Talk:Unification Church

Untitled

Thank you to user:Elmidae for noting that my first attempt to revive this page was "absent concrete examples of other articles to which Unification movement could be applied." In my second attempt I will add many concrete examples of other articles and entities within the scope of the Unification movement, and articulate the importance of differentiating the movement from the often misunderstood term "Unification Church")

You might want to create some better interconnections with the article Unification Church, which currently does not link to this article at all (as far as I can see). Also we have a redirect Unification Movement (church) which points at Unification Church and possibly should rather point here? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Good points, I'll work on creating those linkages on the Unification Church page and yes the redirect would probably best lead here since we positing that the movement is the preferred descriptor. --PineSky —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Why the N word?

Title. For me, personally, it doesn’t contribute much to the article itself, and could have easily be conveyed much less offensively. Additionally, as an encyclopedia, I don’t think we should resort to examples and instead focus on explaining it clear enough to not need one. I understand the need to be precise, but I feel like it could have easily accomplished it in another way. Janlopi (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2023 (PST)

• That sounds good to me. You could just explain the concept and mention African Americans and Irish people as examples without saying the offensive words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookeWorme (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree, I found it jarring and completely unnecessary. The article has quite a few issues but due to protection can't be fixed ChenV99 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well, what's the point of using any example at all? I've even read the only citation of that claim (29)( Eileen Barker. "The Unification Church: A Kaleidoscopic Introduction." Society Register 2, no. 2 (2018): 19–62.) , which cites the ENTIRE paper by the way, and nowhere does it mention that they use the word among themselves, nor are any comparisons made within the paper like the one suggested. The only mention of the name being used by a member is apparently by Sun Myung Moon when he supposedly made it up. exiphex (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

50.4.4.131 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I found the entire paragraph unnecessary to the article, but if someone disagrees, it could just be paraphrased. BuggS8263 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you even need to do that. Just mention that some have reappropriated the term. Matthew Wozniak (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There seemed to be a general consensus here on this, so I removed it and just mentioned it has been reappropriated by some. Flalf^Talk 14:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Split?

I question the assertion that the UM (and the UC) is "split" into various factions. True there are different groups and different leaders, but many members (I include myself) do not identify with a faction and are not enthusiastic followers of any leader. I'd prefer if the article said there are sub-groups, or factions, but not imply that the sum of the factions equals the movement as a whole.PopSci (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Many members of the Unification movement are like you, however, the fact remains that there is a major split that is not only about a particular leader or faction but about significant theological deviations, strategic differences, etc. Scholars have supposed that these "factions" could be considered entirely new religions in themselves because of the major differences. The movement clearly faces major divisions that will only become more pronounced. There is even a Korean book (now translated into English) titled "Split in the Unification Movement". There are scholarly conferences focusing specifically on the issue of the division as it relates to Sun Myung Moons' legacy.

Many Unification movement members like yourself may not be enthusiastic about a particular faction or leader, but from an objective perspective, unless you have disconnected yourself entirely from any organization within the movement, by association you have indeed "sided" with one of the factions. The reason most members don't recognize this is because they aren't aware of the reality of the stark divides that have formulated, probably because the organizational leaders, especially in the FFWPU, see it as beneficial that their members remain ignorant. For example, Hyung Jin Sean Moon wasn't officially removed from his position for over 2 years after he was in effect removed from his position, and this was only after Sean Moon utilized this fact to make an announcement broadcast on his youtube channel that a majority of the FFWPU leaders were fired and that members should remove them from their positions. The FFWPU knew that most members would be disheartened to know that the one True Child that a few years prior had been praised as the heir and successor was now forming a splinter group, so they tried to ignore it and keep it quiet until they could no longer. The FFWPU also refrained from publicly distancing itself from Sanctuary Church until the church made very evident with its Blessing ceremony involving AR-15 rifles that there was a split in direction and practice and FFWPU felt threatened that the public would mistake Sanctuary Church as representing the wider Unification movement as a whole. Another example is how FFWPU has not actively promoted the "Only Begotten Daughter" theory promoted by True Mother to common members, because they know that to the majority it will repel them because of its inherent deviations from True Father's teachings. The only one actively promoting the theory is True Mother herself. Just look at the recent FFWPU Famicon conference in Las Vegas this month. In the reports that came out, hardly a fraction of the content presented was on Mother's life. Yet when Mother, the leader of FFWPU, came to speak, the main emphasis was on her theory of the Only Begotten Daughter. So my conclusion is that many members may not be enthusiastic about a particular schism but are in practice and perhaps unintentionally supporting one. The fact of that matter is that all entities within the Unification movement I am aware of have inherent and undeniable loyalties to a particular faction so by associating with the Unification movement you are in truth associating with one of the factions. The only way you could associate with the Unification movement as a whole, currently, would be to associate with 3 separate entities that were each within one of the 3 major factions (probably without one of the other factions knowing about it, or they would kick you out!) PineSky (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Right now this article is mainly a list of groups and projects by Unificationists. I have the impression that there are some projects, for instance the Washington Times, where members of different factions work together... as well as non-members or semi-members.PopSci (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the fundamental nature of the Unification movement is spiritual and rooted in Sun Myung Moon's teachings, I don't think the doctrinal and theological differences can be ignored. That being said, if there is an independent initiative that is widely considered part of the Unification movement that states it works beyond the schisms, I would be open to the suggestion. However the Washington Times is not one of them, because it was part of a widely publicized power struggle and ended up being sold for $1 if I remember correctly. PineSky (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating the importance of both doctrine and leadership to the average UC member.  ;-) PopSci (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As a complete outsider, I think there should be some amount of acknowledgement of the various factions. I was compelled to search for this article after reading a post on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks hate groups. It makes no distinction between the faction led by Sean Moon, which seems to have taken the semiautomatic assault rifle as its holy symbol, and the other factions. That posting only uses the name "Unification Church" for all of it. It linked to this Vice News article, from October 31, 2019: https://www.vice.com/en/article/xwep53/we-spent-a-wild-weekend-with-the-gun-worshipping-moonie-church-thats-trying-to-go-maga

If no one makes the distinction, people will think that is the most dominant form of the Unification Church, which I doubt most members would want. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline section mostly duplicates other material. How about restoring it as a separate article, or else removing it altogether? PopSci (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

An alternative would be to keep the timeline section and remove the rest of the history section, except for material not covered in the timeline.PopSci (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge Moonie

The article Moonie (nickname) is simply a discussion of this (somewhat offensive) nickname for the Unification members. As a general rule articles about words violate WP:NAD unless there is something especially significant about that word, apart from the topic the word describes. Though I understand the sensitivity among the Unification Movement, I do not think it can be said that this word by itself has a significant enough history that it merits a special article (as compared to hundreds of other nicknames and slurs that do not and should not have their own articles).

