Talk:Moonie (nickname)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Discussions

This looks good - perhaps this is the way to go with perjorative or sensitive terms? The Anome

What? I did something good? (pats self on back) He, he, way to go, Ed! User:Ed Poor

---

I think The Anome was referring to a previous version. October 2003 doesn't appeal to me.

"Moonies" -- a term that Moon himself coined

I'm fairly certain that Western journalists came up with Moonies - I first heard the term Moonchildren applied in 1974 on TV in New York; then the press shortened it.

But it's true that Rev. Moon encouraged members to have a if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em spirit about the term.

The rest of the article seems a bit one-sided, but what would I know? I've only been a member since 1977, and I'm probably brainwashed anyway ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, whom they consider a failure

This is an old PR trick used by church opponents, deliberately misconstruing the church's position. It's a case of "putting words into the mouth" - trying to foment tension between Unificationists and mainstream Christians by making it seem as if the UC is "insulting" Jesus by calling him "a failure".

UC doctrion states that Jesus' mission failed. However, the blame for this does not fall on Jesus, even though he didn't succeed. His lack of success was not his fault.

It was primarily because John the Baptist and other key figures failed to support Jesus, to campaign for his acceptance as Messiah, rather than any "failure" on Jesus' part.

I am explaining church doctrine authoritatively, as a one who has been a member for over 25 years and at times even served as a minor church official.

Jesus didn't fail. John the Baptist failed.

• sigh* Sorry if I sound strident or annoyed. I just want to set the record straight on this point. --Uncle Ed 21:28, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, I made a flurry of edits tonight, but I still think this article should be about the term Moonies and that the rest of the info in the article should be merged with Sun Myung Moon and Unification Church. If no objections emerge over the weekend, I'll probably start merging next week. --Uncle Ed 22:01, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Moonies believe that Moon is the Messiah, sent as a kind of spiritual relief pitcher to complete the work of Jesus Christ.

Wow! Well put! Can we nominate a single sentence for brilliant prose? --Uncle Ed 22:19, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I hate to interject here, but I don't think there's enough substantive argument or reasoning for the application of an entire article to 'moonies' as a perjorative term cum slang. Further I'd argue that this article should be merged into a portion of the main article on the Unification Movement and this article should be used as a redirect for two reasons primarily; one the afforementioned lack of content or reason for it to be a stand alone, and two because that's generally how every other article runs, so we'll keep with contemporary usage.

I leave this call up to Uncle Ed and the other self proclaimed 'moony' / 'moonie' editors to conclude though! But really, should be one big article for ease of reference and understanding preferably.  :) Jachin 01:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Unification Church

Well, it's been around 2 weeks and no one has objected. So on November 10th I'm going to merge Moonies with either Unification Church or Unification Movement. --Uncle Ed 00:40, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I didn't do the merge yet. I dunno why. Well, no one can accuse me of "owning" the article; but I do stand open to a charge of dawdling, I guess.

---

Some anonymous writer revived the "Moonies created their own nickname" thing, for the 3rd time, at Sun Myung Moon. I guess I better do the merge soon, and stop dawdling. --Uncle Ed 15:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Okay, I'm going to get started this week. I finally realized that I need to distinguish between the church itself and its membership. So Unification Church will be about the organization, especially its teachings, history and current projects. Moonies will redirect to Unificationists, and I'll profile some prominent and typical members there. --Uncle Ed 13:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Permanance

Looks like I'm not going to be merging Moonies into Unification Church. The article is just too much fun to lose!

What remains is to source the rumor that the church invented its own derogatory nickname and then "professed" to take offense when others "adopted it". I only hear this from people who like using it in a derogatory fashion, so I think they're biased. (On the other hand, they think I only joined the church because of "mind control" tricks, so I guess they think I'm biased :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Washington Times

Church opponents, along with anti-conservatives, keep saying that Rev. Moon "owns" the Washington Times. I don't think this is true, but if he personally has stock in the Washington Times Corporation, then he could be called a part owner. Ditto, if he has ownership indirectly.

I think rather that the Unification Church owns the newspaper, and that Rev. Moon as the leader of the church controls the paper. This is analogous to the Roman Catholic pope controlling the Vatican, even though no one every speaks of the pope as "owning" St. Peter's Basilica.

Interestingly, Catholic archbishops are required to maintain certain church property or funds in their own names (see corporation sole) - which looks awfully like it's "theirs personally" but nobody ever makes a fuss about this. So I suspect persecution as a motive for the owned by Moon thing. Uncle Ed 13:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

cat stevens

"Morning Has Broken" is an medieval Irish Christian hymn. It was translated into English by Eleanor Farjeon half a century or more ago. Cat Stevens recorded the song, barely changing anything from the Farjeon version and only slightly rearranging it.

Nice link about brainwashing

• Unification Church recruiting stories, why some believe this to be a cult

Anyone know where this link should go? --Uncle Ed 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it could go at the bottom of this article. Will do that. Steve Dufour 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"The M-word"

How I remember the anti "M-word" movement was that some African-American ministers who where doing things with our church complained to Rev. Jenkins about it and compared it to the "N-word". He then led the movement to have it removed from public use. It's true that before that we members commonly used it. I also don't think that Rev Moon himself objects to it. However it was often used as an insult, like the article says. Another factor might be that as the American members got older they felt it was undignified. As the article says young members today do use it (kind of the same as the "N-word"?); I hear it from them all the time. Steve Dufour 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Steve knew something I didn't about Jenkins in the 80s, while he was working with black ministers in Chicago, long before anyone imagined that the weakest student in the first two classes at UTS, who couldn't even write a paper of decent quality, could leapfrog over those with PhDs from leading universities to become president of the American church. There was clear public rejection, including a media campaign and press packet I saw, in the period BEFORE Hendricks presidency. That was early 1987 at the very latest; it may have been an earlier year. That's why I originally said "mid-80s." -Exucmember 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Jenkins might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he has good people skills and is a man I look up to. --Uncle Ed 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to criticize Jenkins as much as the process. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Jenkins was always quite articulate when speaking, which is why I was surprised he couldn't write. He was also very sharp as head of security in 1976. He does indeed have good people skills. I think, though, that the reason he was appointed was not because these sorts of things were given a lot of weight in an evaluation; rather it was because, like Hendricks before him, he was completley loyal to the right people. -Exucmember 04:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I strongly oppose a merge. There was some discussion here in 2003 (and one comment in Feb. 2004) that suggested merging, but I think the evolution of the article in the years since has made it clear that Moonies is an article about the pejorative slur, and the Unification Church article is about the organization. Who would propose merging Nigger into Black people or African American? Even the proposal would be regarded by some as highly offensive. There are separate articles for African American, Black people, Negro, and Nigger, as there should be. I have no doubt that User:OwenBlacker added the tag in good faith based on the extant comments from several years ago; he seems to be a highly capable editor. The Unification Church article needs one sentence about the pejorative slur "Moonie," to counter ignorance by some and intolerance by others. But I really don't think many people who are familiar with the specific issues involved here would advocate a merge at this point, if they respect the situation of the offensiveness of the term "Moonie." -Exucmember 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the term itself - not about the topic. And it's interesting that our anonymous friend would use sexual slang to vandalize the page: we should write an article on hostility and sex from the UC perspective. Satan, seen as a child abuser and/or rapist for seducing Eve in her early adolescence, is viewed in modern Christian theology as filled with malice. Indeed the New Testament pegs him as "a liar and a murderer" from the beginning. --Uncle Ed 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the tag then. Steve Dufour 12:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

If the term was used by the leader himself, how can it possibly be labeled as derogatory in the body of this article in a manner that suggests that this is a well accepted fact rather than just someones opinion? The only reason I'm not changing the sentence structure right away is that there might be an answer to this question set in modern times (the origin of the word doesn't explain why it would be offensive now but not offensive to a person who has basically claimed to be messiah) I'm not saying that it can't be used in a derogatory fashion, just that I have great doubt that the word itself is solely of that nature for the above reason. Zaphraud 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am an ex-member and a critic of the church. But there is absolutely no doubt that "moonie" is a pejorative epithet. It was designed to denigrate members of the Unification Church, has retained that meaning, and is essentially the same as an ethnic slur. Moon tried to make light of it and even turn it into something positive, probably overestimating his ability to influence its meaning in the larger society. (At the very least, he wanted to reduce the negative impact derogatory name-calling had on the members; he knew from first-hand experience what it was like to be constantly demeaned, and btw studies have shown that this sort of treatment can be very demoralizing.)

