Talk:List of Unification Church affiliated organizations/Archive 1

This article has the potential

This article has the potential to become a worthy addition to Wikipedia, however it currently has serious problems with POV, namely the opinions of the article author about the value of organization or its activities to the world. Those opinions should be removed, unless you can impartially cite where they have been published elsewhere. The article also has serious problems with spelling and grammar. Aumakua 10:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have difucult to realise if there is anything wrong with this organisations motivations for promoting woldpeace. several religios leader are suporting this organisation today if you are against it you have to find facts that it would to harm to this world.

Lack of valid sourcing (let alone independent sourcing)

This article currently has exactly three citations -- all of them broken, and all of them to the website of the UPF. This makes them doubly useless for establishing notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article be merged with Sun Myung Moon or Unification Church. These are all projects proposed by Rev. Moon and supported by UC members. The name UPF is not so notable in itself and nobody is going to be looking for an article on it. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the list of constituent sub-organisations would tend to make either article unwieldy (more so if/when other, similar, articles are merged). A catch-all 'List of Unification Church organizations' article might be more useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I am working on the UC articles, but slowly since I have a job and am attending school as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How's this for an idea: I could rename this article to 'List of Unification Church organizations', turn the current lead into a section-intro & the sections into bullet-points. This would allow me to get the list up and running with a minimum of work & red-tape. We could then merge other articles in at our leisure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to say "Unification Church related organizations" or "UC supported organizations". If you say it's a list then it gets treated as a second class article, or so I've noticed. I think we also want to talk about the whole concept of UC organizations, not just list them. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about 'UC affiliated organizations'? The second-class status is actually beneficial, in that the notability requirements for list-members is far lower (in fact quite minimal) than for stand-alone articles -- which the constituent organisations will rarely meet, given that most independent observers would merely talk about the UC rather than refer specifically to the, often obscure & lengthily named, individual organisation. It would also be perfectly reasonable to have an 'overview' or similar section on the concept of having this plethora of sub-organizations above the actual list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"UC affiliated organizations" seems like a good idea to me. I think most readers would rather have the infomation in one place, rather than have to look through a lot of stub articles on each organization. Except for the ones that have become notable in themselves of course. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've purposefully avoided removing information at this stage, but eventually the uncited/broken-cited info will have to be (re)cited or go. Existence/basic purpose of these constituent organisations really only needs a cite to their website (or to a page of UPF's website mentioning their existence). More grandiose claims will need a more reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. I will add more information on groups as I get around to it, Steve Dufour (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

CAUSA

CAUSA has three sources, two of them major news publications. There is also enough information on it (out there) from both positive and critical sources that it should have its own article. The article itself needs some work however. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What current existence does this organisation have? It's current contact information is that for World University Federation, and the only 'CAUSA Foundation' I could find 3rd party info on is an apparently unrelated organisation in NY. Before we decide that it deserves its own article, we should first confirm that it still has a formal existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it does not exist anymore. However it was very active in the 1980s. The article has references to stories on it in the Washington Post and Christianity Today. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is defunct means that it is neither generating new coverage, nor much in the way of reappraisal of old coverage. The existing sources (and CT is not a major news publication -- few outside the US would even have heard of it, and its impact would mainly be in Evangelic circles -- a minority even in the US) leave it as a stub, which would fit quite well as a section in this list. That it lived and died before the internet means that it is unlikely that much in the way of additional sources, and thus further expansion, will be forthcoming. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you confidently assert that:

• "few outside the US would even have heard of it", and
• "its impact would mainly be in Evangelic circles".

In reality,

• CAUSA was far more active in Latin America that in the US, and
• its activities were political, not evangelical. -Exucmember (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Exucmember, if you had actually been reading my comment you would have noticed that the two statements were about the source, Christianity Today, not CAUSA:
   • "Christianity Today is an Evangelical Christian periodical" -- hence "its impact would mainly be in Evangelic circles".
   • It is a sectarian American magazine, so it is hardly surprising that "few outside the US would even have heard of it".
2. As to your claim that "CAUSA was far more active in Latin America that in the US", as far as I can tell the cited sources give no indication whatsoever of any "activ[ity] in Latin America". As with any claim of the (often much-hyped) extent of UC-affiliated activities, WP:RS is needed to back it up.
3. What we currently have as sources are:
   • a Washington Post article -- high profile source, but unknown contents
   • the Christianity Today article -- low-mid level profile source, lengthy coverage of CAUSA
   • Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting -- marginal source, bare mention of CAUSA

That's fairly thin pickings, resulting in an article that is currently only two sentences. I would suggest that either (RS-backed) expansion is needed, or the article should be merged here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am going to remove unsourced info from the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Summit Council for World Peace

I couldn't find any secondary coverage for this group, so a merge would be fine with me. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thematic or hierarchical classification?

