Talk:Unification Church/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Consistent bias

There is an overwhelming consensus that his page violates any semblance of "neutrality" -- the general tone of bias is so thorough that further specific instances of bias aren't worth citing. it is virtually a propaganda piece for this organization, and it undermines Wikipedia's rules and its credibility.

Serious NPOV issues here

This article has been thoroughly whitewashed by church zealots. Suggest addressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.13.64 (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article needs serious help. General man on the street consensus about the group is that they are a cult. Yet there is almost no information in the article critical of the group. Yet almost every news article i have ever read about them was critical. We can all figure out rather easily why this is. Snertking (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also rather telling is that "moonies", the more common name for the group, the one that most people know them by, is not mentioned once in the article, yet appears multiple times in the titles of the sources cited. Snertking (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this article even about the Moonies at all? I cannot find any of the following: "brainwashing", "deprogramming", hatred towards parents, radical anti-communism, extorting financial wealth from members family's, nor any references related to that members must give all of their income to the Unification Church and in return receive some of it back and live for months on end in commune-type setups. In Europe at least they are considered partially illegal and there were many court cases regarding kidnapping as well as coercion. <--- these are very serious issues and thousands of families have been destroyed by this "church" over the past decades. In fact there was also government sponsored psychotherapy for those that had quit the cult in order to help them reintegrate into normal society and with their families. Furthermore the Moonies have shrunk significantly since the 1980s due to these criticisms and are not recognised as a formal church either in many countries - yet the wikipedia article does not raise any of these major, and defining, critical issues. Which suggests strongly that this article has been censured heavily by its supporters. After reading the article I have a bizarre understanding of the Moonies one that does not reflect my own experience nor notions conveyed in mainstream media discussions over the last two decades. It is a complete whitewashing of reality. - Please, this article must be fixed as it is quite irresponsible.--Lexxus2010 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Mainstream press consensus is that the Unification Church is not a Christian religion, MOST press articles at least mention that they are known as the moonies (indeed, the term is usually contained in the title of most articles on the church), and, really, they are considered by most folks to be the archetypal cult. Yet this article does not even have a "criticism" section any longer. I have mitigated this somewhat by adding the term "moonies" back into the lead in, which is appropriate as A) there would seem to be a consensus that "moonies" should be mentioned in the article and B) it belongs in the lead in, as "moonies" redirects to this article. One other item i would like to see is some better info of the churches relationship with the university of bridgeport, he departure of their lawschool and several tenured professors after the association, etc. Snertking (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From this source, it explains about the influence of the Unification Church. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article explains a little bit about "deprogramming". Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Japanese edition Wikipedia [1] describes this cult issues in detail. I will try translate them into english. amidapc (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Modifications Needed

This article is not only incomplete, but it is maliciously misleading. If the suporters of the "church" are not willing to accept that there is a "CONTROVERSIAL" section, then the editor board REMOVE it. Please add your comments below. 206.108.168.141 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing aspects

Missing aspects are in special their stance on the topics

• Evolution
• Homosexuality
• Women's rights
• Abortion
• Pre-marriage intercourse
• Rights of atheists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.186.219 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some info on the church's rather staunch anti-communist stance, perhaps some info explaning the possible evolution of this stance with regards to the church originating in Korea, etc. It could be well argued that it has had some effect on world politics. Snertking (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncited material

I removed this paragraph. It is now uncited not cited by an online source so people can check it out and besides is just one person's opinion and also says something negative about an individual (although unnamed so not so bad):

Leo Sandon Jr. wrote in Theology Today in 1978 supporting the AJC's charge of antisemitism in Unification Church teachings, but noted that the church argued that this resulted from "Korean ignorance of Jewish sensitivities". He stated that he was more troubled by the "unmistakable anti-semitism" of "a highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist".(ref)"More troubling is the unmistakable anti-semitism I heard expressed by a highly placed and veteran Korean Moonist who interpreted the failure of the New York Board of Regents to grant the Barrytown seminary a charter as being the result of the international communist and Jewish conspiracy. The communists and Jews characteristically are linked, he explained. I have heard Robert Shelton, veteran American Klansman, allude to the same conspiracy." Korean Moon: Waxing or Waning?, Leo Sandon Jr, Theology Today, July 1978.(/ref)

Hang on. Published books aren't an acceptable source? Also; why is the only deleted section also the only section that has anything negative to say about the religion? Penumbra 2k (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

headquarters

I'm unclear from the article and photo where the headquarters are: in New York ("the New Yorker Hotel, became Unification Church's headquarters") or in Seoul (Unification Church HQ in Seoul)? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a UC member. The US offices are still in the New Yorker. I just visited them earlier this year. The "spiritual headquarters" are in Korea, but I don't think the Seoul building is more than the (South) Korean offices. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Caption of picture fixed. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Attitudes towards homosexuality?