The word "nigger" is sometimes used by blacks. Does this prove that it cannot be labeled "derogatory"? Can whites start using it, asserting that while it originally had a negative connotation, it now simply indicates an objective description of dark skin, and may even be taken as an expression of endearment? Whites can cite the manner in which blacks use it, after all. Obviously, no. Religious bigotry may be even more of a problem than ethnic hate speech because the latter has finally been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority, at least in the U.S. Your question indicates a lack of familiarity with the way Moon responds to the kind of disdain, scorn, and assault he has received his whole life (first for being Korean under Japanese occupation; next for being religious under North Korean communism; then by Christians and by the larger society for being a heretic, claiming to be the messiah, creating an authoritarian cult of personality, etc.) -Exucmember 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

By analogy with the article on the term "nigger", I would suggest that there should be more in the article itself on why the term is derogatory. I understand that this may not be easy briefly to demonstrate, but I agree with Zaphraud's point: the way it reads now, it is not possible for a casual reader to determine why the term is controversial. Personally I would suggest redirecting this to UC and noting that "Moonies" is considered offensive, merging this content at the appropriate chronological place there. Crc37 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW The vast majority of UC members do not live in English speaking countries. So merging this article with Unification Church would give the matter undue weight. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "N-word" comes from the Latin word for "black." There is no logical reason it should be derogatory. It is only because of the way it is used. The same with the "M-word." The question of moving the article has already been discussed. If people are looking for an article on the Unification Church the link is right there in the first sentence. Steve Dufour 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Background of church

I am taking off this section since it is not about the subject of the article. It also seems like it might be a copyright problem. It would be great of the editor added the information to Unification Church. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

I suggested this for the opening section:

"The Moonies is a commonly used term for members of the Unification Church, based on the name of church founder Sun Myung Moon. It was first used by the news media in the 1970s in the United States. It is now considered derogatory by most church members but has sometimes been used by them and others without any negative connotations."

Most of my "professional" writing experience comes from writing ad copy for businesses I have worked for (plus writing for the Encyclopedia Project which, amazingly enough, pays me to do what I do here for fun. Oddly enough it is more fun when you don't get paid. But I guess that is another story.) Anyway... from my point of view the purpose of the opening paragraph is to get people to read the rest of the article. Hitting them right off with the fact the the M-word is offensive does two wrong things: It gives away the ending. And it tells people what they should think. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suppose we had:

"Nigger is a commonly used term for members of the black race, based on the word for "black" in Latin languages. It was first used by lighter skinned people merely to differentiate them. It is now considered derogatory by most people but has sometimes been used by them and others without any negative connotations.

Anyway... from my point of view the purpose of the opening paragraph is to get people to read the rest of the article. Hitting them right off with the fact the the N-word is offensive does two wrong things: It gives away the ending. And it tells people what they should think."

It is a fact that "Moonie" is derogatory. Unlike some other epithets, it was designed that way. I'm not sure most people would buy the argument that "derogatory" should be deleted from the introductory paragraph if we were talking about the N-word.

It's somehow gratifying, however, that the current member is advocating toning down the article while the ex-member wants it to make more of a statement, like the article on Nigger (which begins "Nigger is a pejorative term..."). -Exucmember (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ex-UC! You are doing great work here even if we don't always agree. I actually think the article on the N-word would be fine starting off that way. Some people use it in innocence without any intent to be offensive. To quote my (white) brother-in-law on the occasion of the Rodney King riots, "Hey, the n****rs are burning down L.A. I don't blame them." The same with the M-word. Many people use it without any intent to be offensive. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. Do you think the huffy-puffy tone of the N-word article convinces anyone who uses the word to stop? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Unificationists have described the term as hate speech leading to violence and even murder.."

Who has been murdered as a result of being called a "Moonie" ? Are these just random blatant claims, or is there anything to back this up? Cirt (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

This claim statement was made in a quote near the end of the article. I am going to try my more neutral opening paragraph again, since I see that there is some objection to the present version. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Claim" is a Wikipedia word to avoid. Cirt 14:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. I myself am a fanatic about this very point and have made many edits changing "claim" to "say". But now I have been caught using it myself. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article is severely lacking in neutrality, as one would expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.47.218 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Moonie" = "nigger"?

I removed the mention of the word "nigger" in the opening section, it is still mentioned later on. I don't think you can equate the two words. Thousands of people have been killed because they were "niggers." You can not say the same for "Moonies." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people have been murdered because they were Unificationists. I know personally of one such woman in New York City. It was a case of a hate crime based on bigotry, not so different from a lynching. There have been others. Citing "thousands" would not be the proper comparison; you would have to compare to the proportion of the population in question. This would still be difficult/unreliable because of the small and diffuse population of Unificationists and the lack of comprehensive information about their deaths throughout the world over a period of decades. It's good for the article to mention or at least imply a comparison somewhere. Racial prejudice has become unacceptable, whereas bigotry toward "Moonies" is somehow thought to be okay in some circles. I think it's helpful to make the comparison. -Exucmember (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the second to last paragraph. Thanks for your concern, but actually I feel it's more likely that I will be murdered because I am a "white person" or an "American" than because I am a "Moonie". Steve Dufour (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably true now. Things have gotten better in this regard for both blacks and Unificationists in the last 3 decades. I was mainly answering the question above about whether the reference to "even murder" was just fabricated nonsense. I'm satisfied with the article as it is. -Exucmember (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contentious, poor-quality edits with no justification or comment

An anonymous IP (147.126.95.165) keeps making edits that either violate Wikipedia policies or good sense / good writing. The latest is repeatedly inserting the word "alleged," as if bigoted name-calling is not automatically "vilification" and needs to be qualified as "alleged." He has never given any justification here or in edit summaries for his edits. -Exucmember (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Exuc. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of position of UC and those decrying bigotry

1. I have made more surviving edits critical of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church than any Wikipedia editor, so I can in no way be called an apologist for them. Nevertheless, it is important that the church position on this matter (a position shared by those decrying bigotry) be represented adequately. Recent edits, though apparently made in good faith, have the effect of suppressing that position. A quoted position is better than an overly brief characterization by someone with a different POV.

2. The phrase "as they did to other criticism" is not "non-neutral in tone." Its purpose is to summarize the typical UC response to criticism (which is based on Korean culture, though I didn't say that, because I don't have a citation).

-Exucmember (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Slander removed

I took off the parts about the American news media inventing the word. Since they were uncited that amounts to slander against them. You can put it back with references, of course; but good luck finding a "reliable source" that will admit this was what happened. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to think that the news media invented the word "Moonie" as a deliberate slur, any more than "hippie", "yippie", and "yuppie" were invented as slurs. It's true that people with an agenda against the church did and continue to use it that way; partly because it's more convenient to, for instance, dismiss a story in the Washington Times by calling it "that Moonie paper" rather than saying "that paper that is owned by members of the Unification Church." Anyway the reason that I am deleting the material is that newspaper reporters are living people (or some of them from the 70s are probably still alive) and we can not slander them by saying that they write their stories with the deliberate intent to harm people. Not without sources that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find to add to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what you removed from the article:

Rather than calling members of the church "Unification Church members" or "Unificationists," news articles in the 70s critical in tone used names emphasizing the members' relationship to Moon as a charismatic leader - often characterized as a cult of personality - such as "Moon-children" or "Moonite," and later "Moonie."

How is does this accuse journalists of a "deliberate intent to harm people"?!? It is a neutrally worded explanation of the core events. Removing it guts the article. -Exucmember (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me that it is saying that news reporters pick their words in order to be "critical in tone." That may be true. ;-) But we can't say so without sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's a real stretch. In addition, I'd remind you of the Wikipedia adage that you don't need a source to say that water is wet. But I've removed the "offending" phrase anyway. -Exucmember (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW I am checking out the AP Stylebook. That should be a good source. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook did not mention the UC at all, although the NYT stylebook did. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

WP:SELFPUB states that articles should be "not based primarily on" self-published sources. The near-ubiquitous references in this article to www.tparents.org would seem to violate this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is self-published since the article is about the word "Moonies." Borock (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

I tagged the article as non-notable. WP can't have an article on every word in the English language, even less slang expressions like this. That's what Wikidictionary is for. Borock (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mere "usage" is likewise not noteworthy

Why is it even remotely noteworthy that…

In his 2002 book Separated Brethren, author William Joseph Whalen notes: [Sun Myung Moon's] church is popularly known as the Unification Church, and his followers as Moonies."[5] Rosalind Millam's 2002 book Anti-Discriminatory Practice notes that "Its followers are better known as Moonies." – the entry on the organization in the book is titled: "Unification Church (Moonies)".

The lead already states "Moonies is [a] … term for members of the Unification Church" which is all that these quotes are saying.

