Talk:Unification Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
Please discuss further on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since March 2008.
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)
A significant amount of this article's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject.

See coatrack articles and content forking for details.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Mass Wedding

I notice that there is no mention of the mass wedding held in Madison Square Garden on July 1st, 1982. 4,150 people marrying complete strangers at Sun Myung Moon's behest seems notable to me. Should there not be a mention of the event in the article? Malbolge (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You could add the information. It is mentioned in the articles: Sun Myung Moon, Blessing Ceremony, and Madison Square Garden. BTW we were not all complete strangers. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Are people still saying that the mass weddings take place between complete strangers? I thought people knew about the 3-year engagement period. Only a brainwashed fool would marry a complete stranger without taking time to get to know them first ... Oh, I guess that's the point of this criticism: some church critics are trying to paint church members as brainwashed fools.
Okay, then if some named church critic thinks the church members would agree to marry someone without even meeting them first, let's dig up a quote then. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh Ed, lots of my friends did just that. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are talking like this Wikipedia article is only for UC members. Get with it, it should be written as an unbiased work for people who have know idea about the UC. It is not a vehicle to explain doctrine or a place to re-write history. If you feel a mass wedding of stranger is brainwashing by a cult, then what do you think the other 6 billion people in the world think? Also you both are viewing the UC with rose colored glasses in positions that blind you to the greater world issues, especially in Japan. The clearly raped funds from Japan allow UC members in the US to be comfortable and feel they are philosophers and caring people etc. Cut this baby apart or Wikipedia will need to take action for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.71.134 (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuals and church membership

Six times in my 31 years in the church, I've encountered homosexuals who (if Ontario Consultants were right) should have been expelled. The first was in Boston, an active homosexual whom the local church wanted to join first, repent later. The second was Richard Cohen, who publicly announced his homosexuality but was not expelled; rather, he sought therapy to deal with this issue. I met four other church men who had gay relationships; one even had to tell his wife that he gave her AIDS. None were expelled; rather, they were encouraged to find a way to come to repentance.

We need a section on other sins, or better yet an outline of the church's general attitude toward sin. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right Ed. That's a good idea Steve Dufour (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the Unification Church. Your comments reinforce the fact that many major transgresion occur regularly from Moon down the line. People are not expelled when they are weak or have problems since they are the easiest to exploit, usually for monetary gain. The concept of "True Family" does not work any better than a Christian Right family values statement. Transgressions are probably often tolerated since later on they will be used to gain favor with these people. Just like Bush using lots of cocaine and then repenting after having a 20 year party. Once we get older we get tired of the party and then many people find Jesus. Just be aware that there is easily 10% of any population that is Gay. So your Church easily has that if not more. Often homosexuals trying to fight their desires turn towards extreme religion for help. Some times they can learn to control the desire just as heterosexual people learn to control their desire for others after marriage. But this is not always the case. If you think there are only a few in your Church you are being much more blind to that than any issue related to Moon and his problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.71.134 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

I trimmed some of the info on evolution. Sorry Ed, but way too much was taken up by a discussion of one magazine article. I also don't think that every member has the same opinion on evolution. I personally don't feel that it required any "supernatural intervention" by God, as the article says. The entire Universe is God's supernatural creation and He is never absent, therefore no need to "intervene". Steve Dufour (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to Chung Pyeung, and at the workshop we had a speaker, Dr. Carlson, who spoke on evolution. He said that Adam and Eve were the first humans with spirits. They were the most evolved. User:CholtaeShinang (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article not neutral

The article is only informative in terms of what the Unification Church wants it to be. I find an enormous breach of neutrality in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.71.134 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You should:
1. sign your posts with four tildes (~)
2. be specific about points that lack neutrality
3. add statements backed up by reliable sources
4. add appropriate templates to sections that are biased
5. avoid flamboyant rhetoric - this is an encyclopedia
6. read up a little bit and learn more about Wikipedia

-Exucmember (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Just learning it now and plan to get better. I will get a name etc. Just met a prominent UC member today to discuss the problems in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.167.87 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough is enough WNDL42 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is a WP:COAT for Unification Church propaganda and is riddled with COI edits and moon-church POV

I have tagged this article accordingly. Impossible to keep up with the tendentious edits, this article presents the Unification Church as no respectable encyclopedia would. WNDL42 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
Please discuss further on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since March 2008.
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)
A significant amount of this article's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject.

See coatrack articles and content forking for details.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Stats show this article and it's talk page are dominated to an utterly ridiculous degree by five Unification Church members = more than 75% of all edits. http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church
COI tag indeed. WNDL42 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Marknw and I are ex-members whose edits in Unification-related articles are overwhelmingly from a critical perspective (but we try to be encyclopedic and accurate). -Exucmember (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no possibility of a helpful resolution of your neutrality concerns, WNDL42, if you do not provide examples and context on the talk page. Wikipedians who happen across the article will follow your tag to to talk page, looking for further information. They cannot consider, discuss, or resolve the situation if no information is provided. What is being tendentiously edited? Are there specific factual errors that are being continually re-introduced, or well-sourced information that is being continually being deleted?
Exucmember and Marknw, if you have a good sense of what his concerns are, and feel you can characterize them in a good faith manner, then that would be equally helpful.
If the editorial pool of this article - the wikipedians who frequently commit edits or improve the article - is dominated by friends or former members of the church, I would recommend reaching out to wikipedians who are likely to be suspicious or distrustful of the church (try the Cult talkpage, perhaps; that's not intended as a dig) to assist you in providing oversight to the article, and ensuring that it is encyclopedic in quality, intention, and tone.
My only immediate suggestion is that citations of media owned by the Unification Church (i.e. News World Communications) should be disallowed or highly depreciated, given Reverend Moon's comments regarding propaganda warfare. Not that they would inherently constitute such warfare, or contain non-factual information, just that ensuring that they are shaped by a good-faith NPOV is too difficult. — 69.49.44.11 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven, I appreciate your trying to help, as well as your good suggestions. This and related articles haven't attracted very many completely neutral editors with no personal interest in the subject matter. An additional problem is that a large amount - perhaps most - of the published material on the Unification Church is likewise at least somewhat polarized. Fortunately, there is some balance, and the most active editors are reasonable and follow Wikipedia policies. I've found Steve Dufour in particular to be fair, and I would like to think that I am also, on the opposite (church critic) side. WNDL42 is correct that there are still portions of this (and related) articles that lean too far in the direction of the POV of the Unification Church, but he identified very few. Since people may have different opinions about what is neutral or fair, they might vary in what they think is unbalanced or biased. Weeks and weeks have passed without him clarifying this. His editing style has been very lacking in the cooperation department. Most recently on the Sun Myung Moon page he seems to have become irrational. (I'm sorry to characterize it that way, but if anyone wants to take the time to review everything, I'm sure thay would agree.) If WNDL42wants to be helpful, toning down the rhetoric, lowering the pitch, and assuming good faith would help.

