Talk:Unification Church

Why the N word?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former member?

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

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

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

Update history section?

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

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

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

Citation

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

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

— in the subsection, Spiritual sales in the section Critisism

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

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

Break into 3 parts.

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

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

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

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

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

paragraph in "Popular Terminology"

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

Completely missing part "Persecution"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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