Worthy of note in my opinion, and mysteriously missing from the article: what is the position (if any) of the Unification church on gay (or any other 'other' marriage - bi, polyamorous, asexual (unconsummated)) marriages? Is their attitude similar to the historical norms of most Abrahamic faiths (rejection of non-cisgendered, non-heteronormative relationships)? Or are they more tolerant than that? Given the growing international movement re: gay rights this seems like a topic worthy of at least a sentence's worth of coverage for any religion, especially a religion which seems to feature marriage so centrally. --Kasreyn (not signed in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.19.186 (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is some material already at Unification Church views on sexuality. It could be added to this article. However from my view "on the ground" as a long-time member the official view needs to be tempered by the reality that, well, "we have lots of gay friends." The church is a big supporter of dance, my theory being that that was one thing the USSR did well (ballet) and when it fell Rev. Moon felt bad about that aspect and wanted to help out. US church president In Jin Moon has promoted ballroom dancing for church members, and if you were to visit the dance lessons held in the Manhattan Center every Sunday afternoon after church you would be reassured that there is little hatred or hostility to gay people among UC members. Just saying for those who are interested. (Public is invited and it's walking distance from the New York Times' offices.) ;-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Word to the wise on sources

Even reporters for the respected Washington Post are not above copying from WP articles, changing a few words, and then pasting into their news stories:

‎"From its beginning, the Unification Church claimed to be Christian and promoted its teachings to mainstream Christian churches and organizations. The Unification Church in Korea was labeled as heretical by Protestant churches in South Korea, including Moon’s own Presbyterian Church. In the United States the church was rejected by ecumenical organizations as being non-Christian. The main objections were theological, especially because of the Unification Church’s addition of material to the Bible and for its rejection of a literal Second Coming of Jesus." -This article

"Many Catholic and Protestant denominations have long rejected Unificationism's claim to be a Christian faith because it has added text to the Bible and rejects the idea of a second coming of Jesus." -Washington Post news story

I have spotted other examples in the last few days. So something is written in WP then copied to a "reliable source." Steve Dufour (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, once it is copied/plagerized to a WP:RS, it is then WP:RS. Snertking (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. Note that in this case "Second Coming of Jesus" is not at all a common expression. It is almost always "Second Coming of Christ". Steve Dufour (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You have raised a point that I think needs a broader and wider ranging discussion that on this talk page. One could conceivably bootstrap contentious content into an article by inserting contentious content, then having a journalist use it as source for an article, then go back and claim said article as source for said content. I am certain that this HAS happened. Since most news articles don't cite sources, it would be rather difficult to prove what has happenedSnertking (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

term "moonies"

Given that more people know of this church by the name "moonies" than by it's proper name, the press constantly refers to this group by that name ( http://www.google.com/search?q=moonies+cult&aq=0&oq=moonies+cult&sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=moonies+cult&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=99FGUPi-Hob20gGSq4CgAw&ved=0CA0Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=8a466bc6b4cb2628&biw=1752&bih=738 ) and that Rev Moon HIMSELF had used that term (Enroth, Ronald M. (2005). A Guide To New Religious Movements. InterVarsity Press. pp. 69, 72. ISBN 0-8308-2381-6), it is appropriate in the lead in. Snertking (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a UC member since 1974. I agree with you, and somewhat disagree with official church policy on this point. People do know us as "Moonies" and "Unification Church" is often confused with "Unity Church", "Unitarian Church", and many others. (Incidentally I told a Korean lady I work with that I am a member of the Unification Church and she thought it was the Unity Church since in Korean the one word tongil means both unification and unity.) I will see if I can tweak the wording in the sentence a little. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm against having Moonies in the lead, but even assuming the consensus is to mention it in the lead, I have two suggetions. First, I don't think we need the parenthetical about "derogatory". Second, The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the highlights of the body. At this point, there is no discussion of the term "Moonies" in the body. That has to come first. Also, if we decide it belongs in the body, perhaps we can give it some context instead of just a label.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am rather happy with the latest edit, "and well-known as the Moonies (although this is usually considered derogatory)". I agree that we need to have some text in the main body of the article discussing the term in more detail. It's a phenomenon worth noting, as many new religious groups are better known by popular terms that are not the actual name of the movement (ie: The International Society for Krishna Consciousness is almost universally referred to as "the Hare Krishnas", etc) Snertking (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Moonies redirects here. (1) It should be included, derogatory or not. It is simply the common name and that is Wikipedia's test -- WP:COMMONNAME. (2) Indeed I bet that more search for "moonies" than for "unification church". (3) There is also a long practice in English of naming religions after their founders and this is no different. See Christian, Mormon (sort of, but clearly a nickname rejected by many adherents to the faith), Lefebvrist or Aglipayan, or the archaic term Mohamaden. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

so, it was in the lede for a time, there was a concensus, and now someone has taken it upon themsleves to delete it with no discussion. Typical. Now to pour over the history to see exactly who that arrogant jerk is... 50.133.160.189 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, it appears the statement was removed because there is not discussion of the term in the body of the article. I would not have been opposed to including the term in the lead without discussing it in the article (it's possible some readers might read the article not knowing the terms "Unification church" and "Moonie" are synonymous). Still, most articles on subjects that are known by different terms have a "terminology" section. If someone will add that section, and if we say in the lead the term is "colloquial" instead of "derogatory", then we can be more sure that we have a consensus to add the term back into the lead.Dulcimermusic 02:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

I have created the "terminology" section suggested and readded "Moonie" to the lead, calling it a "colloquial" term rather than a "derogatory" one. I hope the term will stay on this page now; it is important for the term to be at least mentioned on this article. Not including it has the potential to cause considerable confusion among readers. The disambiguation page link is also very important as that page is not likely to be found by readers except through the hatnote on this article. Neelix (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of the term "cult"

I think there should be at least some mention in here that the Unification Church is widely considered to be a cult. There are plenty (literally hundreds) of WP:RS sources that make mention of this. Snertking (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There should be some info about this in the article. Please check out the article on Cult and many related articles. The word "cult" has different meanings to different people. One thing that should be mentioned is the important role of the UC in the anti-cult movement, especially in the late 70s and early 80s. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I seem to recall there being some legal cases where many "deprogrammers" were successfully sued and/or prosecuted for kidnapping. I seem to recall at least some of these involved Unification Church members removed from the group against their will. The problem with "cult" is of course the various meanings and connotations. The original use of the term simply meant "non-mainstream religion", but especially since the 70's, with Children of God, the Peoples Temple, Hare Krishna, and... The Unification Church itself of course, the term began to pick up more negative connotations due to a lot of negative public perceptions regarding the groups the media had begun applying the term to. 107.3.62.19 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolute there should be some mention that it is called a cult and is frequently cited and targeted by anti-cult activists. This highlights the lack of criticism or outside analaysis -- pro and con -- in this article. There should be a criticism section and there needs to be discussion in the beliefs section on where they differ with the main large faiths. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

allegations of brainwashing

Allegations of brainwashing also bear mentioning in this article, as again, there are literally scores of WP:RS articles that cover these allegations. Snertking (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also should be mentioned. Check out Brainwashing. The popular allegations have been dismissed by the scientific community. The UC and other "cults" have no special powers of persuasion which are not used by mainstream religions and others (often more effectively which is one reason they became mainstream.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is so much that could be said on the topic beyond the scope of this article... perhaps i shall go start looking over the wikipedia articles on that topic, which i have read in the past and strongly feel have some POV issues of their own.

Firstly, I would hardly agree that there is a consensus in the scientific community dismissing the phenomenon. However, I WOULD agree that new religious movements have no special powers of persuasion not use by many more mainstream groups. One could make a firm argument that any attempt to change the opinion of another, when certain techniques are used, is "brainwashing" - specifically when it is done via appeal to emotion rather than via logic and fact. Techniques such as applying/withholding praise, "love bombing", isolation, etc are used all the time by various people and organizations every day. There seems to be a double standard when applying the terminology. When someone walks into mainstream church for the first time, and is swarmed by folks expressing care and concern, they are simply making a newcomer feel welcome, yet if the Unification Church or the Family International do it, it's suddenly "love bombing" If a mainstream Baptist Church suggests one sever ties or limit contact with a family member that actively supports Gay rights, it is not seen in the same context as when the exact same thing is done by the Church of Scientology.