Mere "usage in secondary sources" is neither noteworthy, nor tells the reader anything useful. To be informative, the WP:SECONDARY source needs to "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about the term. Otherwise all we have is a dictionary definition & Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The term being heavily used is noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is not noteworthy. Are we going to list every RS that uses the term? A WP:SECONDARY source commenting on "the term being heavily used" might be noteworthy -- but the mere usage is not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly is, especially in spite of attempts by the organization to say it is a "derogatory" term, the fact that it is used, even in titles of books and articles on the organization - by religious scholars - suggests these religious scholars think otherwise. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirt: your assertions of 'certainty' leave me completely unmoved. Mere usage of the term is "trivial" mention (as that term is defined in WP:NOTE), and adds nothing to notability. The fact that it is used "even in titles of books and articles on the organization" is (i) easily attributable to the fact that "Moonie" (a) has more impact, & (b) is shorter, than "Unification Church member" & (ii) does not alter the fact that the topic of these books and articles is "the organisation" NOT the term "Moonies". Can you find anything that gives the term "Moonie" more than passing mention in discussing the Unification Church? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Already have. Cirt (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing more than a long string of passing trivial mentions of the term, none of which do anything more than give varying paraphrases of (and/or very minor expansions on) the opening passage: "Moonies (singular Moonie) is an informal term for members of the Unification Church … Some … see it as offensive or derogatory in nature…" If it all can be summarised in less than two sentences, with only trivial loss of information, then it is not "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently others disagree with your assessment, which seems to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No Cirt, that "others" superficial "assessment[s]" fail to notice the TRIVIAL nature of the material you have introduced does not, in any way shape or form, make my cogent and guideline-based opinion "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". So a few authors (maybe even a few more than a few) use the term, one even uses it a book title? SO WHAT? Hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of word and phrases get used that much -- that does not make every single word or phrase 'notable' and the suitable topic for an article. Yes, I shouted at you, you poor soul. That tends to happen when you make baseless accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Live with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post

The term "Moon Children" was used by the Washington Post in 1979. [1] I think this was a precursor to Moonies. That is, it looks like Moonies is merely a shortened form of Moon Children.

It's misleading to call Moonies a "self-designation". Church members may have gone with the flow by adopting it, but the neologism almost certainly originated outside of the church. Compare the term Queer, which was "reclaimed" by a more politically correct community. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Both these statements appear to be your personal opinions. Do you have independent reliable secondary sources to back up these claims? Cirt (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that while you were doing research, you might uncover sources which back up these statements. I'm willing to consider myself disqualified as a primary source, but I've been following the "Moonie" issue for 35 years and I know a lot off the top of my head.

Let's not divide knowledge into 2 severely separate divisions: (A) what you have already verified and (Z) what you can't put in the article because we don't trust you. How about assuming good faith and adding a nice middle category: (S) stuff you know but aren't exactly sure where you learned it?

We can help each other a lot by digging through libraries and websites to verify the S-stuff, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be more than happy to evaluate your research. However I think it is best if we stick to what is stated in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved self published sources to talk page

Moved from article to talk page, might be used later for views of the organization itself. Cirt (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong about using UC sources about the history of the UC, is there? See Wikipedia:V#SELF. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field" Wikipedia:V#SELF --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The article now includes extensive quoting and commentary from both Unification Church-affiliated sources, those sympathetic to the organization, and scholars critical of the term's usage itself. This is sufficient such that we don't need to use primary sources now. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I have not removed any appropriate Unification Church-based sources from the WP:EL section. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

View from Unification Church sources

Rather than calling members of the church "Unification Church members" or "Unificationists," news articles in the 70s used names emphasizing the members' relationship to Moon as a charismatic leader—such as "Moon-children" or "Moonite," and later "Moonie."

Sun Myung Moon himself has used the word sometimes. In several speeches he made light of the word "moonies," encouraging members to graduate in three stages from "Moonies" to "Sunnies" and then to "Kingies:" "Those who oppose us call us Moonies but we call ourselves Sunnies and the spirit world will tell you that you are Kingies." He also sometimes referred to members as "moonies" in a straightforward manner.

In the early 1980s Unificationists took a public stance against the word, asking major media organizations to stop referring to them as "Moonies," stating that the term was intended as a demeaning and pejorative slur. In an official press release from the American Unification Church headquarters in the early 1980s, "Moonie" was described, in comparison to earlier pejorative references such as "Moonite," as "even more derogatory and diminutive."

In August 1994 the Unification News, the official monthly newspaper of the church, published an article saying in part:

One can only wonder how long Unificationists must bide their time before their sincere petitions regarding the offensive use of the term "Moonie" will finally be acknowledged. I consider twenty years to be enough. Any short-term anesthesia has long since worn off and it really hurts to be so persistently abused. Unification Church members have been derided as "Moonies," then mobbed and beaten. In New York City, a seven-months pregnant woman was beaten and sent to the hospital as a result of irrational hatred of "Moonies." Church missionaries have been murdered in the course of their public church duties because they were "Moonies." Members have been abducted, imprisoned, assaulted and abused. In many instances the perpetrators were not charged by the authorities or even admonished by society because their victims were only "Moonies."

Unification Church member Gary Fleisher wrote, "Calling us 'Moonies' is just a technique of making it easy to hate us, because Moonies aren't human. It is easy to hate and persecute robots. The word Moonie has the same purpose as nigger, kike, spik, mick, or Polak. It is to make a group of enemies, that it is acceptable to hate and misuse."

---

Origin of the term

Although some people have suggested that the church itself created the term Moonies, it is more likely that the term originated with critics and/or the media.

• The movement gained a very negative reputation as a cult that brainwashed young people and turned them against their own families and religious beliefs.10 Some of their practices were tested in U.S. courts, and ultimately the Church prevailed by hiring capable lawyers and challenging the claims against them as prejudicial and contrary to the First Amendment freedom of religion. Nonetheless, the stigma of a poor reputation stuck with the movement, resulting in the derogatory name of “Moonies.” [2]

I'm also trying to track down a report that New York City newspapers like The Daily News started off calling UC members "Moon Children" (or "Moon-Children) but shortened the term to fit better into headlines. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The article already uses independent reliable secondary sources (Anson Shupe, etc.) that clearly state differently. The term was used internally, by high-ranking members of the organization, to refer to themselves. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also that above link isn't really the best of sources, especially in comparison to those already used in the article. Published works are preferable to a random possibly unvetted paper presented at some conference and then posted to a website. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Tweaked first sentence of History subsection, per talkpage: [3]. Cirt (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Court cases

Please do not remove the relevant court cases from the EL sect. They directly discuss the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the case was about another, probably more common, use of the word "moonie", it is also an Irish family name, a common nickname, and a term for fans of the cartoon character Sailor Moon.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, you have not actually read the documents, which definitely do discuss the term in the context of the "Unification Church". Cirt (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook

I posted a external link to the Facebook page "I am a Moonie and I love it!" It was removed citing WP:NOTFACEBOOK. I don't know if having the link is a good idea or not, or if it's WP policy to allow it. However WP:NOTFACEBOOK does not apply at all in this case. That policy is about not using WP for social networking. It says nothing about linking to Facebook pages for people looking for more information on an article's topic, in this case how the word "Moonies" is being used. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the link would only be there for WP:Social networking. It is a social networking site! Cirt (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My intention was that people interested in how modern UC members use the word could check out that page. Members already know how to social network on Facebook, etc. (For the most part). Steve Dufour (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The intention of giving a "Facebook" link is clearly to drive users to Facebook. Also interesting to note that Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) has not recognized or acknowledged that I also removed inappropriate links to personal websites - websites that happened to be critical of the Unification Church organization. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I did notice that you did that. Thanks. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note this link is in violation of site policy. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there are WP policy that forbids links to Facebook pages? It might well be a good policy but that is not what WP:NOTFACEBOOK says at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought up this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: [4]. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a policy afterall. No problem, that's a good thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote box in last section

Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) removed a quote box from the last section [5]. I replaced it with a different one. This one is to Eileen Barker [6], a scholar seen as more sympathetic than others to the Unification Church organization. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't like quote boxes, but the quotes you have chosen are good ones - if we must have them. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Although it looks like the article will now be kept, thanks to the tremendous effort of editor Cirt, I still think it fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's still an article about a word, and there are many other words that are used much more, and have more lasting importance, that do not, and should not, have WP articles about them. Borock (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is not focused on defining the term, but rather on tracing its history and usage. Thus, it is an encyclopedic article. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The same kind of article could be written about any word, if someone were to put the work into it that you have. Borock (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Google search for "any word" [7]. See, 17,000 hits. More than enough for a WP article. :-) Borock (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay well if you feel like improving the Wikipedia article on another term, please do so. See Category:Terminology for some other articles to improve upon. :) Cirt (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hotline

The Hotline is a WP:RS source for info on politics. Please do not remove it. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Its own article says: "Its headlines are irreverent, relying on puns and inside jokes." and "The Hotline also produces a subscriber-only morning round-up of the previous evening's late-night political jokes" How do we know that its report of a Moonie fistfight was not also a joke? Borock (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It was clearly not, from the source. Irreverent headlines does not mean that all of their articles are "jokes". It is a serious political news publication, published by the National Journal. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It could also be questioned if this incident is important enough to be mentioned in the article. I don't think every fight caused by the "N-word" is mentioned in its article. Borock (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is noteworthy as it took place between two politicians. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cites

Best to have cites after every sentence please, especially on articles on controversial topics. The entire article uses this formatting, let's please keep it this way. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that if a paragraph is all from the same source one footnote at the end is enough. But I guess putting it after each sentence does no harm. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

News usage

Interesting. Just checked, and the AP Stylebook has no entry for Moonie. — e. ripley\^talk 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article already includes mention about the bit involving the United Press International entry on it... Cirt (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I checked. I mention it mostly just for interest's sake. — e. ripley\^talk 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. What other relevant stylebooks could we check? Cirt (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any. AP is really the only one most newspapers bother with, at least in the US. I didn't even realize UPI has a stylebook. — e. ripley\^talk 15:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press uses the term:

• The Associated Press (March 19, 2001). "Rev. Moon Defends Beliefs: Shares Message in Mississippi". The Commercial Appeal. p. B2. Rev. Sun Myung Moon brought his message of racial unification and mixed marriage to the Bible Belt, where he found himself on the defensive before a large crowd. 'I have been the object of scrutiny for years,' said the 81-year-old leader of the Unification Church, whose followers are often referred to as Moonies.