I say just merge the name article here.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support There is already a trimmed down version as a section in this article. Also the word is used more for Sailor Moon fans than for Unificationists now days. I will go ahead and make the change after 7 days have passed, unless there are some dissenting opinions. This seems to be the WP standard.PopSci (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• It's been a week and it doesn't really look like there is a consensus to merge.PopSci (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Commentary section

The entire commentary section was reading as an advertisement and also failed to meet standards for neutrality. Just deleted the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOScali (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, although my reasoning would be more along the lines of copyright and original research. It looked like two of the quotes were supportive and two were critical, but it shouldn't be the job of readers to sort them out.PopSci (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge the articles Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and Family Federation for World Peace and Unification into Unification movement; dated: September 2018. Proposer's Rationale: It is the same organisation/movement someone has been adding lots and lots of forks based on sources from the organizations itself. Pinging proposer @Abcmaxx: Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support These organizations are only notable as aspects of the Unification movement. They are already covered in this article.PopSci (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support For the same reasons, also the same information is duplicated so wasting the readers' time. If they go to the other articles they will not find out anything that is not also here.Northwestgnome (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline has a lot of duplicated material with other sections. Is that okay, or should there be some merging? PopSci (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I've started to work on consolidating the timeline and other sections. I will not remove any information unless it is duplicated. In many cases the exact wording is found in two sections now.PopSci (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I finished this so that now there is only one history section. I did remove a few minor incidents from the timeline. Info on the founding of organizations, etc. is now found in their related sections.PopSci (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Leadership section

The leadership section has been tagged as need updating. It seems to be hard to find any definite sources that talk about this topic at all. Most people would probably say that Mrs. Moon (Hak Ja Han) is the leader of the movement, but her sub-section does not even claim that. The others were leaders for only short terms, mostly several years ago.PopSci (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the whole section, transferring one sentence to the history section and leaving the material on Mrs. Moon where it was already duplicated (almost word for word) in the organizations section. Besides what I said in my edit summary I'd like to add that one person that was mentioned there In Jin Moon is now living as a private person. (We are friends on Facebook, not that that is so remarkable.) I don't think it's fair that she should be pointed out as a UM leader when that is no longer the case, and I don't think that's WP policy by WP:BLP. PopSci (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Tags

The tags have been up for 8 or 9 months now. Is anyone doing anything concerning them? Northwestgnome (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There have actually been a lot of revisions to the article since they were first put up.PopSci (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I can go ahead and take off the tags then.Northwestgnome (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

indemnity and sola fide

in the section on indemnity is the line "the Christian doctrine of sola fide." This should be changed to "the Protestant notion of sola fide" since the large majority of Christians - Orthodox and Catholics - do not accept it as a doctrine.The current line would be like "the Christian doctrine of transubstantiation" or "the Christian doctrine of predestination" - misleading --2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:0:0:0:5 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Unification Church/Elijah" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unification Church/Elijah. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

merge in another article?

Several smaller articles have already been merged into this one. Should Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church also be merged here? SpecInterest (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the other article is too large for that. Actually the section on funerals, which is a fairly minor item compared to the marriage ceremonies, could go back to being its own article. Right now it takes up a lot of space in this one, when it is so little noted in sources.PopSci (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Unification Movement International → Unification Church – The most common name for the many-named religious movement appears to be "Unification Church", therefore the page should be moved back to that name. Not even sure where the current name "Unification Movement International" (all caps) is coming from. Wolfdog (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether Unification Church or Unification Movement is better, but either is better than "Unification Movement International"; I agree with the nom that I have no idea where that name came from. It's not a Wikipedia creation (note [1]) but doesn't seem to be common. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support move to Unification Church. This is the most common name used so should be the title by WP policy, as I understand it. PopSci (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New article needed

New article needed: International Oceanic Enterprises / True World Group. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Someone needs to find the sources. PopSci (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I see many articles(cited sources) that are in Japanese or Korean language. It is difficult to confirm the validity of these sources. I recommend to find sources in English or remove them. Listing Two Examples:

• [30] "김백문의 기독교근본원리 연재 1 – 국역 서론". 기독교포털뉴스 (in Korean). 10 September 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2022.
• [302] 旧統一教会巡るカルト規制　“先進国”フランスの教訓は？ (in Japanese). 9 December 2022. Archived from the original on 10 December 2022. Retrieved 11 December 2022.

Trukoh (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Reminder: Please respond if there is any input regarding this matter. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources, I would like to request quotation of relevant portions of the original source to be provided. Trukoh (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

funeral ceremony section

Does this section belong in the main article on the UC. I can't imagine the article on the Roman Catholic Church or the United Methodist Church or any other having sections on their funerals. I don't think it is very interesting to the readers of this article, who are probably looking for general information on the church. Also the sources, most of which are from church members, describe the ceremonies but don't explain why they are "notable" in the WP sense. I'm suggesting deleting the section or moving it to some article which talks about various funeral practices. I don't think it's notable for its own article for the same reasons.PopSci (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Funeral has sections for different traditions, but the UC is so small, perhaps only a few hundred or thousand UC funerals have taken place. PopSci (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The one good, secondary source was 2 pages in a book on the church by a respected author. There was also a newspaper story about a UC cemetary that didn't mention the funerals. The rest were by church members, seeming intended to inform other members about the ceremony. PopSci (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@PopSci I'll take a look through the scholarly sources available to me and see if they're discussed anywhere. If not, then I agree that it should probably be moved to a different section. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There is already a page Unification Church funeral which now redirects here.SpecInterest (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would support a move back to that page.PopSci (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I will go ahead and do that then.SpecInterest (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia infiltrated

This article is a prime example of perhaps the greatest threat to Wikipedia, in that it shows what happens when a powerful organization is able to infiltrate the administration of Wikipedia itself. The Controversy section of this article has disappeared. And as others have noted, this article is highly biased in favor of the Unification Church, given the highly controversial nature of the organization. To pick one example, there are multiple reliable sources that report on Unification Church members being conned into giving massive donations to the Unification Church, at the expense of their own financial well-being. However, this is not mentioned in the article at all. This article may be a harbinger of the demise of Wikipedia. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems a bit strong to me to say that the Unification Church is "infiltrating" Wikipedia's administration because this article is lacking a section on UC controversies. However, there are sections of this article that do discuss UC controversies. The "History" section discusses the Daily Mail libel case and Sun Myung Moon's tax fraud case. Additionally, Unification Church in the United States has a section called "Criticism, opposition, and controversy." And there's a category for Unification Church controversies overall. I think it's fair to argue that this article should have that section, but I do not agree that it's evidence for "infiltration" by UC unless you can provide evidence for it. It seems unproductive to say outright that this article and Wikipedia as a whole are being infiltrated because of this issue (again, unless you have evidence to the contrary). --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Check out this sentence in the article: "In the 1970s, the Unification Church, along with some other new religious movements, became a target of the anti-cult movement. On the basis of theories that have not gained acceptance in mainline social science,[57] "anti-cult" activists accused the movement of having "brainwashed" its members.[58] At the same time, members reported that they were kidnapped and forcibly "deprogrammed" by those who wanted to pull them out of the movement.[59]" How on earth does this sentence make it into a supposedly unbiased article? And note how 57, 58, and 59 do not in any way support the content of this sentence. There is administrator involvement in this fiasco. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

