Talk:Unification Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Esotericism[edit]

Someone removed the material I had added in the controversy section on esotericism, that is having teachings that are secret from the public. This has been a common criticism of the UC. There were four good sources provided, one published by the Unification Seminary. Borock (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it was removed. It should be there with the other criticisms. I will see if I can find more material. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Here are the sources for the paragraph, mostly scholarly in contrast to the popular news media sources which you see in most of the rest of the article. I think this shows the topic is taken seriously:
    • Evangelical-Unification Dialogue (Conference series - Unification Theological Seminary ; no. 3) Richard Quebedeaux, Rodney Sawatsky, Paragon House, 1979, ISBN-10: 093289402X, pages 77-99.
    • Frederick Sontag,1977, Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church, Abingdon Press, ISBN-10: 0687406226, page 185.
    • Irving Louis Horowitz, 1978, Science, Sin, and Scholarship: The Politics of Reverend Moon and the Unification Church, MIT Press, ISBN 0262081008, page 114
    • Tingle, D. and Fordyce, R. 1979, The Phases and Faces of the Moon: A Critical Examination of the Unification Church and Its Principles, Hicksville, New York: Exposition Press ISBN 0682492647, p20-21
    • George D. Chryssides, "Unificationism: A study in religious syncretism", Chapter 14 in Religion: empirical studies, Editor: Steven Sutcliffe, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, ISBN 0-7546-4158-9, ISBN 978-0-7546-4158-2, page 232. - Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned, though may be not under the controversy section or may under a new "Historical controversies" section. I also read thjat the secrecy is not strictly enforced in Making of a moonie, but Eileen Barker does not use the term esotericism. It is not true that all religions have secret teachings. Andries (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe it should be mentioned. Certainly, if Eileen Barker (who has defended the organization against charges of brainwashing) mentions the secrecy in her book, then we are not being overly critical if we mention it in the article. The four scholarly sources that have been cited shows that this is notable. While there have been some gnostic religions known for their esoteric doctrines, I don't think that most Christian denominations have secret teachings that have not been published.
WP:Attack only applies to entire articles dedicated to attacking a person or organization, not to one little sub-section of an article.
If someone has access to Barker's book, we can add that the secrecy was not strictly enforced, along with anything else in the book that would be worthwhile.
I see that all of the sources that are critical were published in the late 1970's, and (according to the deleted paragraph) since the 1990's many of the esoteric texts have been published online. Unless we can add critical sources that are more recent, we should begin the first sentence of the paragraph by giving the reader some sense that these criticisms were common in the late 1970's.Dulcimermusic 03:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

History section[edit]

There is already an article History of the Unification Church, linked as the main article for this section. At least some of the minor events should be removed from this section and put there if they are not already. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Related organizations[edit]

I am working on this section so that it focuses more on notable organizations.Borock (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Symbol as Variant of Japanese Rising Sun?[edit]

Unification Church symbol seems like a variant of the World War 2 Japanese Imperial Battle Flag, with which their doctrines are congruent as it relates to social doctrine and anti-communist orientation (anti-Comintern Axis).

Probably not. However if you can find a reliable source that claims this go ahead and mention it in the section on the symbol.Borock (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Brainwashing"[edit]

Numerous publicans and experts have roundly criticised this group as a cult. Is anyone going to raise a large objection of I insert information from these sources in here? This article seems ridiculously biased. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 09:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading this article several years ago, and it was more balanced, with controversial facts cited with footnotes throughout the article. It looks as though these have been systematically removed, and any hint of criticism sequestered to the "Controversy" section. The lead/introduction (and every other section!) now sound exactly like what we might expect from the Unification Church's own literature. Is this similar to what happened to the article on Scientology, which was manipulated by Scientologists to be more favorable and to remove all criticism (for which they were banned)? DrSocPsych (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking back at the Talk pages in the Archive, this same issue that I raised has been an ongoing complaint for years of editors coming to this page, that material in this article is systematically changed to make it sound more favorable about the church. Further, these editors cite many specific instances of Unification Church members deleting material deemed negative, including well-sourced material. DrSocPsych (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
...well, they do. I'm watching it now but editing it seems pointless. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of criticism in the secondary articles, which are linked in the criticism section. Part of the issue is that the main things the "Moonies" have been criticized for (religious heresy, anti-communism, and just general weirdness) are not looked at so negatively here as in the main-stream. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not object if the "Controversy" section was split up and items were put into the "History" section. I'm not quite sure why the controversy section was started in the first place. Controversy has been a major part of Unification Church history all along, and it might be argued the most notable part. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead if you want to do that. DrSocPsych seems to agree with you from what he said above. I think the controversy section was started because someone objected that the controversy was hard to find in the article. Something should also be added about it in the lede. Borock (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree too. I will start working on it. If someone objects my edits can be reverted. Skylark777 (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I will merge the "Political activities" section, for the same reasons. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In my younger years (in the 70's), I was close with a young woman who was a former Moonie. She escaped from their control by requesting permission to attend her mother's funeral. She only received this permission because she had progressive responsibilities in the organization. This young woman subsequently disappeared and no one I knew (including her best friend) ever heard from hear again. The degree of control exhibited over members of this organization definitely puts the "Unification Church" in the definition of a cult. The article on this organization is extremely biased towards the positive, so much that it is largely ridiculous propaganda. There is too much secrecy and control within this organization to view the article seriously. Doctorgood (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Do you have mainstream academic or journalistic sources to cite? Because that's how Wikipedia determines article content, not anecdotal stories. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Global perspective[edit]

Most of the article is about the UC in the United States and South Korea, including most of the controversy and almost all of the related organizations. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The church in the Philippines is mentioned in the second sentence.Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1990s section[edit]