IMO, brainwashing is a very real phenomenon, and much more prevalent that we as a society seem willing to admit. There also needs to be more discussed on exactly where lines are crossed between what is acceptable and what is not. For instance, depriving someone of sleep for several days on end until they agree with certain views, as done by groups such as "Straight Inc", clearly crosses a line in most people's opinion. But where does that line begin and end. Where does, for instance, isolation and sensory deprivation cross the line between "quite time to reflect" and a thought control technique? Snertking (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the brainwashing and other similar controversies surrounding the church should be mentioned as an historical fact and cultural icon. Fair or not if you were around in America in the 70s and 80s -- until today -- if you think "cult" or "brainwashing" you think "moonie." It is undoubtedly one of the church's biggest challenges, historically. I have added a section to the History section about the reaction to and criticism of the church. Perhaps the section should be moved. It clearly needs to be expanded. And it should discussed as history -- this is what people have said and done -- not as a scientific debate -- the truth of the brainwashing allegations. The allegations have been made and have had tremendous impact on the church and society. That needs to be explained and discussed and nothing else. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiedia should publish primarily scientific facts, then facts and then theories and as last unproven hateful allegations, which should be mentioned as a shameful fact in article about their source and not in the article about their victim. If this is significant enough, it could be mentioned in the article about the victim in following manner: “scholars considered brainwashing (or love bombing) as non scientific and so called allegations against UC as hate speech.” There is no reason to publish a hate speech as a fact, even if it is a very well known hate speech. So I imagine that article will describe it correctly. --DeeMusil (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs section needs context

The beliefs of this church need to be put into context. For instance, how do their beliefs jive or contradict the historical teaching of Christianity? Are they unitarian? Do they believe the Lucifer fell from heaven? Do they believe in heaven and hell? How do all their beliefs differ from traditional teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and other faiths? I added a bit but not clearly enough. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Need for a better reaction and criticism influence section

There is a need for a better reaction and criticism influence section. I added something in the History section, including a reference to the anti-cult movement, but is is inadequate. It clearly should be expanded and maybe moved. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Controversy and criticism, Church of Christ, Scientist#Controversies and criticisms and Seventh-day Adventist Church#Criticism for what I am thinking of. There is also Unification Church of the United States#Criticism, opposition, and controversy --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cultural influence section needed

On top of what I mentioned above, there needs to be a section about the cultural influence section. The Unification Church, as well as the Hare Krishnas, are probably at the top of any American's mind whenever the word "cult" is used. The church has a negative reputation, even toxic, and is often portrayed in movies and television shows, and elsewhere, in a negative light. The church's general impact upon the 1970s and the reputation of that decade should also be mentioned. The fact is that the Moonies, as they are commonly called, have had a much greater impact upon American (and other countries') culture as a cultural phenomena and icon then they have had on American thought and theology. Their beliefs are entirely irrelevant to most Americans but their existence is not. The Unification Church is and remains an enduring cultural touchstone for Americans. Think "cult"; think "moonies." --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a UC member since 1974 and a WPer since 2006. I generally support your suggestions and ideas to improve this and other UC articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reorganized

I've reorganized a bit the article trying to follow the template of other articles, e.g. the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, Scientist articles. I've created a a history section, a beliefs section which includes information about how the beliefs compare with religions (though leaving more discussion to the "see also" articles) and a structure and organization section. I still think a separate criticism/controversy section would be best as is pretty standard Wikipedia practice, but people seem not to like that. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