To address your concerns for the sources in those sentences: note 57 does note how there is not a consensus on the brainwashing thesis among the social sciences, primarily sociology. On page 335 of Eileen Barker's article (the source cited), she writes that "Sociologists, on the other hand [from psychologists and psychiatrists], have tended to dismiss the brainwashing thesis," and she provides a detailed example of why. Note 58's source isn't outright "anti-cult" in that it's not coming from a anti-cult activist, but generally journalists do belong to the anti-cult movement. That claim could definitely use a stronger source, but it does at the very least report the journalist's belief that Sun Myung Moon brainwashed people in the 1970s and 1980s. Note 59 is a US State Department report on religious freedom in Japan, where it clearly states that "the Unification Church reported five members were abducted during the reporting period," presumably for the sake of being deprogrammed (as implied from sentences above it). Note 58 is definitely weak in supporting its claim, but the other two sources are strong enough to support what they say.

Again, I don't think this proves that the "infiltration" of Wikipedia or this article by UC. If anything, I don't see any particular language in those sentences that creates a positive view of the Unification Church, if anything it's simply giving a balanced perspective. If you have issues with the article, then you should change the article in a productive way rather than making accusations without providing substantial evidence. I invite you to provide the evidence of infiltration if you have it. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If the following excerpt from the Guardian today has any validity then the "Moonies" are an example for founding a religious organisation as a cover for political reasons. ""The church, founded in South Korea in 1954 by the self-proclaimed messiah Sun Myung Moon, was encouraged to establish a presence in Japan by Abe’s grandfather and postwar prime minister, Nobusuke Kishi, as a counter to communism and trade unionism. The organisation, known for its mass weddings, has been accused of pressuring believers into making donations they can’t afford – claims it has denied. Sun Myung Moon, was encouraged to establish a presence in Japan

Please note "" as a counter to communism and trade unionism "" The church or "church" was founded in the year after the end of the Korean War. Churches should not be a cover for political purposes, but when they are, that needs to be mentioned. I had suspected that of another group who claims freedom of religion rights. The Guardian has not sourced why they believe the political purposes are part of that organisation, but over time I believe somebody will reveal that. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:7077:F0C0:E20D:4D12 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This page has indeed overwhelmingly been edited by single-purpose accounts (you can literally just skim the edit history in 500-edits-per-page mode and count how many times PopSci, PineSky, and Temscl show up); regardless of the nature of how the page got this way, given current events, it ought to be investigated thoroughly. 67.246.10.1 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind WP doing an investigation of PopSci and Temscl (personally, the former seems to be doing fine in terms of editing this page, but I digress). I looked through the 500-edits-per-page mode and couldn't find a user named PineSky on this article's edit history.

Most of the edits that Temscl makes are usually small edits to the Tang-gam section (though not always), and I wish they would provide edit summaries of what they changed since it would take anyone a long time to comb through all of those edits. Only 3 of their 185 live edits are above 1,000 bytes in size, and nearly 60% are below 20 bytes (see here for my source). On English Wikipedia, all the edits they've made are solely on this article (they've made over 600 edits on Japanese Wikipedia, most of which are on the Unification Church or related topics. They've only edited nine articles total on Japanese Wikipedia). Beyond this, I can't find much more information about them. Part of the reason why they may only edit this one page could just be that they don't have a strong grasp on English so they primarily edit the sections that have Japanese or Korean in them, and even then they are usually pretty small edits. I can't confirm that of course, but it's possible with the information we have at the moment.

For the sake of transparency, if any investigation should happen it should be on at least Temscl, but I understand also conducting some investigation on PopSci as well. PopSci on their user page does confirm they are a member of the Unification Church, but that in particular isn't necessarily evidence that there's a greater infiltration happening until more evidence for that comes to light. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the vagueness; PineSky shows up on pages earlier than the first page (specifically the third and fourth pages). They were warned on their talk page about the single-purpose account policy in 2018, and they stopped editing roughly a month later.

The specific content that was chosen by each editor for addition/deletion seems mostly kosher with each individual edit taken out of context, that's true. But even when the individual edits are kosher, pages that are heavily edited by single-purpose accounts are at a very high risk of becoming non-NPOV (and this is indeed the typical way in which long-lived non-NPOV pages come to be). I don't think that this is a deliberate infiltration, but I still think something dangerous is going on, considering these editing patterns and the fact that the organization at hand seems to have real, consequential political power (based on my skimming sources about it other than English Wikipedia).

Thinking about it, it might be a good idea to add Template:Unbalanced, at least until someone with real authority can look into what's going on here. Or whatever the appropriate template is for pages that are likely to have an undercut presentation of controversial information. 67.246.10.1 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The issue of single-use accounts seems reasonable to have a concern over, and I hope someone with some authority can take a good look at it. The unbalanced template seems fit for what is needed right now. I can add one to this article. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• I was kind of surprised that I am one of the top 3 editors of the article! I have mostly been correcting grammer and things like that. A while ago one editor folded in several independent articles into this one and I removed some of the duplicated material. Temscl's section seems to be his own project. I don't quite understand what it's all about. PopSci (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• A passage that strikes me as biased is in the opening: The Unification Church has been controversial, with some early critics calling it a dangerous cult. "Some early critics"? My impression is that the view of the movement as a cult is still quite widespread, and this phrasing seems intended to trivialize that view. TKSnaevarr (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"The Unification Church has been controversial, with some early critics calling it a dangerous cult." Yes indeed, there is clear bias in this statement. Let's try this for example: "Jesus has been controversial, with some early critics calling him dangerous."

or this: "Judaism has been controversial, with some critics calling those who practice this faith "dangerous".

Or how about this: Masters and Johnson are widely accepted as objective scientists in spite of the fact that they molested children in order to present "scientific data" to the general public.