Cirt (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised. Since AP stylebook is silent on the issue, reporters/editors are free to refer to them how they deem appropriate. — e. ripley\^talk 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: 2002 edition of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, see [8]. Cirt (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC

Yeah, that would possibly be the only exception. Many larger newspapers (a la, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) will have their own stylebooks that supercede AP in some areas. For instance, NYT style is to refer to people as Mr. or Ms., a nicety AP foregoes. — e. ripley\^talk 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Most intriguing. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on a portion of the commentary section

This line: The 1999 Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture states [Sun Myung Moon's] followers are known derogatively as 'Moonies' because their leader is the Second Coming. Is this a direct quote that is missing quotations? The reason I ask is because derogatively isn't a word; it should properly be derogatorily. But if it's a direct quote then the wording should be left as is (and quotes added). — e. ripley\^talk 15:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing quotes around quotation added. Was a mistake on my part, now remedied thanks to you. Thanks! Cirt (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tone, NPOV, and subtle themes

The article should be careful not to adopt the position, even as a subtle undertone, that Unification Church members were disingenuous, or at least opportunistic, in rejecting the "Moonie" term as pejorative/derogatory and making a public campaign out of the issue, just because they had used the term themselves. Such care should be taken by editors even if this cynical view is the opinion of some writers in the media.

I am a critic of the church and an ex-member, but I know what happened. The label was intended to be demeaning by critics from the very beginning. Moon and members tried to make light of the epithet and transform it.

A possibility editors here should consider - in contrast to the cynical interpretation found in the undertone of some critics - is this: When at first everyone calls you a "nigger," you accept it (and even try to give it a positive spin, perhaps hoping it will lose its derogatory connotation, as happened with "Quaker"); later you stand up for yourself and fight it. Wikipedia should not adopt the position of critics and write the article in a way that reflects that point of view, even subtly. -Exucmember (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Exucmember (talk · contribs) - the majority of the changes you have recently made are unsupported by the secondary sources, or add new information, claims or POV that is not backed up by any new sources, as you have not added any. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not make unsourced changes to the article that you cannot back up to secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem clear that at some point the church tried to subvert the derogatory meaning of the phrase and "take it back," such as some other minorities have done (like gay people with the word "queer," for instance). The article should probably make some mention of that, when mentioning that they have used it themselves. It's clearly an attempt to subvert the negative meaning of the phrase, but right now the article treats it like an example that they themselves accept the word without any acknowledgment of this process of subversion. — e. ripley\^talk 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have searched through many WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, (and added over 60 to this article) but I have not come across that assertion. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This quote, currently in the article, seems to hint at it: "In two and a half years the word 'Moonie' shall become an honorable name and we will have demonstrations and victory celebrations from coast to coast." Don't you think? — e. ripley\^talk 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the church since I was 18 years old (in 1977), I concur with E. Ripley.

But as a Wikipedian who sincerely supports NPOV policy, I'd like to see:

1. the viewpoint of some (who?) who assert that the church (a) created the term and/or (b) always accepted or rejoiced in the term, and never minded when "outside people" used it to or about them
2. the viewpoint of some (church? others?) who assert that (a) the media created the term, and (b) the term acquired a negative connotation which church members disliked, although (c) church members used the church in-house in what E. Ripley called taking it back or subverting its negative meaning --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us please deal with independent reliable secondary sources - and not POV assertions from those with a conflict of interest on the topic. If you have secondary sources to present to support your claims, present them. Otherwise this is a misuse of talk page space, per WP:NOT#FORUM. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I have no involvement at all with the church and I'm just as concerned with presenting things fairly as anyone around here, so you can't just dismiss my suggestion so easily. If you wouldn't mind, please be careful about making these kinds of blanket assertions, it doesn't help us coalesce around a solution to what I think is a fair topic. Also I'm still curious to get your opinion about the quote I left above. — e. ripley\^talk 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, E. Ripley (talk · contribs), I was not referring to you. And the quote is quoted in the article text itself, but we Wikipedians cannot use the quote to draw our own inferences from it - that would be a violation of WP:NOR. Once again, I reiterate that we would need to see independent reliable secondary sources making the kinds of assertions that have been put forth above, not have Wikipedians draw those conclusions themselves from quotes from primary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not suggesting we draw inferences and present them as fact. However, if some of us agree that the article at present is perhaps not telling the entire story, it's incumbent upon us to investigate whether our suppositions might be true (or false). One of mine is that the church at some point attempted to subvert its derogatory meaning. The inference I think is fairly clear, particularly from the quote above. That means we need to investigate this further, which is what Ed was saying below. I find it bit unseemly that you have repeatedly attempted to shut down debate or discussion about a fair point; we aren't using the talk page to discuss Ashley Simpson or something, this is all fair game for the talk page. — e. ripley\^talk 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The church members and former church members are not trying to push any particular POV. We are each merely pointing out what we know. Moreover, we recognize that since there is a controversy here and some viewpoints are liable to be challenged, we all need acceptable secondary sources.

One function of talk pages is to get the creative juices flowing, so that we know WHAT viewpoints and facts we have to dredge up from the library or Internet. Some of us do the research first (knowing nothing until we find it in a source); others of us already know (or cherish a viewpoint) and need to locate the proper sources, which we often have forgotten.

Let's all help each other, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

NO, this talk page is not a forum to discuss things like We are each merely pointing out what we know. Suggest secondary sources to use, but please, do not waste time and talk page space simply making unsupported claims and then proceeding to discuss those unsupported claims and debate them. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. It's a perfectly valid use of the talk page. — e. ripley\^talk 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@E. Ripley (talk · contribs) - I am not denying that you may have a point. But after a point in time, if no one has suggested independent reliable secondary sources to use, dragging on discussion does become a waste of the talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Analogous to "Mormon"

Recall that the Latter Day Saints spent years trying to disassociate themselves with the colloquial label "Mormons," only to give up and accept that the slang term stuck, and the formal one didn't.

Likewise, lots of Americans have heard of "The Moonies," but will give you a blank stare when you mention "The Unification Church" or "Unificationists" or, worse, "The Family Federation For World Peace & Unification" or "Holy Spirit Association." The horse has already left the barn.

The comparisons with the N-word are disingenuous, and I don't think anyone but the most rank-and-file Unification Church members believe in them. The N-word has its origins in the mouths of slave owners, "Moonies" in the headlines of '60s journalists who were playing on words like "hippie" and "yippie" to describe the latest counterculture sensation. And while First Amendment issues of religious freedom were raised by the 1970s Moonie vs. deprogrammer war, any analogy with the hardships that produced the N-word are insulting.

69.181.199.238 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you present independent reliable secondary sources to back up these above assertions? Cirt (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wrote a book on the subject, and can find you more information when I have time. But for now, I would respectfully suggest that the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a hateful history associated with the word; it's simply not there to be found in most of the 1970s usage, and the word is frequently used in print journalism today without hateful intent. See, for example,

http://www.smh.com.au/national/obituaries/billionaire-latched-on-to-gap-in-clothing-market-20090930-gco7.html

("Fisher fostered a remarkable work ethic which, coupled with Gap's rapid expansion, led one British retail consultant to compare it to the Moonies.")

or

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/sep/11/billy-corgan-blog-spirituality

("Corgan has not joined the Moonies, the Hare Krishnas or the Catholic church – he insists the site is

"non-denominational" and will "promote no religion")

The term may be irreverent, but it is hardly used in the degrading sense that "kike" or the N-word are.

Delacratic (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a church member and made the same point here a while ago. From this page's archives: I removed the mention of the word "nigger" in the opening section, it is still mentioned later on. I don't think you can equate the two words. Thousands of people have been killed because they were "niggers." You can not say the same for "Moonies." Steve Dufour (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@Delacratic - these are interesting uses of the term, but the sources you have given do not seem to comment on the term's usage itself. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info by Exucmember

Exucmember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed sourced info from the article here [9]. This material is sourced to a reliable source, it is noteworthy information, and it should remain in the article. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you here Cirt. The article (since it looks like there's going to be one) should present all points of view, both that the word is offensive and that it is not. Borock (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Borock. We may even need a section on the connotations of the term.

The church viewpoint has often been that the term is offensive, particularly when used by non-members. This is analagous (if not as deadly) as the n-word. I'm living in Harlem these last 6 months, and I hear brothas calling each other nigga on the street every day. When I do join in, I am careful to say Sir and Mister and "person" as befits my social role (i.e., an outsider); sometimes I half-jokingly refer to myself as melanin-deficient (a reference to my pale skin).

Several sources, perhaps chiefly those church critics who say "they are whining about nothing", say that the term is not offensive. A related argument is that, since the church invented/used/adopted the term it is by definition inoffensive. All these POVs need to be documented. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us please not use this talk page as a forum to discuss the topic, but instead present independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should not each be giving our own opinions, just to be heard, or in hopes of bringing others around to the same viewpoint. That violates talk page guidelines.

Airing views for the purpose of clarifying them is in accord with talk page guidelines, when it helps us to plan changes to the article.

• "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation ..."

For example, contributor A says that Moonies think X. Then contributor B says, I've got a reference for that (or contributor C says, no, I've got a reference that says just the opposite). This is WP:TEAMWORK, right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

However there appears to be no presentation of references forthcoming. As such, the discussion is a waste of talk page space. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"The talk page is the ideal place for ... asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references." Does anyone here agree with this statement? If so, do you think it should be a policy or at least a guideline? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk page would not be the appropriate place to discuss general Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Source for "informal"?

Is there a source for the word "informal" in the first sentence? Steve Dufour (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No. That was there before I improved the article. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed the word. :) Cirt (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Style guides

I really think the opinions of the New York Times and the UPI style guides are commentary and belong in that section. (BTW I checked out the AP style guide in the library and it does not mention the UC at all. It's the most widely used style guide. As someone mentioned before the NYT promotes a more dignified use of language than other newspapers.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NYT editorials, or articles? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I agree with them always, just that they use a more polite style of language.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, per talk page comment above in this subsection by Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) [10]. :) Cirt (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is its occasional use as a metaphor noteworthy?

Given the metaphorical use of words such as "nazi" ("feminazi", "soup nazi", etc, etc), "police" ("fashion police"), etc, etc, why is the fact that "Moonies" is occasionally used metaphorically particularly surprising or noteworthy (particularly as we don't have a WP:SECONDARY source commenting about this usage)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I will do some more research on this and add more to the article. Cirt (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed this section for now, not sure it has in and of itself received commentary (yet) about this phenomenon of usage from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is now mentioned in the article, sourced to a slang dictionary. There is not a WP article on the word "Nazi" (it redirects to "Nazism"). If there was "soup nazi" etc. could be mentioned in it. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[11] = inappropriate change, which subtly removed info from the Definition section, and relegated it to another section. Also, the sources are being used to infer material from them, rather than directly for what they say. Best to avoid this, and just rely on the dictionary sources for the Definition info. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking out the whole secondary meaning thing, since it is very minor and only sourced to one dictionary -- the others do not seem to mention this. Or else give the examples in the body of the article since other examples of use are already given. After all the article is about the word and these other uses are part of how the word is used. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The usage in the sources you added is incidental and passing at best. The mention as such in a dictionary however, is indeed noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems to be a violation of WP:POINT to add something into the article to make a point, when you yourself just stated you feel it does not belong in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is mentioned at all, it seems to me that examples should also be given. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The examples do not state or explain their usage, or connect it to usage as such as related to Sun Myung Moon or Unification Church - as the other dictionary does. Using them in the article in this manner is a violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Still there are too many examples of mere use in the article. Borock (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional bias introduced by Cirt's ignorance of subject matter

The objections I raised to Cirt's weaving a subtle theme throughout this article - that Unification Church members were disingenuous, or at least opportunistic, in rejecting the "Moonie" term as pejorative/derogatory - has not been addressed. I wonder how far other editors would expect to get writing an article about a topic about which they had no prior knowledge, rather based entirely on a POV they derived from reading articles mostly written by critics. -Exucmember (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please present sources to back up your claims. Cirt (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this before from Cirt. When he either doesn't have an answer or doesn't understand the issue raised (I have no idea which), he presents this mantra, an obvious and complete non-sequitur in this case. Perhaps his meaningless comment is an example of "wasting" talk page space (which he is so fond of arrogantly pointing out). I hope someone else who understands the issue I raised will comment (and maybe even make effort to solve the problem I raised). -Exucmember (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No. You do not get to makes these claims such as "based entirely on a POV they derived from reading articles mostly written by critics", without backing this up to WP:RS sources. So far, you have not presented any to back up your spurious claims. If you present no sources to the contrary, all we have to go on are your claims on the talk page that you feel something is from a certain POV. In fact, many different types of scholarly WP:RS sources are used in the article. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Has Cirt (perhaps unintentionally) introduced other misleading references too?

It's astounding to me that Cirt would admonish me for removing a false misleading reference when I stated clearly in the edit summary "nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source." He cites the diff, but does not answer the objection I raised! I did a search of that paper, and finding none of the keywords from the quotation, I then read the entire paper (quickly); not only does the quotation not appear in the cited reference, but no discussion about anything related to the topic is present. Perhaps he cited the wrong source, but it makes me wonder how many other sources don't really contain the stated claim.

Update: Cirt (finally) provided a more complete reference. My mistake. As I said I was reading quickly, and it turns out the document is not searchable. And the fact remains that the only statement related to this article is a passing comment in a footnote, which does not provide the question asked, and can hardly be regarded as reliable in its conclusion. -Exucmember (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I altered some wording by Cirt which went beyond the sources. Some of it he accepted, other edits he reverted. My biggest objections were to wording that went beyond the sources, or that accepted the POV of critics at face value, or both. One might expect someone with no prior knowledge of the topic to be a little less dismissive of someone with expertise in the subject matter. -Exucmember (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotation is in the cited source. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the source, the statement is in Footnote number 16. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, an ungrammatical sentence I missed because it was tucked away in a footnote (and I see now that the pdf file is not searchable, which is why my search didn't work) that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the content of the entire paper except for the author's using the word "moonie" in quotation marks in passing. The author does not present the wording of the question he asked or discuss any follow-up he may or may not have had with the members, nor any ideas why members may have answered that way. Since the wording of the question was not reported, I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source on the issue it is cited for. It should be removed.

Furthermore, Cirt could have avoided provoking annoyance by simply responding to the issue I raised about the source not discussing the topic when I raised the issue the first time, instead of ignoring my comment and high-handedly and patronizingly lecturing me at length here and on my talk page. -Exucmember (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet Exucmember has still refused to strikeout the above offending comments. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another misleading reference from Cirt

I have only looked at a few references (I believe only two), but I've found another misleading statement (two out of two?!?):

• By the late 1980s, the term became associated with individuals indoctrinated into the Unification Church,

What purpose does this statement serve in the article, especially in the lede? What does it say beyond what the first sentence already says? Certainly it can't just be repeating that "Moonie" means a member of the Unification Church. Readers would expect that the term had changed its meaning between 1974 and the late 80s. But the source says that by the late 80s the term "Moonie" had entered the language (perhaps the author's ignorance of its ubiquitous use in the mid-to-late 70s), and nothing implied about its meaning changing. If you actually read what it says in the source, there is no new information beyond what's in the first sentence. Just another example of redundancy, but this time misleading too, because the reader will not expect empty redundancy, and may infer something that's not in the source. -Exucmember (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It means just what it says, the term came to have a defined meaning, instead of a colloquial usage. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed this from the lede. :) Cirt (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up the extraordinary and novel claim that in 1989 "the term came to have a defined meaning, instead of a colloquial usage"? It is not in the cited reference. (Surely you're not making the absurd claim that this is inherent in the sentence in question in the source.) -Exucmember (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It places the term within a chronological context. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, unresponsive. Do you have any background knowledge of this subject matter other than what you've gleaned from what you've read in the past week or two? (The reason I ask here is that your statements in this section seem to indicate not, but seem to be grasping at anything.) What do you interpret this cited sentence to mean? How does it add any information? -Exucmember (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It means that by the 1980s the term was associated with people that had become indoctrinated into the Sun Myung Moon organization. It places the term in a chronological context of when it came to be associated as such. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed lede

I have been advised that the WP:LEAD of the article was a bit too long, so I trimmed it down [12]. Hopefully this will alleviate some concerns. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also trimmed a sentence which in no way belongs in the lead. The same content seems to be in the body, but if someone feels a reference is valuable and needs to be retrieved, please do so. -Exucmember (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad we can agree the lede looks better. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided not to take out the sentence I was planning to delete when I wrote the comment above because of Cirt's extreme and inappropriate overreaction the last time I removed a single sentence from the article. After writing the comment above I saw that I had a message on my talk page revealing the extent of Cirt's almost unbelievable, aggressive campaign against me.