At risk of being called partisan, I restored the POV tag deleted by User:Boljom who left the summary "the topic had been discussed a lot earlier. Check it out, plz". I only see links to 2 archives, which do not appear to be sufficient to overcome the many editors on this talk who agree for various reasons that the article is POV (specifics need not be listed). That is, talk consensus seems to clearly favor the article being POV, and if there had been a prior discussion "a lot earlier" that would not apply against the currently unaddressed concerns above. I would appreciate getting discussion going on how to address the concerns already stated on this talk. JJB 02:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC) As I anticipated, I was reverted, by User:Borovv with "Sorry, but your Presbyterian views, as your profile reads, on the topic, are not NPOV themselves, rather COI." This is an ad hominem (an argument about the man), as my statements had nothing to do with Presbyterianism but with stated talk concerns, and my Presbyterianism is not COI (but editors' Unificationism, if any, would be COI). Accordingly, under WP:BRD, please discuss the talk concerns stated in prior sections so they can be resolved. Pick any specific (which I have purposely not listed) and show us you can address it. Failure to discuss will result in WP:BOLD again. Thank you. JJB 14:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Add: I made the comment about editors' Unificationism hypothetically, before I noted that Borovv claimed to have taken a photo of Moon for the article, which indicates a close relationship to me that does typically count as COI, and before I noted that Borovv was topic-banned from this article. Hmm, what to do? JJB 14:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article should have a criticism section that provides us with arguments from those who accuse the church of having cultish tendencies, and those who defend the church against these accusations. I believe the word "cult" is difficult to define. Still, if the Unification church has a reputation for being very controlling, there should be a balanced discussion of these charges in the article. If this discussion is not in the article, then that is a POV issue. A POV tag would help to add more contributors to the talk discussion on this issue. What is the harm in that?Dulcimer music 22:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

After reviewing the edit history since September 10, I'm not sure if tagging the entire article is the best way to address the problems with the article. I saw that the tag was removed in October because a paragraph was added which mentioned that the Unification Church was a target of the anti-cult movement. More material should be added. There are two other concerns I have: 1) I have no problem with including the point of view Eileen Barker. However, we need to clearly state that this is a point of view. 2) The clause, "which were dismissed later" is vague and needs to be more clearly explained. I will address the first problem immediately.Dulcimer music 03:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

I have done some work on the paragraph that discusses the allegations of brainwashing and the belief of anti-cult groups that they are a cult. The primary purpose of my edits was to make sure one of the main sources of information for that paragraph was given an entirely accurate and clear summary. I do not claim the paragraph is an adequate discussion of the topic. More material needs to be added.

Before we add a POV tag to the article, we need a more current discussion of the POV issues involved. Most of comments posted above were written in late August or early September. A POV tag was added to the article on September 5. Soon after, some of the main concerns stated above were addressed, however inadequately. The article at least mentions that the Unification church was accused of "brainwashing" and was targeted by anti-cult activists who believed that members of the church needed to be deprogrammed. Due to the new material that was added, the POV tag was removed on October 30. We now need to re-evaluate the article and specifically state the changes and additions that still need to be made before we can agree that the article complies with NPOV.

I would begin by saying that while at least one sociologist (Eileen Barker) believes the claims of brainwashing were exaggerated, are there other widely held opinions on this topic that should be mentioned? Also, the statements above by Lexxus2010 under the heading "Serious POV issues here" have not all been addressed, either on the talk page or in the article.

In Template:POV, it says the purpose of the POV tag "is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." The purpose of the tag is to bring editors to the talk page to discuss the improvements that need to be made. We need to provide those potential contributors with an up-to-date evaluation of what still needs to be done.Dulcimer music 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Target of anti-cult movement

As long as we have a history section in this article, there really does need to be a statement that the Unification church was targeted by the anti-cult movement. As Bruce Hall and others stated above, the public perception of the church was its biggest challenge from the 1970's onward, and our knowledge of the church's history is very incomplete if we do not mention that this was (and to a large extent still is) the public perception.

I think it is entirely appropriate to also include in the article the cautionary note by Eileen Barker that we should not be too quick to believe everything we hear in the media about groups like the Unification church. To comply with NPOV, our goal is to 1) state every significant point of view of scholars who have written on the topic, and 2) to not tell the reader what to think. It is important, when writing about religious groups that some people regard as cults, to be sure that we give them their due.Dulcimer music 20:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

I would like to also assure the other contributors that I do not have an agenda here except the integrity of Wikipedia, and I have no interest in either defending or vilifying the Unification church.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the accusations of the anti-cult movement against the UC were completely, totally unjustified. Nevertheless, nobody doubts that the charges were reported in the mainstream media and were believed by millions of people. By way of analogy, if false accusations against a historical person from the 19th century were believed by millions of people at the time that he lived, nobody would think about writing a biographical summary of that person's life without mentioning those false accusations. It is simply part of history. In the article, we are merely reporting, in the most non-judgmental way possible, what any historical textbook would report if it spoke about the new religious movements of the 60's and 70's. Similarly, a history of Christianity will likely report that many Romans in the 1st century regarded Christianity as a very strange religion.