I want to ask the editors, if I made any of these statements and included them in articles on the topics to which they refer, would you say that I was being fair, even handed or balanced? 96.244.189.26 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Serious social problems in Japan

I am surprised that there are so few serious social issues about the Unification Church on this page. The Unification Church gained a large number of followers in Japan and bankrupted many families by making them donate large amounts of money. In 1987, about 300 Japanese lawyers set up an association called the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (Japan) to help those followers.[2] According to the association's lawyers, there were 34537 cases in Japan between 1987 and 2021 in which the Unification Church brainwashed its followers into defrauding them of money, totaling about 123.7 billion yen.[3] Shinzo Abe, Japan's former prime minister, was assassinated for his alleged ties to the Unification Church. In 2021, the association's lawyers sent a letter of protest to Abe asking him to stop sending messages to Unification Church events. They feared that Abe's message would be used to empower the Unification Church and recruit its followers, forcing more victims to make expensive donations to the church.[4]--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. There is something seriously wrong with this article, and it points to a deeper problem with Wikipedia itself. It is highly suspicious. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Are you seriously suggesting the assassin's POV should be elaborated in more detail here? Millencolin (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not the assassin's POV. In Japan, the Unification Church has been a serious social problem since the 1970s, and from the 1980s until now, lawyers have been campaigning to help brainwashed followers. Many followers were defrauded of all their property by the Unification Church, and their families were separated. The Japanese version of Wikipedia details these social problems.[5] The Unification Church's practice of taking advantage of brainwashed Japanese people to swindle them out of large sums of money is called "Reikan Shoho" (fraudulent sale of exorcism services to people led to believe that they are possessed by evil spirits) and is very famous in Japan. The Japanese version of Wikipedia also has a page called "Reikan Shoho (霊感商法)". Do you think the problems in Japan caused by the Unification Church should be ignored?--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we aren't necessarily elaborating on the assassin's POV by simply noting that he may have assassinated Shinzo Abe because of his ties to Unification Church (it is not confirmed yet if it was the Unification Church he is talking about: source).

I think it would be good for the article if there was an expanded "controversies" section; however, I want to point out that the concept of brainwashing is not universally accepted among social scientists and is itself still highly controversial. Framing the controversies in terms of "X claims that the Unification Church took advantage of brainwashed Japanese people" would not only be more accurate but would also avoid flaring up this debate over whether or not brainwashing is real, since Wikipedia is not in a position to make such a claim (social scientists are). Jacquesparker0 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about social problems in Japan in the Controversy section. I wrote an objective account of who was criticizing the Unification Church.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Jacquesparker, you need to read these two articles, one from the NY Times and one from the Washington Post (both reliable sources). https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/business/japan-suspect-unification-church.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/12/unification-church-japan-shinzo-abe/ . I also recommend following the links to reliable sources that are contained in the NY Times article. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Westwind273 Thank you for the references. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks also. I was not able to read the NYT article because of a paywall. The WP article is pretty much the same as they have been writing since Watergate. Just quotes from anti-cultists, no interest in actual journalism.PopSci (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So who has an interest in actual journalism? The Washington Times? (Ha, Ha) Wikipedia generally recognizes the Washington Post as a reliable source, especially when backed up by other reliable sources (NY Times, AP, etc). Westwind273 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"forced" vs "pressured" The Missionary work in Japan section is well-done, but I find the use of the word "forced" rather strong. When legal cases are filed against the church under Japanese law, what is the language used? What is legal definition of difference between "pressuring" someone to make a donation, against "forcing" someone to donate? How is this different from "harassing" someone to donate? Vagabond nanoda (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the section is well done. Note [301] of the current version has the English translation (using Google Translate, which I don't particularly trust to be accurate) as "forced," but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Japanese courts determined that that is what happened (as opposed to "pressuring"). I think that the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales would definitely use the Japanese-equivalent of "forced" if there is one, but again that doesn't reflect the court's ruling. Normally, I would suggest adding the word "allegedly" or "supposedly" to "forced" or "pressured," but if a Japanese court ruled that that actually happened, then you don't necessarily need the adverbs. Then again, saying something like: "A Japanese court ruled that Unificationists forced people to make large donations" would be better overall, but that style of wording isn't the most convenient at points. If anyone who reads Japanese can shed some light on this issue, that would be really helpful. In the meantime, I think rephrasing to say that X said/ruled that Y forced or pressured Z into doing something would be better than saying Y forced or pressured Z into doing something. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Precisely it was a response by the UC Tokyo chair "献金の強要ない" (there is no coercion of donation) regarding the donation controversy on July 11. That aside, please be a bit more careful of citing Mainichi regarding the matters with UC, not only in note 302 they just repeat UC's claim that Nobusuke Kishi had no further tie with the church beyond "showing strong understanding of our movement for peace" (創始者の平和運動に強く理解していただいた), they even invite former LDP member Mayuko Toyota on their show to deny the connections. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The entire story is finally coming out. This should be worked into the article eventually. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/07/25/national/japan-politics-unification-church-links/ --Westwind273 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Broken anchor

The invisible "Controversy" anchor on the "Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (1954–1994)" section breaks the TOC link to the new root-level "Controversy" section. This should probably be fixed somehow. 67.246.10.1 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This article needs work!

1. Vandalism protection? As with articles on other new religious movements, this Wikipedia article appears to be heavily tampered by current followers, as this Talk page will attest. Can an admin turn on vandalism protection for this page?
2. New section on post-Moon UC? I'm not a Unification Church expert but it's clear that major changes have overtaken the organisation since the death of Moon. As other cult watchers have noted, Hak Ja Han has embarked on an ambitious programme to re-write UC theology, downplaying the role of Moon and elevating herself to the position of "God's only begotten daughter". The infighting among the Moon kids has also broken the church up into different factions, as much as followers may like to disagree. We need a section that more clearly outlines the latest theological shifts in the UC, as well as the different directions that Tatiana Moon, Preston Moon and Sean Moon have taken the church in.
3. The controversy section is a mess. It should be broken up into multiple sub-sections. I can think of two major controversies off the top of my head - the crowning of Moon and Han as "king and queen" at the US senate in 2004, and the assasination of Abe Shinzo. I'm sure there are many more.

Singaporeano (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all points. Frustratingly this is one of those topics that I don't feel confident in editing, let alone researching well enough that I get the right information. I'm American and I don't think I could even get the right information on the Church of LDS or the IBLP. The best sources are sometimes people who used to be in the movement, got out, and then did their own online research to compare/contrast. Warm Yellow Sunflower (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Warm Yellow Sunflower: Hhhm... someone like Steven Hassan, who wrote: "My first two books were translated and published in Japanese. The term “min control” entered the lexicon after my book Combatting Cult Mind Control came out in Japanese"? Someone like that? Why did you write "movement"? In a withering report by the Congressional Subcommittee on International Organizations, the UC was called “a multinational corporation … a paramilitary organization … and a tightly disciplined international political party.” They are simply criminal with impunity. Or read someone like Richard J. Samuels: Machiavelli's Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan. Cornell University Press, 2019, or https://www.gwern.net/docs/japanese/2001-12-samuels-kishiandcorruptionananatomyofthe1955system.html "In this way, Sasakawa [fascist, war criminal] and Kishi [fascist, war criminal] shielded what would become one of the most widely distrusted groups in contemporary Japan." - Yes, the article is so badly written and almost laughable. --87.170.193.174 (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@87.170.193.174 "Movement" has neutral meaning, not inherently positive, if that's what you're wondering. Cults make "moves" to control and influence, such as recruiting politicians and celebrities. That's basically what I was trying to express: the actions made by a collective group. 184.100.226.247 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a criticism section in Moon's article. Maybe that information could be added here. Midsummersday (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I started the section but had trouble transferring text from the other article. I will try again tomorrow. Midsummersday (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Tang-gam (탕감 蕩減) needs a major rework by a third party

@Temscl: I am sorry to inform you that this section is being poorly edited by you lately, despite your good faith. I am not complaining about the English grammar (I am not native English speaker either), the major issue is the citations you used in this section. I believe Wikipedia does not endorse using "Google search result" as citation, divineprinciple.web.fc2.com also looks very questionable as a reliable source. Another issue with your edits is WP:SYNTH, i.e. making original conclusion from published materials, in an attempt to explain the "original meaning of Tang-gam". If you want to state that Moon gave new definition to the term, please use reliable source which actually says so, not making up your own conclusion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I also I find it strange that this section is under the "Controversies" section, but I don't really see much controversy detailed specifically around Tang-gam other than that there are people who don't like UC theology in the first place. Is the controversy around this idea the translations specifically (i.e. are people conflicting over the English translation of 탕감 to "forgiveness" versus "indemnity"?). Or is there something specific about the concept itself that people conflict over? It seems like there's a bit of both in this section, but it seems mostly dedicated to detailing what tang-gam is rather than the controversy surrounding it. Summarizing it for the section is okay, but detail the controversies specific to it in the "Controversies" section. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Temscl: I am sorry but you clearly misunderstood the issue we are having here, so I will be brief: your edits are not backed by reliable sources. Just because an information is a common knowledge to a specific group, doesn't mean that it is given a free pass in Wikipedia. As a fellow Wikipedia editor, we have the obligation to REMOVE any poorly sourced information. And I hope you would stay calm when we finally decided to remove the entire or partial portion of the Tang-gam section, which you spent so much energy on. We just need better source. Google search result doesn't qualify as acceptable source at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Political activism section?

Right now the political activism section is longer than the history section. It seems to me that most of the history of the UC is actually political activism. Most of the controversy is too. I'd like to suggest merging the activism section into the history section. All it would take is putting the events in the right place in the timeline. JayDeeFree (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Potential protection or semi-protection request for article?

I have been in an editing war with at least one person over whether or not the Unification Church should be considered Christian or not. Many reliable, secondary sources agree that they are Christian, but it seems that some non-registered editors do not seem to care. One left a nasty comment on my talk page (see here). I'm not sure how to request protection or semi-protection for this page -- or if it's even necessary to other editors on this page -- but the denial of verified information is becoming a problem. If someone more knowledgeable about this could weigh in, it would be well appreciated --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne, Bitter Winter, and CESNUR

Based on WP:RSP#CESNUR, I have removed citations to Cesnur.org and Bitterwinter.org, as consensus seems to agree those are not reliable on Wikipedia. I have taken the further, WP:BOLD step to also remove citations to Massimo Introvigne which were published elsewhere, as Introvigne's work is inextricably linked to both organizations. Per prior discussions, concern has been raised that his work is neither reliable in general, nor neutral. Introvigne's organizations have a reputation for uncritical and substandard scholarship and pro-NRM apologia, often with funding from and the active encouragement of the NRM's organizations in question. While such sources might be of limited use for factual claims, (or not) any analysis or interpretation should come from reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Divine Principle content - sourced scholar material content

Hello, JayDeeFree and Diannaa during some copyvio removal, possible here, there was deleted complete section of the Divine Principle content, sourced by scholars and added by multiple edits here. This part was translated from the Czech version of the article, which contains this part already for some time (years, since 2010) it is not "copied verbatim" and it is in my own words as I personally added it to the Czech version. This text is a compilation of:

• Frederick Sontag: Sontag is mentioned in the scholar studies section, so the source is reliable. If I remember that correctly, it is about 12 chapters of his book, where each chapter is represented with one added paragraph, so the information here is already supercompressed and on my opinion cannot be shortened without loosing important statements.
• Lužný+Václavík: those religionists studied the Divine Principle and describe 3 different parts, the same as is already in the article in Beliefs paragraph sourced by Leo Sandon Jr., just they describe it in much more detail. Again, the content is supercompressed as their article is from the book+CD on various new religious movements and the Divine Principle description takes several pages.

So I do expect, we will bring the content back. If it would be too much for this article, I think a good option could be to make a child article on the Divine Principle (again) but now there will be enough information to be self-standing, and here will stay just a summary. Tell me, what you think about it because I think it is not OK to remove sourced content without any reason. Hope it was done just by mistake. --Dee (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The reason for removal was given in the edit summary: "remove excessive non-free content. Texts should be briefly summarized in your own words, not copied verbatim". If it's original content and not a quotation, I apologize. However adding 2000 words of religious dogma written in Wikipedia's voice is not appropriate and my opinion is that it should not be re-added. — Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest new article about it. DanielCro (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa, I think is still a bit misunderstanding... What is your reason of your opinion not re-adding it? Why you consider it inapropriate? Actualy, it is not a dogma, as you name it, it is as scientists of the subject matter (religionists) describe religions and their beliefs (and if any, their dogmas). Please rething with WP:NOTPAPER and compare with Christianity#Beliefs. Just please explain to me, why Wikipedia should not cover Beliefs of particular church and should cover beliefs of the other one. Thank you.--Dee (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the material is presented as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. Which in my opinion does not follow our WP:NPOV policy. — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

If the religionist presents it as a fact (the teachings of the church are really like this), then what is the problem... but I do understand, what you mean, so what do you recommend? I do think, that each part starts with text, which clearly states that it is what religionists say about the teachings and the following lists are encapsulated by this.

• "David Václavík and Dušan Lužný described details of those 3 points as follows: " (To the "Following the format of systematic theology, it includes (1) God's purpose in creating human beings, (2) the fall of man, and (3) restoration") and
• "Frederick Sontag summarized the teaching of the Divine Principle in 12 concise points: "

before each of those lists. So, I really do not understand, why you use the argument with "material is presented as fact" and why it should be a problem as

• Fact is, that Frederic Sontag summarizes the teaching in those 12 parts and
• Fact is, that Lužný and Václavík describe those 3 parts.

Read the sources to confirm. Or should I write at the start of each paragraph the word "supposedly", or something else to make the request to WP:NPOV happy? I think this would hurt WP:NPOV policy much more. --Dee (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not here to recommend anything. I've merely stated an opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

And my point is to prevent removals, so if you do not say any argument, I have to conclude, you do not have any. Additionally I have to say, your opinion is at least partially incorrect, as for example:

• Václavík-Lužný point 1 starts with the text: "This first principle holds that ..."
• Václavík-Lužný point 1 starts with text "according to the teaching of the Church ..."
• Václavík-Lužný point 1 starts with text "According to the teaching of the Church ..."

fully respects WP:NPOV, means you removed at least those parts incorrectly. I will simply put them back, eventually request for comment could be filled in the future.

The part of Frederic Sontag I can try to rewrite more in the style "according to the teaching of the Church..." on each line, but I think it is a bit odd as this is already encapsulated above the list.

Even if you do not want to recommend anything, we did a great shift trough:

• excessive non-free content
• briefly summarized in your own words, not copied verbatim
• 2000 words of religious dogma
• presented as fact, in Wikipedia's voice
• opinion

all incorrect, so I'm curious would be next. Timesaving would be to cooperate on a better WP content. EN is not my mother language, so consider I could have issues with expressions which looks perfect for me, but you consider it differently. Little help is welcome here. --Dee (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Dee (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the term "Unification Church"

There has never been an organisation called "Unification Church". The main organisation to which Unificationists (believers in Unificationist theology) adhere is referred to in the English-speaking world as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. A Google search on the term "Unification Church" will only uncover articles written by the detractors of Unificationism, since this not a label Unificationists use to describe their affiliation. Quant analyst (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the most common term for a group, the one they're known by, not necessarily the one they'd prefer people use. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

UC as the name of the article is completely OK for Unificationists (so it does not insult anyone) and now is used even by some anticultists, which used to put pejoratives to the name (cult, sect, whatever...), but most important, the term Unification Church is used frequently by religionists and sociologists of religion (practically scientists in the field of the religion) and therefore their use of this term is the most valid when deciding the name of the article. Possibly, as church renames several times in the short history, in the future will win another name, but it is not yet the time. But look there is an official name in the infobox (Family federation...), but as far as I know, it would be necessary to change it again as the organizational structure of the Unification church or movement is still changing. --Dee (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Re new legislation passed in Japan to restrict donations given to religious groups

Hi, just raising some awareness that this new section, while informative, does not appear to conform to the following rules:

WP:NPOV

MOS:LABEL

There are also issues with WP:EXCEPTIONAL for https://web.archive.org/web/20221210091835/https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA101KP0Q2A211C2000000/, the source used to cite. User: SLIMHANNYA appears to be mimicking the type of language used in the outlet, which appears to be sympathetic to the Chinese govt, and as the UC has been strongly anti-communist as is reported, then this source may appear to be in conflict of interest. There is nothing wrong with reporting on events, but these must adhere to neutrality and words listed out in WP:WORDS/MOS:LABEL need to be contextualised. The paragraph could be paraphrased much better. I managed to find 3 other sources that tell the same story but don't refer to the UC as a cult, but as a religious group. It is also noted that DW has stated that the new legislation does not make any reference to the Unification Church particularly. Please could this section by User: SLIMHANNYA be reviewed and the source deleted or the paragraph amended. Thanks Saussure4661 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am Japanese and I do not know why you referred to the Chinese government. And those sources clearly explain the passage of the law to the effect that it is a law to help victims of the Unification Church. And please do not overlook the fact that many media outlets use the term "cult" to describe the law every time it is mentioned.[6][7] Although the law does not mention the Unification Church in its text, it is clear from the sources that it was enacted in response to the Unification Church's problems, in order to apply to all juridical persons, including religious organizations.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Saussure4661 has been alleged several times to have a conflict of interest with the Unification Church on his Talk page. Are you totally unaffiliated with the Unification Church?--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

These bills were created due to social problems caused by the Unification Church, and from the time of discussion before the bills were passed, they have been discussed from the perspective of preventing damage caused by cults.[8][9] Minister Kono, who has jurisdiction over the law,[10] clearly stated that the Unification Church is an antisocial cult during the deliberations surrounding the bill.[11] It is impossible to try to separate the Unification Church from the law passed on December 10 that aims to restrict cults.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The word "cult" has no academic backing any longer and it it officially called "new religious movement". Historically "cult" came from Latin "cultus" which basically means worship. Saussure4661 (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Preferably list the facts so that these can provide context, instead of opinions, please. Otherwise this is tabloid and not encyclopaedic Saussure4661 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me make it very clear: I do NOT have a conflict of interest with the Unification Church. In fact, I'm an agnostic and don't follow any religion. You might as well point out to every other page I've created or contributed as having a conflict of interest: Serena Terry, Peter Zeihan, Céline Dion, The Last Blockbuster Store, Olivier Richters, etc. Just because someone edits on a page doesn't make them affiliated to the subject matter. You were given a warning in the past for disruptive editing as well. Wikipedia has a clear Manual on the kinds of works used. If I had a conflict of interest I would have had something against your contribution in the first place. I didn't even touch upon the other section you added, as I don't know anything. I only called out the one on the legislation because of the lack of neutrality used to paraphrase. There are plenty of other terms to use for something that has a particular connotation in certain circles.

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

This is from Wikipedia directly. The majority of sources, including ones from Japan to not use "cult" in reference to the legislation. Saussure4661 (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason I mention the Chinese government, is because the source's Xi Jinping Watch section dedicates a portion to the president giving the impression that he has some clear anti-corruption scheme. Based on my own research, the Unification Church is anti-communist, and has been the target of Communist governments. This is to be expected. Communist regimes don't allow dissent, and are known to conduct terrorist attacks around the world against dissenters and others. The Chinese government is also cracking down on religions, very much in line with ideological doctrine, and all religions in China are called "cults" regardless of how mainstream they are. I'm only implying that the source gives the impression that is sympathetic towards the Chinese government, not that it is. Saussure4661 (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

At least the multiple sources I have indicated above clearly indicate that these two bills are designed to deal with "cults". The word "cult" is clearly stated there. I could further present multiple sources that state that those bills were created by Unification Church social issues and that the bills are anti-cult measures, but I am not going to append a large number of sources that say the same thing as the multiple sources I have already presented.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@SLIMHANNYA please adhere to WP:NPOV. The problem here is not the sources. I too, added three sources that back up the story. The issue I am raising is breach of neutrality Saussure4661 (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed my past edits and corrected "cult" to "religious organization" in some sentences.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Verification needed

Verification is needed for one of my edits. In the anti-communism section at the end of the fourth paragraph I made an edit adding the following: "At this time CAUSA international also directly assisted the United States Central Intelligence Agency in supplying the Contras, in addition to paying for flights by rebel leaders. This funneling of supplies to the Contras escalated after Congress cut off CIA funding for the rebel groups." The [verification needed] was put on it, the reason being "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Fair enough. In addition to the 2 sources I initially included, I have added two more sources. These sources are both internal CIA documents released to the public via the Freedom Of Information Act, on the CIA's own website, containing information confirming my claims. If that does not meet the bar for "extraordinary evidence," I don't know what does. Could someone please review my new evidence to verify my claims? Forest4theTrees11 (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yeah I don't see why the verification is needed, if anything, it would be WP:DUE, as one of the sources is stating the organization is merely carrying out religious activities in the area, the way they describe it. The sources say both that CAUSA became the new source of funding for the Contras, and doing humanitarian work for the families of the the Contras. However, all four sources are making the same argument, which fulfills the "extraordinary claim" criteria. I would also add, that the contribution looks identical to what it says in the source and might need a bit rewording. Just a suggestion of course. Saussure4661 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post journals archived by CIA are good sources and I agree the verification needed label is no longer valid. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

tags again

Can we categorize and put in the lede that it is seen as a cult or no? 104.255.169.110 (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

Under "popular terminologies," the following sentence should be grammatically corrected: 'Although many Unification Church members consider the "M" word derogatory but will use it amongst themselves in the same way that Black people have come to "own" the "N" word, or Irish people call each other "Paddies", but might resent others using such slurs.'