Here is the (half) sentence in question:

• including Sun Myung Moon,[7] President of the Unification Theological Seminary David Kim,[8] and Moon's aide Bo Hi Pak.[9]

Critics make the argument that "Moonie" was not originally conceived as pejorative and is also not really at present pejorative because members have used the term. This should be reported in the article as an argument made by specific people (some of whom are self-identified critics). Wikipedia should not be in the business of presenting the arguments of critics as fact. This point seems obvious, but Cirt has not yet acknowledged it; indeed he has woven this theme throughout the article. If I were to take Cirt's approach, I would lecture him at length on his talk page about WP:NPOV. -Exucmember (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Each part of the sentence is backed up to independent reliable secondary sources. In any event, the sources independently make the same assertion that you feel the sentence makes. But can you present any reliable sources to back up your above claims that "Critics make the argument that "Moonie" was not originally conceived as pejorative and is also not really at present pejorative because members have used the term." ?? Because from my research, the sources currently used in the article cannot really be characterized as "critics", but rather WP:RS and scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

First, you are being unresponsive to my point, which is that you are making the argument of critics implicitly. Second, your statement here seems to imply that I could completely rewrite the article giving due weight to sources on this point as appropriate, but my experience with you in the past is that once you seem to have taken a sense of ownership of an article, making changes is like pulling teeth. I don't see any alternative than to admit that although regrettable, it's not such a tragedy that Wikipedia has a few bad articles. -Exucmember (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Exucmember said: "my point, which is that you are making the argument of critics implicitly..." My quesiton is, which independent reliable secondary sources says this is the argument of "critics"??? Cirt (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Different sections

It seems to me that it might be better to divide the article into sections on the origin of the word, then on the UC PR campaign to stop its use by the newsmedia, and then some commentary. Rather than dividing it by years. Borock (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is much simpler and less controversial to just use a straight chronological order. It is possible that individuals from the various camps will object to various proposed subsection titles. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. I don't know what is so special about the years 1989 and 1990 in the history of the use of the word "Moonie." In fact it cuts the story of the media campaign in half. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can first all agree here on what the names of the subsections would be? Any suggestions? Perhaps Origin and Unification Church media campaign? Cirt (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Borock (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Any other thoughts from anyone else? Cirt (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with those titles. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Article has a lot of WP:SYN

I have refrained from tagging the article POV, but there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I tagged one obvious example of WP:SYN, but this is happening all throughout the article (usually in subtle ways) on the issue of "it's offensive" juxtaposed with "the members use the term." This is the POV of critics (by definition), and so it should be presented as a sourced criticism, but not adopted as the POV of the article itself. African Americans using the n-word does not prove that the word is not offensive (or that claims that it is offensive are disingenuous). I'm sure the editors of Nigger would not take kindly to that article itself adopting the POV of such weak (and frankly foolish) reasoning. -Exucmember (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is actually no need to say it is used by members at all since the article already says it is used universally. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not "syn", it is a simple statement of fact, backed up by multiple cites. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding [13] and [14], this specific wording is no longer in the article. :) However, per WP:SYN, this is not synthesis, as the assertion is itself made not by Wikipedians, but in multiple different independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to present the claim of connection, please do so by citing the claim, and make clear this is the position of critics. Do not adopt the position of critics as the position of the article by a juxtaposition which constitutes WP:SYN -Exucmember (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not the "position of critics", rather of multiple scholarly WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a critic of the Unification Church, but I become indignant when I see prejudice and bigotry directed at the members. I'm like the white guy who becomes upset when someone tries to argue that the n-word is not negative because it just means "black" and because African-Americans use it themselves. I'm not saying Cirt is either prejudiced or bigoted (I don't believe he is); but he seems to be adopting as factual the arguments of people who in some cases are bigoted, because he doesn't quote the arguments and cite their partisans, but presents those arguments implicitly, as though they were the viewpoint of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether an academic occasionally points out that the members use the term themselves; the article still needs to be more careful not to make the WP:SYN argument of the most extreme detractors for them. Placement and juxtaposition are important. The argument made by critics (not just the juxtaposition of "the official position is that it's derogatory" and a report by scholars and others that "members use the term") should be described explicitly in the article, not made implicitly as a dupe of the most virulent critics. Pruning the article significantly for redundancy would also help a lot, as Hrafn pointed out. -Exucmember (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Exucmember says "The argument made by critics..." - and yet refuses to provide any sources justifying that there is indeed such an argument made by critics - other than his own claims to the matter on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of those critical of the Unification Church whose views are in print are journalists, including some critical journalists already cited in the article. If you are not familiar with the basic background of this article's topic, perhaps you should not be the one to take on trying to write the article largely by yourself. Perhaps it is a good time to step back. Certainly it would be appropriate to stop preventing people from making even minor improvements. -Exucmember (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, please Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Later use" subsection

I disagree with this subsection Later use, as it only includes incidental passing media usage. The on quote by Sun Myung Moon himself however, is notable, as it is a quote from a WP:RS source that notes that he still uses the term, on the organization's own website. That bit should be moved back into the Unification Church media campaign subsection, and the other subsection Later use should be removed. In addition to that - I can now see how these new titles by theme instead of by chronology for subsections is going to become a subject for controversy, and this might be a good reason to just go back to straight chronological subsections. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit [15] is quite confusing, as it now juxtaposes material from 1989 that is not "Later use", but in fact earlier use, and moves it into the "Later use" subsection. I really just think we should go back to the straight chronology naming of subsections. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I will revert that one. The campaign seemed to have ended about 1990 or so and there is lots of material on the uses of "Moonie" from after that. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the History structure back to straight chronological order. It will be much easier to maintain and organization this way. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to make sure people could follow the article. Some of the stuff in the "media campaign" section was off-topic. Anyway I'd like to suggest that the sub-section break takes place at 1984 (no pun intended). That seems to be when the media campaign started.Northwestgnome (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please don't just add incidental passing mention or usage in a one-off manner of the term by the media, that is not relevant to the article. Rather, what would be relevant would be use of the term by officials within the organization, or secondary source commentary about the term. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally think usage by major publications like Time Magazine is notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And I would strongly disagree, as that sort of usage has occurred, and still occurs, in literally hundreds, if not thousands, of articles about the organization. Let's leave the current structure of years, instead of arbitrarily picking a point, this one is exactly halfway between the first usage of the term, and the last discussion in secondary sources, 2006. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how about picking out a few major instances of use in the main-stream media? This is where most people would encounter the word.Northwestgnome (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do any of those media sources discuss use of the term? Cirt (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think the fact that the word is used is important, as well as it being discussed -- which is important too? Northwestgnome (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In what sources is it "being discussed" ? Cirt (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will look for some articles where there is more discussion. I'm looking at about 300 right now.Northwestgnome (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! Sounds like fun research. Search for "Moonies" and "term", for a start. :) Cirt (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I found one with "moonie" and "meaning", plus one that was already in the article.Northwestgnome (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! :) Cirt (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OR?

In this sentence: "Unification Church official Michael Jenkins, who later became president of the Unification Church of the United States,[52] commented...." it looks like the fact that Mr. Jenkins later became president of the church was somehow connected to his comment. Is that what is being implied? If so it seems like orginal research to me. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just changed it to parentheses usage instead of commas. This makes it more clear it is an important note, not a part of the fact for the sentence itself. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Mike's leadership in the PR campaign probably was connected to his becoming church president. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed page move or merger

There's a prod at Moonie, saying

• primary page shouldn't be a redirect to a dab, the dab should be here

I agree with the move proposal, or a merge of the disambiguation page + the current page => Moonie (devotee). Devoted fans of Sailor Moon call themselves "Moonie". --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The term in this usage is associated with Sun Myung Moon and specifically members of the Unification Church, thus the current page location. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think so too if I understand the suggestion correctly. I made a move proposal: Talk:Moonie (disambiguation) so that that page is renamed Moonie and lists all the uses of the word. "Moonies" should redirect to this article which should keep its current name since that makes the topic most clear. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose After rereading Ed's suggestion I partly agree but think there need to be two pages one for the word Moonie related to the Unification Church and one for other uses. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Moonie" by church members/officials