Given the prominence of the opposition of the anti-cult movement, we have to at least mention it in the history section of the article. I hope this will not be a cause of conflict.Dulcimer music 05:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

Yes. The section is also properly sourced. All of User:Boljom's edits to this article appear to be attempts at white-washing, where the removal of this section was the most blatant one.--Atlan (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@JDefauw: I really appreciate your good faith, though there is no need in long weasel explanations. The shorter the better for encyclopedic huge-contented articles. If you want to be more specific on the topic, try new page, please, probably the wiki society will accept it. Thank you.Boljom (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Boljom: You're right. A common practice on Wikipedia is to spin off a separate article on the history of the subject matter. In this case, someone would create a new page, History of the Unification church, and a link to the article would be provided at the beginning of the history section in this article. That would help us to make sure that this article does not become TLDR (too long to read).Dulcimer music 02:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

How does criticism of the church fit better in a history content fork, like you seem to be suggesting? Anyway, I've removed the quote and left everything else, but perhaps the section needs a little rewrite for balance.--Atlan (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This article covers the history of UC, the beliefs of the church, the relations with other religions, and the political activities. Because there are so many sections, we don't want any one section to be overly detailed, so that we keep the article as a whole a manageable size (See WP:LENGTH#Readability issues). On the other hand, when the subject of an article has a more narrow scope (the subject covers a smaller area), the article can be more detailed. Wikipedia can be, and often is, more detailed than paper encyclopedias. An article with a broad scope, however, should not be overly detailed.Dulcimer music 22:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

Very well documented is that UC (and Jehovas Vitness) is target of anti-clut movement in Japan. Reported on UN ground. See this report: http://www.hrwf.net/images/reports/2012/1231%20report%20final%20eng.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeMusil (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

UC History article

I think a new article History of the Unification Church is a good idea. Also the information on the church's business interests could be trimmed down, since there is already an article on that. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If I was going to read an article on a religion or church that I didn't know much about I'd rather it focus on the present day importance of the institution. I wouldn't care much about when missionaries were first sent to different countries and things like that.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)\

For some people it will be different. Like it or not, but the UC is in part famous because of it played such a prominent role as a target of anti-cult movement, but also because it has been studies so extensively. This led to the invention of some anti-cult terms/concepts, like love bombing and scholarly concepts, like atrocity story. (My personal opinion is that too much was generalized from this, both in time and geographies). Andries (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That could be covered in detail in the history article, and of course also here but in less detail. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Support that - history is a good idea. Current version of the article has almost nothing about early years. Do you have an idea how to split the article or you think just about single timeline? --DeeMusil (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking about starting a new article History of the Unification Church, moving the history from here to there, and then having a section in this article that sums it up.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, go on. Then we can extend the history timeline.--DeeMusil (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I could also make a section about disaffiliation from the UC. I have multiple reliable sources for that. I am aware that this is a somewhat unusual subject for an article about a religious movement. Andries (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that. The List of Unification Church members article already has a sub-list of former members. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit unusal, but from times of Judas, always some ex- apears and if this is important and reliable enough, let's mention it. Just previous proposal is about moving whole history to separate article to keep this article readable and not too long. This proposal goes a bit opposite, but I do not see any other place where to put such thing. To keep the analogy, there is no Judas in Christianity article, but he is in Twelve_Apostles article. --DeeMusil (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the number of people who joined the church and left is much greater than present members, including some who went on to be very successful in other things. It should be easy to find reliable sources that discuss this. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you, it is actually a fun fact about UC. Lets wait for the youtcome.--DeeMusil (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the high turnover rate of a religion belongs in the article about that religion's history. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a high turnover rate, and I don't see anything in the article on the History of Jehovah's Witnesses about that. If you can point to specific controversies within the religion that caused many people to leave, that info may be encyclopedic. For example, from 1917 to 1931, the Watchtower Society had exceptionally high turnover because of the controversial policies of Russel's successors, Joseph Rutherford. That info is included in the articles on the Jehovah's Witnesses.Dulcimer music 19:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