Should these organisations be arranged by principally by theme (Peace, Education, etc) or hierarchy (flow of funds and/or control). This article started out based on Universal Peace Federation, so started out as the latter, but much of the new additions have been on the former scheme. A couple of articles that are in the process of being (potentially) merged are UPF-funded (Professors World Peace Academy & New World Encyclopedia), so it would probably be a good idea to thrash this out now. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In some cases it might be hard to find out exactly how an organization is funded, that's one point. Another is that the dividing of the organizations into groups is mainly to make it more easy for the readers, rather than just giving a list. I also would suggest that calling organizations "peace organizations" might be controversial to some people. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of UPF

If UPF information becomes so vast as to dwarf the rest of the article, we might:

• create a condensed summary (or simply a list) here
• put a {{main}} link to Universal Peace Federation
• move the full text of UPF there

Not that I'm suggesting this for this week; all of us will first need to pull together and do the hard work of researching and writing about UPF. (It's easy to talk about work; reminds me of the feller who said, "I love farm work. I could watch it all day." ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly unlikely -- the reason we turned this into a list (on the basis of the corpse of the old UPF article) in the first place is that these organisations (including UPF) have not garnered sufficient reliable and independent coverage to warrant an article or meet WP:ORG. The UPF section (now that Steve has excised the unverifiable material) is quite short, and I suspect that it doesn't contain a single third-party ref. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New World Encyclopedia

I thought the "New World Encyclopedia" grew out of the as yet unnamed "Encyclopedia project" that IRF was working on in the late eighties. If so, wouldn't it be wholly inaccurate to introduce it as "New World Encyclopedia, a Wikipedia spin-off"? The reference says absulutely nothing about Wikipedia, so this seems to be some editor's uninformed opinion. Later in the paragraph, the phrase "Similar to Wikipedia" is used, which seems acceptable (but redundant at the moment). On the other hand, my understanding is that editors are paid, and the encyclopedia may not be edited by unknown people from the internet, so the biggest similarity seems to be that the same open source software is used, a very superficial consideration. Steve, since you're actually working on the project, can you clarify this? -Exucmember (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a Wikipedia spin-off per se, although I may have written that in haste. It is an independent project which heavily relies on WikiMedia resources: the MediaWiki software of course, article drafts from Wikipedia and images from Wikimedia Commons. The articles are fact-checked, merged and so forth. Occasionally a new article is commissioned (such as Intelligent Design), but this is also free licensed.

I intended to say NWE should be listed in "forks and mirrors". See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#New_World_Encyclopedia. It is a content fork, but it's fully compliant with GFDL, and is in fact a "friendly fork". I discussed it personally with User:Jimbo and User:Angela to make sure we were doing it right. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Someone more familiar with it than I am should probably modify the text to avoid the redundancy (as well as the misconception some readers may have that it's just a copycat of Wikipedia). Someone might also add a few words about its purpose that distinguishes it from Wikipedia, if that has been stated in published sources. -Exucmember (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

IIFWP vs IRFWP

I take it that the 'Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace' (now UPF) and the 'Inter-Religious Federation for World Peace' were/are separate organisations? Their names are remarkably similar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the list of links here: http://www.familyfed.org/. The IIFWP redirects to the UPF site and the IRFWP has its own site. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

American Freedom Coalition

I would support merging American Freedom Coalition. It no longer seems to be active (has no website) and the article has only one source. Some church members, one per state, are still called AFC leaders but this is just an in-church thing. Not notable to the average WP reader. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"AFC appears to be dormant; its phone was not answered and its Falls Church office was unmanned on a recent visit."[1] -- and this was 1997. Which reminds me of another point. Our 'Other' section is getting unwieldy. Would it be reasonable to create a dormant/defunct section? Or would that too frequently require WP:OR? Regardless, we need some more categories. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its article should be deleted. Another problem is the nature of the organization is not at all clear (and its relationship to the UC) if the only source is a somewhat hostile news article. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Humanitarian" organisations