This section is kind of slim. How about merging it with the previous "international expansion" section which covers the 70s and 80s? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. I also don't see how it would make much difference to the article.Borock (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I went ahead and did the merge. Not that drastic a change, as Borock said. BayShrimp (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unification Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This article reads like propaganda[edit]

As many other people here have noted, huge chunks of this article read like a propaganda piece. While the Unification Church of the United States article has fairly good sections on the major controversies the church went through, here all aspects which make the church look bad are either removed or lumped in further in the article, with no mention in the header or subsection titles. Meanwhile the other ~80% of the page is worded in the same way you'd expect from their leaflets. Therefore I'm putting a neutrality tag on this article until some of the main issues are resolved. Sarcastic Bob (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Until a few days ago there was a "Controversy" section. It was then split up and the material put mostly in the history section, which is the main part of the article. Was it better before? I don't think it makes that much difference. Borock (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I expanded the controversy mentioned in the lede. Do you have any suggestions for section titles? I will think about that too. Borock (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
One problem is that a lot of the controversy is entirely absent from the article. The controversy which is present is watered down and sounds in some cases like apologetics. It should reflect the tone and content of reliable sources, not of Unification Church literature. What Sarcastic Bob mentions above appears to be a deliberate strategy by editors who are Unification Church members. DrSocPsych (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Any suggestions for controversy to be added to the article and/or the lede? Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's clear to me now that Kitfoxxe is a partisan Unification Church supporter who is trying to suppress criticism of the Unification Church. Only two weeks after raising the bias issue that (looking back through the history) has plagued this page for at least 7 years, Kitfoxxe added a ridiculous entry implying that a representative sample of those who have a problem with the church's political activities is a fringe leftist group staging a single event, and then he removed the POV tag with the disingenuous: "specific issues seem to have been corrected and discussion on talk page seems to have ended." DrSocPsych (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's an example of the propaganda. From today's version of the article:
The introduction to the Divine Principle says about Moon:
For several decades he wandered through the spirit world so vast as to be beyond imagining. He trod a bloody path of suffering in search of the truth, passing through tribulations that God alone remembers. Since he understood that no one can find the ultimate truth to save humanity without first passing through the bitterest of trials, he fought alone against millions of devils, both in the spiritual and physical worlds, and triumphed over them all. Through intimate spiritual communion with God and by meeting with Jesus and many saints in Paradise, he brought to light all the secrets of Heaven.[1]
The Divine Principle, the "reliable source" which is cited here, is the Unification Church's own Bible, written by Sun Myung Moon and his early followers! On the other hand, it's comforting to know that Sun Myung Moon "triumphed over...all" the "millions of devils," and "brought to light all the secrets of Heaven" (according to himself). DrSocPsych (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Eurazn101 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)First of all the Divine principle is a not a reliable source and does not contain facts. Therefore, most of the topics reported on this page are biased and very subjective.

This has now been removed. Any other suggestions? Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If the Unification Church members here can't understand how extremely biased this article is (all that would be required is the compare it to what has been reported about Moon elsewhere), then they should not be editing this article. They probably shouldn't be editing this article anyway because of WP:COI. DrSocPsych (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Unification Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda for a sect on wikipedia[edit]

This article should be rewritten or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2C2C:8642:E0C1:86D3 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The "matching" of couples, redux[edit]

Under the heading "Sex and marriage", the final sentence of the first paragraph reads "Rev. Moon matched all of the couples except 12 who were already married to each other before joining the church." To readers who are unfamiliar with what "matched" means in this context, it is important that they be informed that it means that Moon selected the individuals to comprise each couple; these were arranged marriages, over which he held absolute power of choice. Given that this is one of the most controversial aspects of the Church, it is surprising to see "matching" passed-over with barely a mention. I searched the archives of the Talk section and discovered that another editor pointed this out back in 2011, but if anything was added since then to the article to clarify what is meant by "matched", it is no longer there. This needs to be explicitly stated in the article, and deserves its own paragraph. Here are some relevant quotes from reliable sources:
"The men and women entered a large room, where Moon began matching couples by pointing at them."NY Daily News
"In the Unification tradition, romantic liaisons are forbidden until the members are deemed by Mr. Moon to be spiritually ready to be matched at a huge gathering where he points future spouses out to one another. His followers believe that his decisions are based on his ability to discern their suitability and see their future descendants. Many are matched with people of other races and nationalities, in keeping with Mr. Moon's ideal of unifying all races and nations in the Unification Church. Though some couples are matched immediately before the mass wedding ceremonies, which are held every two or three years, most have long engagements during which they are typically posted in different cities or even continents, and get to know one another through letters."NY Times
"Many were personally matched by Moon, who taught that romantic love led to sexual promiscuity, mismatched couples and dysfunctional societies. Moon’s preference for cross-cultural marriages also meant that couples often shared no common language."Manchester Guardian
"Moon’s death Sept. 2 and funeral Saturday signaled the end of the random pairings that helped make Moon’s Unification Church famous — and infamous — a generation ago."Washington Post
"Many of the couples who married at mass weddings were hand-picked by Moon from photos. It led to some strange pairs such as a 71-year-old African Catholic archbishop who wed a 43-year-old Korean acupuncturist. In 1988 Moon entered the Guinness Book of Records when he married 6,516 identically dressed couples at Seoul’s Olympic Stadium. Moonie newly-weds were forbidden to sleep together for 40 days to prove their marriage was on a higher plane. They then had to consummate their marriage in a three-day ritual with the sexual positions stipulated by their leader."Daily Mirror
From these, there is enough to synthesize an appropriate explanation of the "matching" that Moon practiced, but any other sources and input would be appreciated. Bricology (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Borock (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Unification Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Unification Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Unification Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Introduction Exposition of the Divine Principle, 1996 Translation