Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:56, 7 October 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moonie (nickname) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Moonie (nickname). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Moonie (nickname) at the Reference desk.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 27, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 5, 2009.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Korea Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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_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)

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_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)

Mere "usage" is likewise not noteworthy

Why is it even remotely noteworthy that…

In his 2002 book Separated Brethren, author William Joseph Whalen notes: church is popularly known as the Unification Church, and his followers as Moonies." 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 … 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 & Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Hrafn_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_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_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_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" 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_Stalk(P) 03:54, 28 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 Misplaced Pages: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" Misplaced Pages: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."

Washington Post

The term "Moon Children" was used by the Washington Post in 1979. 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)

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.”

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: . 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 Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: . 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 . I replaced it with a different one. This one is to Eileen Barker , 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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" . 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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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\ 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\ 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\ 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: 2002 edition of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, see . 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\ 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 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\ 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. Misplaced Pages 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\ 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\ 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\ 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\ 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\ 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 4 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)

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

It's astounding to me that Cirt would admonish me for removing a false 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.

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)

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 and , 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)

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)

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)

Trimmed lede

I have been advised that the WP:LEAD of the article was a bit too long, so I trimmed it down . Hopefully this will alleviate some concerns. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:03, 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? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 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) . :) Cirt (talk) 20:05, 5 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)

1. "Where God Resides and His Course", sermon by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Belvedere, Tarrytown, New York, March 19, 1978.
2. "The Life of Husband and Wife in a Blessed Family", Blessing and Ideal Family Part 2, by Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
3. "Sun Myung Moon Speaks to the 2100 Couples", speech to members by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Felt Forum, Madison Square Garden, New York, July 2, 1982.
4. "The Children's Day We Have Been Longing For", speech to members by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Manhattan Center, November 11, 1977.
5. "All Things Depend On Us," sermon by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, January 8, 1978.
6. "Moonie" a bad word?
7. Myth and Fact: Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church
8. Cite error: The named reference hamamoto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Redirect-Class language pages
• Low-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles
• Redirect-Class Religion pages
• Low-importance Religion articles
• Redirect-Class New religious movements pages
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Redirect-Class Korea-related pages
• Low-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Redirect-Class Journalism pages
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles