Talk:Moonie (nickname)

Major changes to article by User:Wolfview

Object to these changes. Please discuss major changes on the talk page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The only change I made which is very major was switching a few sentences in the lede so that facts about the use of the word came before opinions about it being offensive or not. In general I think that's a good policy. For instance an article on Richard Nixon should start out saying when he was president and other facts and then in the next paragraph talk about the controversy over Watergate, etc. I'm not saying it has to be that way, but I think it makes it easier for readers to get some background info first before controversy is introduced. How can you understand the controversy without that? Wolfview (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What issues do you have with the changes Cirt? they all look very constructive to me and even cumulatively don't seem to constitute as "major changes". The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1. [1] = Another incident of relatively incidental mention, that does not further improve the page or include use of a source that significantly discusses the material.
2. [2] - Non-consensus change, information removed from article body text that is background for reader that should remain in article space.
3. [3] = Move of material makes it more confusing, should state this identification, first.
4. [4] = This amount of material does not need its own dedicated paragraph.

-- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

United Press International?

Why include the material (2 sentences) from United Press International? For one thing it is now owned by the Unification Church so is not neutral, and also it now has almost no influence on anyone. Borock (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sound reasoning, I would not be opposed to its removal. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Borock (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourced info was removed

[5] = this removal was inappropriate. The info is directly relevant to the subject of this article. This is confusing, as the same user that removed this sourced info unilaterally with zero discussion, has also added to this article trivial instances of one-off mentions (after previously complaining about that same thing). -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some information that tells why it is relevant. All it says now is that 70% of some unspecified group know about the word "Moonie." This is after there have been several paragraphs that tell how the word had been used on major newsmedia for several years. I am not against including the information, but I don't think it is useful or interesting to readers in its present form. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. As opposed to news media sources, it is a study published in an academic journal, a higher quality source.
2. It is the only instance of academic analysis of public familiarity with the term.
3. The study goes directly to the subject of this article page - perception and history of the term itself.
4. Journal of Applied Social Psychology is a reliable source.
5. The citation provides material for verification of the source.
6. Pfeifer's research identifies perception of the subject within a specific timeframe, placing the subject within historical context.

-- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your both right. Its a reliable source that with good information and should be included. That being Said i think It might more appropriately be put in the "Commentary" section. It was in the history section where it did seem a tad out of place. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. It is not "commentary".
2. It is an academic study.
3. It took place in 1992.
4. It reflects research and results from that time in history.
5. It belongs in the history section.

-- Cirt (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt that it is an interesting study. What it showed was that given the same information about a person joining a church that people would react more negatively if told it was the "Moonies" than if told it was the Catholics. How about putting in some more information from the study and giving it its own paragraph? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection, if it is presented in a way so readers can understand the information. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, readers can understand it now. However, I agree the point by Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is a good idea. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I can start working on it. Borock (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I expanded the information. I'm tending to think it does belong in the commentary section, although it could remain where it is as well. For one thing it is lasting information, not just a one-time event. For another it breaks up the flow of the narrative where it is. Borock (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Trivia in commentary section?

This paragraph mainly just seems to repeat information given in the history section. Is it really "commentary"?:

A book review by Topical Books in 1991 of The Secret World of Cults notes: "The word 'Moonie' conjures up unfavourable images to most people, usually of brainwashed adolescents abandoning their families, friends and studies to take up the worship of some obscure deity under the watchful eye of the charismatic Reverend Sun Myung Moon."[87] According to the 1997 book Daily Life in the United States, 1960-1990 by Myron A. Marty, Unification Church members are "known as 'Moonies' for their absolute subservience to the leader".[88] -Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lot of repeated material in this article. I have been nominating for deletion a lot of articles in the category "Ethnic and religious slurs," although this one is more substantial than most. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to move some of the material from the commentary section to the history section, if it seems to fit better there. Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture?

The picture does not seem to especially illustrate the word "Moonie." Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of picture would be good. Maybe if someone has an old "I'm a Moonie and I love it" coffee mug or tee shirt they could take a picture of it. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture now does not illustrate the word at all. Would an article on a word for Catholics have a picture of the pope (or Saint Peter) at the top? Wolfview (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Other meanings

The word "moonie" (or "Moonie") seems to be used for lots of other meanings besides Unification Church members. Should the other meanings be mentioned too? Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the word as it has been used by and about UC members. A general article on a word and all its meanings would be against WP's not a dictionary policy. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also the secondary meaning mentioned is really only sourced in one place. All the three dictionaries that give it are by the same publisher. I never hear the word "moonie" used that way. Either it's about the Unification Church or it's about something totally different, like Sailor Moon fans. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually think a section on other meanings might be a good idea. The information is at Moonie (disambiguation). Wolfview (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case you would be talking about merging the two pages. That would be clearly against "not a dictionary." The only reason this article survived an AfD is because it is about the history of the word "Moonie" as related to the UC, which is somewhat interesting and maybe even important historically. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a section mentioning other meanings would be okay though. I added a brief mention to the definition section. Jaque Hammer (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources for Ofcom case?

The material about the complaint to Ofcom about the BBC is only sourced by a primary source. Was it covered by the news media? Also is it important enough to mention in the intro? Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is substantial information. However I will take it off of the intro since it is only one incident. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked on Google for "moonie ofcom" and "unification church ofcom" and didn't find anything in news, scholar, or books. Borock (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the report of the incident gives us much "substantial information" on the meaning and use of the word "Moonie," which is what this article is supposed to be about. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think it adds much to the article, and as you said it is really uncited. Wolfview (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Divided by decades

Does the history section really need to be divided by decades? I don't see that there was any special difference between them. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It would also be possible to divide the section by theme, like "early use", "controversy", "later use." Borock (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Trivial mention

This sentence, which comes at the end of the article, seems kind of trivial to me: In 2010 The Guardian reporting on the death of former president of Uganda Godfrey Binaisa, who had been married in a Unification Church ceremony, said that the Unification Church was "also known as the Moonies."[82] -Wolfview (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is the whole point the article already established. It also doesn't really have much to do with Mr. Binaisa, who doesn't seem to be a "Moonie." Why mention him? Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimming of article

I just revisited this article and took a fresh look at it, trying to see the point of view of the average reader who wants to know something about the topic. I noticed how much of the material repeated the same information over and over. I made an effort to trim some of this out so that readers can get the big picture without being overwhelmed by so many examples and incidents. Please feel free to put back anything that you feel I shouldn't have removed. Thanks. Borock (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

3 dictionaries?

These three dictionaries, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2005), The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2007), and The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English (2008), are cited for one definition. They are all by the same publisher. Are they really three different dictionaries, or 3 editions of the same one? Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be right. However I don't think mentioning all three does any harm. Borock (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename article?

It was suggested on the talk page of Unification Church that people searching for information on the "Moonies" are really looking for that article, not this one. How about renaming this one "Moonie (word)" and redirect "Moonie" there? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of clarity about whether it was ever really a derogatory term

Parts of the article look like WP:OR building the case that it was never a derogatory term; that the church just declared it to be so (telling its members, hiring PR flacks, holding rallies). This is the POV of some church opponents, and it would be nice to name a few of them.

The progression of the term - from an originally neutral diminutive (2 syllables are easier to say or read than the jaw-breaking "Unification Church member" weighing in at 10 syllables) - to a term that acquired an immensely negative connotation should be developed a bit more. Then, reactions to that, such as wearing it defiantly an a badge of honor (in spite of its acquired negative connotation). Finally, how it either fell into (or was campaigned) into disuse.

Again, we should pay attention to arguments by church opponents that (1) it was never a derogatory term or (2) it couldn't have been a big deal since church members applied it to themselves. That would make a more balanced article, in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find sources that make those points let us know. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)