As far as I can tell, only IRFF appears to actually involved in humanitarian aid. The list section-lead is mendacious in that it states: "In addition to Universal Peace Federation projects (above), there are a number of organizations whose purpose is to promote peace through dialogue, and a few involved in relief efforts" when it is only the "few" (currently one) at the end that is relevant to the topic title. If encouraging "peace through dialogue" is sufficient to make an organisation "humanitarian" then a very wide range of bodies, not normally described or thought of as "humanitarian organizations", would meet this standard. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few UC organizations that provide aid. My daughter spent a couple of weeks in Mississippi helping the Katrina victims with CARP. I went ahead and put the "humanitarian" organizations in the list of "others" since that category seems to be contentious. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure a number of UC-organisations do do such work, but the problem is (i) whether the organisations on the list fall into this group & (ii) whether we can verify this. This is particularly a concern where it isn't self-evident from the organisation's name/brief description that this would be a focus (I probably wouldn't have guessed this of CARP, just on the basis of its name/article description, for example). Also, organisations probably should be classified on the basis of their primary focus. This still leaves us with the question of uncontroversial and/or verifiable categorisations of these organisations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing about CARP is that the name has been used by different organizations with different focuses. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! That would make accurately characterising/classifying it/them somewhat problematical. Given how murky the aims/activities of a number of these organisations are, if one can't even assume that the same name=same organisation, the whole thing turns into quicksand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is why we need good sources. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Hrafn wants to deny that these five organizations have a primarily humanitarian purpose. Here's the dictionary definition of "humanitarian" (dictionary.com, the only place I looked):

hu·man·i·tar·i·an Audio Help [hyoo-man-i-tair-ee-uhn or, often, yoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

• –adjective

1. having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.
2. of or pertaining to ethical or theological humanitarianism.
3. pertaining to the saving of human lives or to the alleviation of suffering: a humanitarian crisis.

• –noun

1. a person actively engaged in promoting human welfare and social reforms, as a philanthropist.
2. a person who professes ethical or theological humanitarianism.

It simply is not acceptable to redefine "humanitarian" as "humanitarian aid". "Other" is not as helpful to the reader as "humanitarian". -Exucmember (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Exucmember 'doesn't understand' why I would actually demand evidence of actual humanitarian work (e.g. "helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people", "saving of human lives" or "alleviation of suffering") in order to classify an organisation as "humanitarian". As to 'redefining' "humanitarian", I would note the humanitarian organization currently redirects to aid agency. "Other" is quite simply symptomatic of the lack of reliable third-party information on what it is that many of these organisations do (beyond hosting lavish conferences). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think that it is useful. From a Unificationist point of view all UC organizations are humanitarian. For instance CAUSA was trying to alleviate human suffering by getting rid of Marxism, a notable source of human suffering. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that helps readers get a sense of what these organizations are would be valuable; even an imperfect or vague label is far superior to "other". A Wikipedia article's redefining "humanitarian" as "humanitarian aid" is not particularly relevant. But I'm not attached to "humanitarian". We ought to try to create helpful categories, however, and this is especially true if the entries are going to be alphabetized, which would not have been my choice. "Organizations promoting peace" is better than "Other", but only 3 of the 5 "humanitarian" organization would fit. What about Project Volunteer? It was all over the country in the 80s at least; it was big in California, but in Chicago, for example, it was one of the city's 5 "food banks", a kind of wholesaler for aid organizations, delivering literally tons of food. If Project Volunteer is added, it can share an aid category with IRFF. Either way let's cut down on "Other". Steve, you know these organizations; how would you characterize and group them? -Exucmember (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "community organizations" or "social organizations". "Inter-religious organizations" is another possible category. Even "anti-communist organizations" might be considered. One thing I am trying to keep in mind is that the wording should be okay with both supporters and critics of the movement. They are the ones who will be doing the editing, although I hope that people who are sincerely interested in learning more will find the list useful.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "social organizations" because it's far too vague. "Community organizations" is only a little better, but may be misleading because the reader may assume the focus is work in local neighborhoods. "Political organizations" is already in the article, and is much better than "anti-communist organizations", which would exclude at least two of the organizations on the short (thus manageable) list in this category. Specific is better than vague, without getting unnecessarily verbose. "Inter-religious organizations" is good (better than "humanitarian") in that it accurately reflect a key focus of Unificationism. Would it exclude any organizations to specify further that we're talking about "Organizations sponsoring inter-religious dialogue" or something similar? If we can let the reader know what these organizations actually do, it's a plus. An alternative would be to describe in a phrase or sentence what an organization or a category of organizations does. These should be sourced, but it would be alright to say "The organization's stated purpose is _____." (A critic might find a source that argues a deviation from a stated purpose.) -Exucmember (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

'Interfaith organisations' would seem to be another alternative, especially as both Interfaith & Category:Interfaith already exist, and seem to be consonant with these organisations' stated aims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good. "Interfaith organisations" is better than "Inter-religious organizations". -Exucmember (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to write a short intro to the interfaith section, like the business section has. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we wish to make 'Universal Peace Federation' a subsection of 'Interfaith organizations'? It would help with article flow, and would mean that we could avoid having to (clumsily) refer to it in the section intro?