Personally, I think the best thing to do is just follow Wikipedia policies and let the system work. -Exucmember (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B. A. Robinson

In the Unification_Church#Controversy section, B. A. Robinson of Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is quoted at length. However, as far as I know, he is no expert or recognized authority on the subject. AndroidCat (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no "recognized authorities" on the Unification Church as far as I know. I guess his opinions are as good as anyone else's. Redddogg (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of recognized authorities on the Unification Church. You should familiarize yourself with the half-dozen or so sociologists of religion who have done empirical studies (and other sociologists of religion who have discussed them) and their extensive writings, and, to a lesser extent, scholars in religion departments who have done studies. -Exucmember (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "New religious movements" (NRMs) is standard sociology of religion term

I recently made very significant improvements to the introduction, changing some of the wording from a poorly written, ill-informed style that was obviously completely ignorant of the way groups like the Unification Church are handled by scholars such as sociologists. I made it more factual rather than based on uncited opinions and characterizations, adding many references and fixing some of the references that were present. I made the wording more encyclopedic and straightforward rather than convoluted and amateurish. If there are any specific issues with anything I've done, they need to be raised here. It is wholly inappropriate simply to revert to the amateurish, unreferenced version. -Exucmember (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ex, you need to show reliable sources that support your statements of opinion above. WNDL42 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cult" is the overwhelmingly applied term for Unificationism

Outside the tiny minority of current and (those exceedingly rare) ex UC members who do not think the "church" is a cult, the overwhelming majority of rest of the world sees the UC as a cult - the previous link is from Google Scholar, which is NOT a general web search, it is an index of academic and scholarly published works.

[edit] Britannica says Cult

The first 75 words of Britannica's entry for example:

Members of the Unification church are often called “Moonies” because the organization was founded by the Korean evangelist Sun Myung Moon. The name, which is considered derisive and insulting by the group, has been used because many people consider the church to be a cult. The official name of the organization is the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of…Unification Church... (75 of 556 words)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia does not exist to present tiny minority viewpoints. I have returned the lead to it's former state. WNDL42 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Journal "Sociological Analysis" says -- Cult

"The operation of highly cohesive and authoritarian "cults" in a pluralistic and normatively ambiguous cultural environment raises serious social and legal issues. The problems posed by cults must be understood in terms of the social conditions which facilitate the growth of these movements, and in particular, the decline of traditional "mediating structures" in American society. Cults meet genuine needs, but in doing so they may perpetrate abuses. Many cults are diversified and multifunctional collectivities which provide a range of services to participants; thus they elicit from devotees a diffuse obligation and a strong dependency, which may encourage exploitation. Actively proselytizing multifunctional communal sects inevitably come into conflict with a number of groups and institutions including families, churches and licensed psychotherapists. Conceptualizing cult issues in terms of "brainwashing" obscures the underlying sources of conflict and has implications for an inquisition over consciousness, although such medicalized conceptualization is functional in terms of building a coalition against targeted groups. Primary emphasis on "mind control" in cultist indoctrination processes also obscures the relationship between issues concerning cults and a more general crisis of church and state relations. As the state increasingly regulates "secular" organizations, the exemptions of "churches" take on heightened controversiality."

from: (see introduction on page 209)

Church, State and Cult Thomas Robbins; Sociological Analysis, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 209-225; doi:10.2307/3711033

[edit] Content moved prior to redirect from "Unification Movement"

[edit] 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".

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Category:Unification Church]]

[edit] Opening sentence

I changed the opening sentence to: "The Unification Church is the group of people who follow Korea self-proclaimed "messiah" Sun Myung Moon."

That is what the Unification Church is, as far as I can tell. The issue of it being a cult has its own section later in the article. Redddogg (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of members

The article now says:

Church membership is widely disputed, estimated by scholars to be around 250,000, but claimed by the church to be 3,000,000.[1]

This seems like a fair enough statement. However, the existance of a dispute, let alone a wide dispute, is not really sourced and there is no link to any claim made by the church, or report of a claim. The "UC fact sheet" cited [inside the footnote] is a page on a website about atheism. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI and fact tags removed

I removed the conflict of interest and fact tags from the article. There didn't seem to be any real problem other than one editor didn't think members of a religion should edit articles about that religion. Redddogg (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on future?

What do you think about a section on the future of the church? Different opinions could be presented. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] True World Foods article

If True World Foods run a major portion of the sushi trade, why is there no Wikipedia article on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.168.216 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)