unification Church. - PineSky ( talk) 23:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I propose to merge Moonie (nickname) into this article. Readers are probably looking for information on the people, the "Moonies", more than on the word itself. Why not put both in the same place? PopSci ( talk) 15:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)