Specifically, it is not a full sentence, being comprised of clauses and conjunctions. I would recommend replacing the first "but" with ", some". Al Begamut (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Membership numbers

While Eileen Barker is probably a reliable source, I have to question the 3 million figure. New religious movements of all stripes are notorious for heavily exaggerating their membership numbers, and so all numbers have to be treated with a heavy dose of skepticism. The number is only mentioned in the abstract [12], and Barker does not give any kind of source for the figure (I assume it is from the church itself). NPR stated in 2010 that [13] No one knows how many Unificationists there are worldwide. In the U.S., estimates range from 15,000 to 25,000. But the numbers have dropped since the 1970s, in part because many "blessed" children have left the fold. I think that removing the number is the best solution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Spelling error, can't fix due to protection ...

cruxifiction -> crucifixion 68.43.152.29 (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like someone has taken care of it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

It seems like some people don't like the expression new religious movement. How about just saying it's an international association? Eastbayguy (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What are the objections to "new religious movement"? _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone has tagged that in 2 places as needing references. Eastbayguy (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine. Looking at the "Scholarly studies" section, there are a couple of sources that refer to "new religious movement", though some do not apply this label explicitly to the Unification Church. Other sources that I didn't look at (books not easily accessible to me) had titles that indicate their topic was "new religions" or the study of religions. Some refer to it as a "cult", but I don't think that's mutually exclusive with "new religious movement". I'm not sure the recent 'cn' tags are needed. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Needing references isn't the same thing as not liking the expression new religious movement. How do you get from one to the other? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

NRM is a standard neutral term to refer to groups like this. We should avoid describing NRMS, no matter how controversial they are, as "cults" in wikivoice, just as we avoid using the descriptor "terrorist". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Former member?

In the section on Japan it says the guy who shot Abe is a former member of the UC. I thought it was his mother who was a member. 207.11.71.197 (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The person's own article Tetsuya Yamagami does not mention he himself being a member, unless I missed it. 207.11.71.197 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Update history section?

The history section ends with Moon's death in 2012. Shouldn't there be a section for events since then? Especially since a lot seems to have happened. 207.11.71.197 (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have broken into 3 or 4 parts. This could be made more clear in the article. 207.11.71.197 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also there is a short "Political positions" subsection. Would that be better if it was moved to the "Political activism" section?SnailsSpace (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Citation

I found a reference of the following sentence but am not an extended confirmed user so that cannot edit to add it.

amounting to 123.7 billion yen, based on statistics compiled by the association's lawyers between 1987 and 2021, obtained via 34,537 complaints submitted to Government Consumer centers.

— in the subsection, Spiritual sales in the section Critisism

I am thankful if someone is kind to add the following reference to the above sentence. Thank you.

{{Cite book|author={{ill|島薗進|ja|島薗進}}|chapter=第5章 統一教会の対外政界工作と日本における被害|title=これだけは知っておきたい 統一教会問題|publisher={{ill|東洋経済新報社|ja|東洋経済新報社}}|isbn=978-4-492-22413-7|date=2023-09-12|page=172}} HinokisOfRoma (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Break into 3 parts.

Some of the sources I've seen say that it broke into 3 parts after Rev Moon died in 2012. I don't see this covered in the article. It seems like an important thing to me. BookeWorme (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@BookeWorme not sure about 3 parts, but a group called Rod of Iron Ministries broke off of it. Currently that is just a draft article but I'd love if you were to improve it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. BookeWorme (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP also has an article on the Family Peace Association which is the other break away group. BookeWorme (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is some information I came across, I don't think it is acceptable as a reference for a Wikipedia article since it is not published in a secondary source. SCHISM in the Unification Church By Dan Fefferman http://www.cesnur.org/2016/daejin_fefferman.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnailsSpace (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

paragraph in "Popular Terminology"

is the second half of the second last paragraph quite necessary? comparing slurs in this article is confusingly unnecessary, and impedes its neutrality Fomhuiréan (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Completely missing part "Persecution"

I do see the Criticism part with mixture of regular criticism and anticult movement agenda. But I do not see any mention of persecution, which is self-evident it should exist and it should be described. Looks like just one side is present here. A few examples could be:

• The German ban on the Schengen area, later lifted as unjust.
• Japanese abductions and forced confinement of the UC believers by organized groups called deprogrammers - which are by the way very much connected with their critics.

It could be a wide theme as in JW case. I cannot add it by myself because of an lock. Is there someone who could help me with this? --Tarylem (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tarylem You could draft the section in your sandbox (with sources) and then ask for comment here when done. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your advice. Will try to prepare something. --Tarylem (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tarylem Same as @Counterfeit Purses if you have a text you feel adds value and is informative to the article as a whole, aligns with WP policies, please share. Saussure4661 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to give you some context: the church's claims of deprogramming via "abductions and forced confinement" is accused of exaggeration or fabrication as has been already noted in Freedom of religion in Japan#Forced religious conversion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As there are cases, where Japanese courts decided in favor of kidnapped people, which I already have clear evidence about on my computer, there is a space to put such content, which is completely missing here. The opposite side, where just the anticult content is put into the article, is already abundantly represented in the article. This leads me by the way to the necessity of checking anticult style of edits in this and the linked articles. Thanks for showing me the way in this direction. For example, on the linked article I do see some attempts to misinterpret the source in the summary, which is, in reality, U.S. Department of state, which is very trusted, not HRWF, not CESNUR and not the Unification Church, regardless what anticult agenda think about it. I do see the very same tactics on Azeri towards Armeni, ruSSia against JhW, or all around the world - same steps to dishonest sources or opponents by the spread of fog, whataboutism, or other steps against religious freedom, the right assured as the Basic human right - and this should not be performed on Wikipedia. Touching on how to extend that part about Freedom of religion in Japan - other reports from the U.S. Department of State from different years should be taken there, not just the latest. The history is important to describe, as it was quite different. For example, those speaking of the Toru Goto case, etc. Hope it helps. But feel free to extend it yourself before I do, that article is not my focus just now. Australia. Too many rabbits, not enough hunters. Searching for a friendly virus. With regards, --Tarylem (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tarylem Just a reminder that talk pages are for discussing issues with an article, not general discussion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgive my inexperience with these rules, I'm somewhat new here. But I think you should rather remind Sameboat as he brings it in. I was just answering in case of that interconnected article. Will try to look for that from: now.--Tarylem (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@all - One part is ready to publish. Please find it in my Sandbox: here. Is here someone who can review and add it to the article? As persecution is very much connected with criticism, it should be just before or just after part of "Criticism". As this one is shorter so far, it should be before it. Thank you in advance. --Tarylem (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