I was thinking it belonged in the main article, not the history article, if we want to include it at all. Also many New-age and self-improvement groups have even higher turnover rates. Obviously when you feel you have improved yourself enough then you can move on. C.S. Lewis talked about the same thing for mainstream Christianity in one of his books. Some people turn to religion to solve a personal problem. Then once it is resolved they lose interest. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I plan to start the history article today, but I will not take anything out of this article yet. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Related organizations and Political activities sections could also be cut down since they each have their own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opposition section

Right now it focuses on the "brainwashing" issue. Other issues should also be included, which are actually more substantial and ongoing. I would say: Theological differences vs. mainstream Christianity, anti-communism, promotion of inter-racial marriages, questions about life-style of members, conversion of young Jewish people to the UC, and some other things. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what it says in Unification Church of the United States: "The Unification Church of the United States was met with widespread criticism beginning in the early 1970s. The main points of criticism were the church's unorthodox theology, especially its belief that Moon is the second coming of Christ; the church's political involvement; and the extreme lifestyle of most members, which involved full-time dedication to church activities often at the neglect of family, school, and career. During this time, hundreds of parents of members used the services of deprogrammers to remove their children from church membership and the activities of the church were widely reported in the media, most often in a negative light.[27]" Steve Dufour (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

However note that the story is not the same in every country. In the Philippines there was religious opposition from the Catholic Church but inter-racial marriage was not an issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is other opposition mentioned in the article. I think it should all be put together in one section, or else the section removed and the information placed in the body of the article. One or the other. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Link I pasted in above section lists several reasons for opposition in Japan, page 59, chapter CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (http://www.hrwf.net/images/reports/2012/1231%20report%20final%20eng.pdf). Reasons are 1) UC is coming from Korea (arousing hostility for historical Korean-Japanese reasons), 2) perceived as a Christian heresy by Protestant Churches, 3) practices colliding with the Japanese family culture (mass marriages, parents’ consent in the choice of the spouse, parent's position of Reverend Moon and his wife), 4) So called "spiritual sales" (selling items as stamps, rosary, etc.) highly covered by media, 5) different recruitment methods, 6) different fund raising practices / none of those is described in detail and detailed reason but it could be some guidance. Those are primary origins of xenophobia, allegations from so called "brainwashing", "mind-control" or "love-bombing" are secondary reasons, undoubtedly artificially created by anti-cultists and touching just one area (5-recruitment). Next important thing is, how the opposition is performed. Do not forget about previously communist countries, where people died in the prison just for some relationship with UC. Anti-clut movements just continue to do the very same dirty job as KGB, just the way differs.--DeeMusil (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems to point to a "Opposition" section, or even a new article Opposition to the Unification Church. For one thing there is now very little material on the UC in Japan. Also this information does not seem to be related to a specific time period, like the brainwashing thing. Borock (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We have two contributors who are saying that it would be better to not discuss the accusations of brainwashing in isolation from the other reasons for opposition. Creating a separate "Opposition" section would solve that problem. Within that section, the sub-headings could be the topics mentioned above by Steve Dufour and DeeMusil: "Theological" , "Judaism", "Anti-communism", "Interracial marriage", "Lifestyle of members", "Recruitment methods", and "Japan":

Under "Recruitment methods" would be the material that is presently in the section "Brainwashing controversy" (formerly named "Opposition") This material does not have to be in the history section.

Under "Theological" would be the material presently in the section "Christianity".

Under "Judaism" would be material presently in "Judaism".

Under "Japan" would be 1) and 3) stated above by DeeMusil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Borock (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If and when we add material, we'll be careful to keep it brief and not let the section become a dumping ground for every criticism of the UC that has ever been made (otherwise, there will be a POV problem with the article as a whole).

I would recommend the main heading "Controversy", since it is the least likely to prejudice the reader.Dulcimermusic 01:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

I agree with a "Controversy" section. Where would you like to put it? I suggest right after the "Beliefs" section. Borock (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and start the controversy section with the material that is in the article already. Then it can be moved, changed, or added to. Borock (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. I ended up splitting up the "Relations with other religions" putting Judaism and Christianity in the "Controversy" section and "Islam" in the "Interfaith activities" section. Of course more material should be added about other controversiesBorock (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I just added some material to the section. BigJim707 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Everybody has been doing good work. I should have a chance to work on it some more in a couple days.Dulcimermusic 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

Removed confusing, unsupported statement in "Relations with Judaism".

I will leave the statement on the talk page in case someone wants to provide a reference that supports it and return it to the article.

"The Divine Principle draws parallels between Jewish history, as recorded in the Bible, and later Christian history; saying that Jesus should have been accepted as the Messiah during his lifetime. This has been a source of controversy for both Christians and Jews."

The source that was provided, while it seemed to provide some valuable insights into the theology of the UC, did not, as far as I can recall, support that statement. I moved the source to another section.

Unsupported + Confusing = removal instead of cn tag. In the last sentence, the word "this" is vague and needs more explanation. Dulcimermusic 03:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

Recruitment methods

Based on a discussion at the fringe theories noticeboard, Wikipedia contributors agree that there is for the most part a consensus among social scientists who specialize in Sociology of Religion that the brainwashing theories are scientifically unproven. As long as this is stated in the 2nd sentence of the section, it will not necessary to add the word "unproved" to the first sentence. We should certainly keep the word "so-called". Keeping both words in that sentence is too many extra words in one sentence.Dulcimermusic 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs)

In case anybody is interested, the link to the discussion at the Wikipedia fringe theories noticeboard is here (if the link is bad, it is in archive 33). The discussion that lead to the noticeboard discussion is here.

The contributor who argued that the brainwashing hypothesis is widely accepted among social scientists outside of Sociology of Religion never provided any evidence.Dulcimermusic 03:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

I think that first sentence shoud describe recruitment methods, what is not the current state, or, if there is a "nasty" brainwashing word, first sentence should contain a fact, that allegations from brainwashing was never proved as true as the whole mind-control hypothesis is just a fiction. Who reads just first sentence and stops, could have completely different feeling from the section.--DeeMusil (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the first sentence so that it includes more information. I would hope that our readers would not stop reading a section after the first sentence. I suppose that readers might do that if they are skimming through the article. Since the two discussions I linked above strongly indicate that mainline science is on your side, we will make sure the reader does not come away with a wrong impression.Dulcimermusic 19:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

Rather than letting the article seem to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion about certain lawyerly and clinical debates about the subtle nuances of the word "brainwashing", I've tried to refocus the first paragraph on simply stated complaints about how the church has been known to act in a "deceptive fashion" during their recruitment process, and a sort of "legal summary" of how various national legal systems have dealt with such complaints. I hope my attempted summary has been helpful. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent article vandalism

On February 17, in the section about controversial recruiting practices within the Unification Church, I could not help but to notice that there were no actual references to any specific cases of controversial Unification Church recruiting practices. This seemed quite strange to me. No actual references to bad recruiting incidents in a section about bad recruiting? Hmmm.... it was my guess that this section may have been "cleansed" by a Unification Church member/editor there. Accordingly I inserted three references to actual bad recruiting incidents into that section. Within a few hours, my three references to actual bad recruiting incidents were deleted and replaced with three references apparently intended to defend the Unification Church against any such claims. This left no actual references to specific incidents in the section about bad recruiting practices!!! I dare say that it appears to me that user Bordoxx may be a Unification Church member, attempting to hide any potentially controversial references within this article about his Church. User Bordoxx, are you a UC member? You claimed that the reason you removed these references from the article was because it was supposedly "hugely against Wikipedia policy to remove references". I am confused. Before you attempt to "cleanse" this article again, could you please explain to me here exactly why you feel there should be no specific references to actual bad recruiting incidents in the section about bad recruiting practices? A certain clarity of your rationale and a willingness to concisely lay out such a rational here might help us all to more easily agree on the best text possible for this article at this time. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a UC member, since 1974. I agree with you that sincere controversy about the church's treatment of members and potential members should be included. There was also a "brainwashing controversy" which should be mentioned. That is a few, actually highly educated people seriously put forth the theory that young UC members, mostly in their early 20s, had developed "mind control" techniques that had never been seen before in the history of the world. The news media and most of the public (remember this was before the Internet when people could not effectively talk back to the media) swallowed this whole. Please check out the articles mind control and deprogramming for the history of this. There also probably should be a section on "Opposition" as well as "Controversy." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)