Cirt, why do you say that "use of the term by officials within the organization" would be "relevant" for inclusion in the article? -Exucmember (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it is noted as such in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? -Exucmember (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Already given in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember seeing it. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. Which sources say that use of the term by church officials is relevant/significant/important? -Exucmember (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The ones already cited for that information in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. How many of the sources say that use of the term by church officials is relevant or significant or important (or something similar)? Do any of them? -Exucmember (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as they discuss the term in that capacity, with reference to the fact that it is used by church officials. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is very vague, and does not address my question. What reference, if any, states that use of the term by church officials is relevant or significant or important (or something similar)? -Exucmember (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My answer is not vague, the cited sources give such discussion. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now it is becoming clear you are refusing to answer my question. What reference, if any, states that use of the term by church officials is relevant or significant or important (or something similar)? -Exucmember (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself and ignoring my answers. Unfortunately this thread is therefore no longer productive in nature. Cirt (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would invite Hrafn or Steve or others to comment. You have not answered my question. The logical conclusion is that none of the references state that use of the term "Moonie" by church officials is relevant or significant or important (or anything similar). Hrafn's observation that the article is extremely repetitive would seem to call for paring it down very significantly and eliminating some of the unsupported editorializing you've done. -Exucmember (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As you have yet to present any independent reliable secondary sources to support your position - the logical conclusion is that you have ignored my answers, and are simply expressing WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a reason to advocate removal of material contrary to your POV. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a limited number of mentions of use of the word "Moonies" by church members could be kept. In general I think the article should be trimmed down with not so many examples. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The examples are noteworthy as discussed in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that it would take a reader 20 minutes or so to read the article, when the information he or she would be looking for could be given in 3 or 4 sentences. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article presenting a comprehensive history. However, you are free to go and contribute to the page wiktionary:Moonie. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Study?

Is this sentence that informative? "According to a study published in 1992 in the psychology academic journal, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 75.51% (74 of 98) of participating individuals were familiar with the term." It doesn't give any background on who were the people being studied. Also if only 75% of people knew the term is this evidence that it had become less well known than in the 1980s? Northwestgnome (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the only academic study related to the term that I am aware of, I think it is indeed noteworthy of inclusion. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe more details about it should be given then. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a suggestion would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How about saying something about the findings of the study? Otherwise we are waiting for the other shoe to drop.Northwestgnome (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What wording do you suggest? Cirt (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the study to suggest wording. It is online? Northwestgnome (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, will do some research to see. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates?

Wouldn't it be better to divide the history section into 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s rather than divide it at 1990? Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It is not bad the way it is now though. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the way it is works best for now, no need for tons and tons of subsections. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support dividing it be decades, there is nothing special about 1989 that I can see. Borock (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an approximate midpoint and there is no need to break it up even further into 4 separate subsections. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead and divide the article by decades so people can see how that would look. If we don't like it we can change it back. Borock (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is not that bad, we can go with this structure for a while. :) Cirt (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal

[16] - The language portal is indeed relevant as this is most certainly a language topic. Further, I don't know why both portals were removed, when the user's edit summary only specified one? Cirt (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the religion portal by mistake. But how is this possibly a languages topic? Millions of speakers of all languages profess different religions, and support various political of philosophical beliefs, but none of these are included in the language portal. Why should this be any different? RolandR 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about this term itself, its development and its usage, not about the movement. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

By the same logic, any article about a word, such as Hello, Fuck ot Antidisestablishmentarianism could be included in the language portal. So could any article about a particular language, or about linguistics or translation; or about epithets, such as Redneck or Quisling, and countless other articles. I'm obviously not going to try to prove a point by adding this tag to all of them; but I repeat my question: what is the reason that this article, uniquely among Wikipedia articles, should be linked to the Languages portal? RolandR 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think all of the articles you mention should have the Language portal linked in their See also subsections. Whether the article itself should go in the portal, is a question of how good the quality of each article is. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

But none of them does. The only articles that have this tag, in addition to this page, are Portal:Language, Portal talk:Language and, for some reason, No worries. The use on this page alone suggests that the term Moonies, or the Unification Church itself, is in some sense unique, and different from all other religions, cults or belief systems. RolandR 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ALSO, links to relevant portals should go in See also subsections of related articles. The fact that no one has yet to do so for Portal:Language across related articles is irrelevant. It just has not happened yet. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tango

[17] = Removed. Really now. This page is not to be used as a laundry list for every single non-noteworthy usage of this term. Please. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I put it in to show the word is still being used. Borock (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary. This is supposed to be an article about the history of the term's usage. It is not titled: List of every single instance where the term Moonie has been used to refer to members of the Unification Church. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Moonies and Moonie redirect here, although I think it would make more sense for them to redirect to Unification Church. Any opinions? Quantumelfmage (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is more appropriate, as description of those terms. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is not the most common use of the word. If you check out Google news you will see that other meanings, especially nicknames, come up more often. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not an accurate measure of indicator. Besides, there is a disambig note for those that may be confused, at the top of the article page. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality article

This isn't the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia, but it's sure a poor quality article. Yeah, it has a sh**load of footnotes, but a lot of them say the same thing over and over! It's way overdoing it. The summary is too long and has stuff in it that's not important (this person or that person used the word "Moonie" - so what?). What did you guys do, look up every single time the word "Moonie" was mentioned and put them all in the article? Doesn't anybody who worked on this article have a sense of what's more important and what's less important? Any good writers around here?

There's another thing too. WTF is the deal with saying over and over that this time or that time the Moonies used the word "Moonie"? Is this trying to prove it's not really a put-down? How stupid! If that's NOT the reason, why say it over and over??!! If it is the reason, aren't you worried how biased that looks? I was looking at different articles about an hour or so ago, a lot of them about weird religions (the "Wicca" article I thought was very good and I said so), and I was just about to make this comment here when my friend came so we went to lunch. I was already thinking about how African-Americans call each other "nigga" and was going to put that in my comment. Then both tables next to us had friends come up or leave and they said it ("wassup niggas" "aaight my nigga" and "nigga" at least two other times!). I'm sure the same expressions are used in literature you could footnote. Are the editors of this article going to go over to the "Nigger" article on Wikipedia and put in as many footnotes as they can find where African-Americans have used the term, and try to make people wonder if it's actually a put-down? (Hey, they use it themselves!) I know it's not a perfect analogy, but c'mon! Look, I don't like the Moonies as much as the next guy, but this is an encyclopedia, right? Why do you want to seem so biased? People already think Wikipedia is whack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.5 (talk • contribs)

This seems more like a rambling rant than a specific or coherent complaint about something. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As a Unification Church member, it is clear to me that the term "Moonie" is a derogatory term. It is the official position of the Unification Church. The fact that the founder of the Church or members of the church may have used the term does not change the pejorative context of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntheriot (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. I am also a UC member. It's true that the article should explain the perjorative nature of the word. On the other hand, many people members and non-members use it without any negative intent.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted the removal without prejudice as I am pretty sure it requires some discussion, personally I am in the UK and moonie is at least to me is not only slur, it is also a well known nickname for a follower of the unification church, anyway I am not in the discussion I have just thought ithe edit needed discussion, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first guy that a lot of the examples could be taken out.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They way the page is structured, it follows in a chronological order, which actually makes this usage pretty good. -- Cirt (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think the article is making the readers do a lot of extra work. Maybe some of the less interesting examples could be taken out. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Borock (talk · contribs), Kitfoxxe (talk · contribs), and Northwestgnome (talk · contribs) seem to think otherwise. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you really not understand my arguments? Or did you just want to ignore them? Summary of my arguments above: 1. A lot of footnotes say the same thing over and over. Way too much repetition! (Steve is right: "less interesting examples could be taken out") 2. Summary is too long. 3. Summary has stuff in it that's not important (for example, a certain person used the word "Moonie" - so what?!? in a summary?!?). 4. This article sounds like the writers have no sense of what's more important and what's less important. 5. Saying over and over that in this case or that case the Moonies used the word "Moonie." What's the point? I guess some writer is trying to prove that the word "Moonie" isn't negative because Moonies have used it. Does African-Americans calling each other "nigga" prove that word isn't negative? Does the article have to say this OVER and OVER? Cut some of the repetition, especially on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.5 (talk • contribs)

The fact of inclusion and discussion in secondary sources, on multiple occasions, in addition to usage of the term by officials within the organization itself despite protestations by those selfsame officials and attempts to change the usage of the term to be associated with an epithet, is indeed noteworthy. -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "Moonie" as a derogatory term

There is way, way, way too much space here devoted to whether or not the term "Moonie" is a derogatory term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask123 (talk • contribs)

That is one of the main subjects of the history of the term itself. -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is a bit much, excessive commentary about a minor point, the word moonie appears a hundred times in the article, I could write what is important in this article in a couple of sentences. Trim or merge the moonie word is not worth an article of its own.Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There was already an AFD on this very issue. Consensus determined otherwise. The AFD resulted in Keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The AFD link and result appears to be missing? Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies, which is already linked to above in the {{ArticleHistory}} template on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link. I appreciate the consensus, but personally imo a couple of sentences would be plenty. I will watchlist and join in if another AFD is started. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect pages