... I'm just surprised, the initial call was replied to in less than one hour, so I was imagining a great cooperation, unfortunately, no one reacted to this message for more than one week. --Tarylem (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tarylem This isn't something I'm interested in but I took a quick look at your draft. I don't think that a German travel ban for two people counts as "persecution" against all members of this group. Maybe this belongs in Sun Myung Moon? Maybe other editors will have other opinions. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Do I see correctly a "resistance" to add it? To your argument: Important is, who was the parties in the court. UC against Germany. The court did not evaluate the ban on just two persons. The court evaluated the religious freedom rights of all UC believers in the Schengen area, as religious meetings are part of their worship, and the court stated it in the ruling. So, it touches a whole church in the area, and that is why it belongs here, not in the SMM article. If this is necessary to be in the text, I can add it, but as there would be many cases, I do prefer to keep it short. Additionally, we should not evaluate, what is "enough" important, but reliable sources do. This case has so many sources, that it could have a separate article. But this would be an overkill for now and my time is limited.--Tarylem (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in a persecution section unless the reliable sources call it persecution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a joke. Just a reminder: this is not a speech exercise. So how should we call it then, when people are forcibly abducted or expelled from the country, treated as criminals and UNHCR then stated it was a violation of their basic human rights...? So in the situation, when there are articles "Persecution of" various religions, I'm blocked from publishing about this particular one. Regardless I already edited Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia (yes, multiple articles per country). This starts to be interesting and it sounds like a challenge. Thank you for motivation. --Tarylem (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And once more to this case: The court concluded that the authorities' decision denied Mr. and Mrs. Moon entry into the Schengen area and disruption of the practice of faith by their church's believers during several years was unlawful and unconstitutional based on presumptions and hearsay. What else is it if not persecution? --Tarylem (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean its just not persecution... And even if it was we can't do WP:OR, the source would actually need to say it. We don't have any problem finding sources which refer to the treatment of JW as persecution. If this really is similar then you can obviously present sources which refer to the treatment of UC as persecution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are similar sources like for JHW. But I do not agree with you that naming some treatment as "persecution" is original research. Same, that sources should say, that it is persecution. That is not true. You can't say you can call something a car until sources say it is a car. There are some definitions. By definition, persecution is by Oxford Languages (languages.oup.com): "hostility (hostile behavior; unfriendliness or opposition) and ill-treatment (cruel or inhumane treatment), especially based on ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or political beliefs". So yes, possibly the name of the section could be "Persecution and discrimination" as this one german case is probably more discrimination than persecution. But the Russian case which I do have prepared when ECHR stated the church believer was kept in inhuman conditions fulfilled the definition of persecution. Same with the sources I used in JHW articles, some are not "persecution" per se, and in some, the source did not state it is persecution, but still it is by definition. So question is, how would you name the paragraph I'm trying to create if you look at the sources in my sandbox? I do finish here unless there is more will to cooperate. --Tarylem (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You say you don't agree its OR... and then you go and do a bunch of original analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If you do not want to help me, stop accusing me of WP-OR - as everything I put into the paragraph to be inserted in this article has a source according to the rules. So better I stop replying to you as this makes no sense to me. --Tarylem (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean everything besides that it was persecution? Because that seems to be the main point and that is OR, its not an accusation against you its just what it is. If you can't understand this pretty soon you won't be allowed to edit any article on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I Added one more source which makes it crystal clear --Tarylem (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

section added, title as it describes, Schengen ban for the founders, Schengen is for Europe so naturally I omitted the location from the title Saussure4661 (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for the effort, just now it is in the "Criticism" part. So just wonder what in the unlawful entry ban and systematic refusal to comply with the law in several years is a "Criticism", when nobody in the sources calls it a criticism. Hope there is a chance to restructuralize the article later to the "Persecution and discrimination" paragraph, when there will be more cases. --Tarylem (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@all: I added some other parts to my Sandbox. Now the Persecution and Discrimination section includes sections for France, Russia and United States. As I see, the "Germany" part is included in the article under "Criticism". Please keep in mind and look at everything in my queue, I think a "Harassment and Discrimination" paragraph would be needed. In particular, reliable sources from beyond the Iron Curtain cases specifically say that the Church was "persecuted", so there is no question as to what the paragraph should be called. I was very surprised how many cases came up when I tried to get into it. We keep looking at Japanese hijacks that look huge as this practice looks common there. I have selected the most reliable sources from the ones I had, so I hope that no pointless discussion will be repeated. Thank you in advance for your voluntary action. --Tarylem (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I would still say no... It looks like trying to force a bunch of primary sources into an arrangement which violated WP:SYNTH and overall just wouldn't be due even if it didn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

1) Which cases are with just primary sources without any secondary ones? And 2) what exactly would be a violation of WP:SYNTH, means what exactly in parts France, Russia, United States is information mentioned by no source? Please tell me, I'm really curious. Be exact, name it. --Tarylem (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The SYNTH aspect would be calling it persecution when none of the sources do, you can't combine sources to say something which none of them individually say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for being specific and that there are no other critical comments. I'm a bit surprised, especially when I mentioned above (with absolutely no impact), that the behind the Iron Curtain sources specifically say "Persecution", where people died in prison, even if I mention that this is in the queue: I do think that it would be easy to prove the SYNTH accusation from your side as a completely invalid point of view. On the other hand, I disagree with such an "autistic" or better "literal" explanation of the source's usage. --Tarylem (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There are other critical comments (for example the overuse of primary sources, such as court documents), this is just where we're stuck. Do you have any conflicts of interest with the Unification Church? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Systematic prevention of adding any information esp. from your side under strange reasons, was, by the way, what grabbed my attention. Use of court decisions is OK, same as I did in Jehovah's Witness with absolutely no issue. Looking at what primary and secondary sources are, I see that ECHR is by the way a summary of other court cases, so it would be a question if it is a primary or secondary source as it sums acts of sides described elsewhere and decisions of other courts. For the decision of ECHR is it a primary one, for the description of what happened it is a secondary source already. Additionally, most ECHR decisions have a Press release, which is a secondary source. The only conflict here is this pointless discussion, as there was no issue to add ECHR court cases to Jehovah's Witness articles, but there is an issue here, so I can just wonder WHY? So the discussion with you leads to nowhere again, so I would not repeat that. --Tarylem (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

What is "my side"? I do not edit the Jehovah's Witness articles, my primary interest with the Unification Church is in their seafood operations and as far as I am aware the Jehovah's Witness' are not active in that space. Your edits there may also be an issue, I have not checked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the content and after some consideration and taking into account concerns over the above discussion, I have settled for a less ominous title for "Persecution". Saussure4661 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)