Moonie and Moonies both redirect to this article. I think that most people who search for these terms are looking for information on the Unification Church itself and its members, not the word "Moonie." Wolfview (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned Mormons earlier - that seems to work in much the same way, going to the article on the term. I think the problem here is that the term is slightly perjorative - at least it always feels like that to me - and when we have an article on an offensive term, which discusses it neutrally, it seems a bit weird to redirect the offensive term itself directly to the subject of that term. (The implication becomes that we think they should be called that, and that it isn't at all contested to do so, which I don't think is the case) Shimgray | talk | 23:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Unification Church member and most members don't find the word Moonie all that offensive. We use it ourselves, there are even a couple of Facebook pages by members with it in the title. The PR campaign in the 1980s against media use of it was mainly a project of Mike Jenkins, whom I know personally. However that probably did not reflect the feelings of most members on the topic, or Rev. Moon himself as the article mentions. Having said that, Wolfview has a point. Most people know us as "Moonies," be that a good or bad thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Shimgray here. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Commentary section

Some of this section seems more like examples of use rather than commentary. Could some items be taken out or moved up to the main part of the article? Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving some of them up to instead appear chronologically, in the History subsection, above, is a very good idea. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved some, of course it's a judgement call if something is reporting or commentary and people can disagree. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally think this one is more commentary (because it's his opinion not a reporting of an incident) and could be moved to that section: According to author Darrell Y. Hamamoto, "By the end of the 1980s, the term Moonies had entered the language and become synonymous with individuals who had fallen under the hypnotic sway of the Unification Church."[53] On the other hand some of the items in the commentary section could be moved up. Borock (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that one is directly dealing with chronology. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It would also be possible to split up all of the commentary section and put it in the chronology section. Almost everything has a date, and if not you could go by the date of the source.Borock (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that might make the article harder to read. Right now the chronology section tells the story of the development of the use of the word and the commentary section gives people's opinions. If you mix them up it would be very hard for a reader to follow what's going on.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been moving some of the items out of the commentary section, I'm finding that there is no clear distinction between commentary and non-commentary. Let me know what you think please.Borock (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not so bad. Much better than I thought it would turn out. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Let us please keep the Commentary subsection. There is no consensus for its outright removal from the article. Furthermore, Kitfoxxe is correct - this begins to mix past and present tense grammar within one subsection, and starts to make the article quite confusing for the reader. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is not clear what is commentary and what is reporting of use. The tense problem could be easily solved by saying an author "wrote" not "writes" etc.Borock (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to try that. Anyway the article is much better now.Borock (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Items that could be removed?

• This one seems fairly trival and repeats info already given: In 2003 The Independent, a South African newspaper noted that followers of the Unification Church, "are commonly referred to as Moonies."[70] Borock (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Commentary section could also be looked at and commentary from minor sources could be removed. That way the opinions and judgments of experts would stand out more for the readers.Borock (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the entire last paragraph seems to be restatements of points already made. I also don't think that any of them are really notable experts, unlike the scholars cited in the first paragraph of the section.Borock (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

These provide a sampling of discussion in WP:RS published books and writings by academics on the subject. I see no dire impending need for their removal from the article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Format cites using WP:CIT templates

When adding new citations to this article, please format cites using WP:CIT templates. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Trim article a little?

Do you think it might be a good thing to trim some of the examples. I think the forest is getting lost to the average reader due to an overgrowth of trees. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, however others keep adding new info that seems to be mere mentions. You may wish to notify them, on their talk pages, about this talk page discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Good idea. I will do that.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that some material should be taken out. I have slowed down a bit on WP lately because of other things happening in my life. I guess what you could do with this article is take each sentence and flip a coin to decide to keep it or take it out. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be better to take out some of the material that is just examples of use and/or is not sourced by secondary sources. Borock (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence from the section on the 1970s is fairly trivial, and the fact has already been well established in the paragraphs before. (In 1979 The Age of Melbourne reported that in Australia the Unification Church was "better known as the Moonies."[40])Borock (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also in the same section there are two quotes by Moon. Maybe one could be taken off.Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, disagree about those, the quotes by Moon are quite significant, especially as compared to other minor press mentions that are less so. -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How about putting the quotes from church members together in one section? Bo Hi Pak is mentioned and then quoted down the page. This might make the article easier to follow.Borock (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Best to keep it in a simple chronological format. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How about subsections under the dates? Like "Use by the media" and "Use by members" under the 1970s? I could give it a try and see how people like it. Borock (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a little cumbersome to have subsections under each section. Better just have paragraphs to organize the topics.Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also this sentence from the 1980s is fairly trivial: The Chicago Tribune reported that in the 1980s Unification Church members "were castigated as 'Moonies' and called cult members."[42] The fact is already established in the previous section. Borock (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Trivial mention of fact already established.Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I took that out, this one seems to be the same: In 1986 conservative author William Rusher wrote in the National Review that Unification Church members were "...now almost universally referred to as 'Moonies'."[47] -Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections to what has been removed/edited so far. That 2nd one appears to be a significant mention and analysis from a secondary source, let's keep that one. -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to make the article a little easier to read without removing anything important. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your changes so far are indeed positive and quite helpful, thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. These two seem fairly trivial and interfere with the readability of the article since they come right in the middle of the church's anti-"Moonie" campaign in the 1990s: According to a study published in 1992 in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 75.51% (74 of 98) of participating individuals were familiar with the term.[57] In 1994, Variety noted that the word Moonie was used in a documentary about family life in Japan, referring to Korean members of the Unification Church.[58]Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The second one looks decidedly trivial. The first one, being a scientific study, might be worth keeping. Maybe it could be moved if it's a problem where it is. Borock (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved to commentary section. Borock (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, significant objections to those changes. Please, let us please keep this article in a straight chronological format for ease of historical presentation, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I do not understand why users (the very selfsame users involved in this above discussion in this subsection) complain about the addition of cited sourced examples of usage to this article page, and then go ahead and add incidental examples, themselves! -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think examples are needed. I added a few to give more recent uses and also uses in different nations beyond the USA and the UK. However feel free to take any off that you feel are not significant enough.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do, if needed. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Different languages

"It has seen usage in languages including English,[4][5] French,[11][12] German,[13][14] Spanish,[15][16] and Portuguese,[17][18]" Why mention these five languages? Since the Unification Church has been in world-wide news the word "Moonie" has probably been used in hundreds of languages. Same as the Russian word perestroika or the Arabic word jihad, which have also been in the news a lot. Why is this even remarkable? Wolfview (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The exact same word has entered use in other languages, not a translation. -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

True. This is common with many words. You could just say that it has been used all over the world without naming the languages. Wolfview (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That would then be an unsourced assertion - unless you are simply proposing to modify the bit about this, in the lede/intro section, which would be okay. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try making a small change to the intro. Wolfview (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sentence removed

This sentence was taken out: "In 2008 the Calgary Herald commented on the decline of Unification Church membership in Canada, saying: "In fact, there don't seem to be any Moonies anymore; at least, you never hear about them." It seems to me that it gives an insight into the development of the use of the word in Canada. Of course the article would survive without it, but still I think it gives some insight into the history of "Moonie." Borock (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not comment on the language and use of the word itself. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I put it in because, for one thing it shows the use of the word "Moonie" in Canada and it also shows the decline in the use of the word as the Unification Church is getting less media coverage in recent years. It is also from a very respected newspaper. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But you are the same user above, that started the subsection, Talk:Moonie_(Unification_Church)#Trim_article_a_little.3F, complaining about other users adding too much stuff. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the more trivial examples have been removed. I like this one since it is more recent and gives an example beyond the US and UK. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay. Feel free to add it back. :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. And the article is getting better.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cites in lede

Please, retain cites in the lede of this article, for it is a controversial topic. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Major changes to article by User:Wolfview

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

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

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

1. [18] = Another incident of relatively incidental mention, that does not further improve the page or include use of a source that significantly discusses the material.
2. [19] - Non-consensus change, information removed from article body text that is background for reader that should remain in article space.
3. [20] = Move of material makes it more confusing, should state this identification, first.
4. [21] = This amount of material does not need its own dedicated paragraph.

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

United Press International?

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

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

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

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

Picture?

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

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

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

Other meanings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondary sources for Ofcom case?

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

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

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

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

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

Sourced info was removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divided by decades

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

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

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

Trivia in commentary section?

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

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

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

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

Trivial mention

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

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

Trimming of article

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

3 dictionaries?

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

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

Rename article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moonie (nickname). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330095313/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb41/ to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb41/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116153337/http://www.masgc.org/pdf/masgp/82-016.pdf to http://www.masgc.org/pdf/masgp/82-016.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)