The ideal format (at least from my viewpoint) would be:

1. category title/category intro;
2. bullet points for minor organisations within that category;
3. subsections for major organisations within that category (including organisations with many subsidiary minor organisations needing their own bullet-points).

This may not be always possible (for instance for organizations that defy categorisation), but I think trying to follow it as much as possible will keep the list structured and help prevent it becoming "an indiscriminate collection of information" (per WP:NOT). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "Interfaith organizations" should be only for those whose main focus is bringing people of different religions together. UPF does not quite fit that profile. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Hrafn's organizational format proposal, and I agree that it would be good. I have the same concern as Steve, however, about UPF; otherwise I would have moved it already. CARP does not fit easily into a category either. But both these are major organizations that shouldn't be shunted to the "Other" category at the end of the list. I considered something along the lines of "major" or "central" organizations for a first group, but am not fully satisfied with the implication that all the others are minor. Both these are a bit like the church itself, an alternate church-type organization with a a bit of a different focus. Steve, can you think of a logical category that would group UPF and CARP together in a first section? "Evangelical organizations" isn't quite right. UPF is new so I'm not too familiar with it, but it sounds very similar to IIFWP - a lot like the church but a bit more political (like CARP), with a strong component of humanitarian projects. -Exucmember (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a nasty suspicion that my proposal might be self-defeating -- that any of the organisations large enough to warrant a sub-section will turn out to be too broad to be categorisable. The best descriptions I can think of (as an outsider) for such organisations as CARP & UPF would be something like 'grassroots' or 'missionary' (the latter in its sense of 'going forth and doing good works' as well as 'proselytization'). They appear to be the organisation most concerned with dealing with individuals, rather than with organisations and leaders (which seems to be the main focus of many of the others). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that this is supposed to be a list of organizations. I don't think it's our job to explain them. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the organizational structure would be easier for the reader to apprehend quickly if it were parallel, that is, sections consist of types of organizations, subsections of organizations. What about something like "Multi-faceted organizations"? I think Hrafn's idea of "Grassroots organizations" would be better than leaving the structure as it is. -Exucmember (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I like "multi-facteted." It implies that they are major without saying the other, more narrowly focused, groups are minor. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange article

[ personal attack phrases deleted ] This is just a strange article. As I look through the history of this, it seems to have been started by someone who wants to have UC members wear a star-of-David so that the can be identified and discriminated against. Is there any list of Pope-affiliated or Mohammad-affiliated organizations anywhere? And some of the organizations listed only have received money from UC sources, but have an independent board and thus with this as a criteria, maybe one has to list the Catholic Church and the Mormons as UC-affiliated organizations. What is the purpose of this beyond bigotry? And the supporting documents are bizarre. One can find negative articles about any organization, but that does not mean they are authentic. There is one strange article that was here that made up a straw-man organization, the "Moon Organization," lumped all kinds of organizations into that (for profit and not-for profit), and then found problems with a few organizations and on that basis tried to discredit all of the organizations lumped together in that mythical entity. They even said the nonprofit organizations could not be nonprofit, because of the for-profit organizations in the "Moon Organization." That is a legitimate reference? 24.44.161.136 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think an article on UC affiliated organizations is a good idea. It is a good resource for people who want to find out more about the Unification movement.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Exucmember for reposting this empty and personal-attack ridden rant. To our anonymous flame-baiting friend:

1. According to a corollary to Godwin's law, "the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically 'lost' whatever debate was in progress" -- so you forfeited this debate by the manner in which you started it -- really clever.
2. As anybody who has even the slightest clue about comparative religion would realise, the equivalent of "Unification Church affiliated" is not " Pope-affiliated or Mohammad-affiliated", but rather "Catholic-affiliated" and "Islamic-affiliated" -- and there are in fact such lists as List of Catholic organizations not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and categories as Category:Catholic lay societies & Category:Islamic organizations. Please get your facts straight before lobbing incendiaries.
3. If by "some of the organizations listed only have received money from UC sources, but have an independent board" you mean WANGO -- a majority of its 'International Council Members' hold leadership positions in other Unification Church affiliated organizations. Hardly "independent". If you want to argue any of the others, cite evidence in a reliable source.
4. The "purpose of this", as explicitly stated in a thread above, was to provide an article into which a myriad of non-notable articles on Unification Church affiliated organizations could be merged into and/or redirected to, rather than simply deleting them.

Bring wild accusations of "bigotry" and Nazi-Germany references to this talkpage again, and they will be reverted -- as your above rant should have stayed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't ExUC. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually deleted the most objectionable parts, including the reference to "Nazi-like" (even though this was not really along the lines of Godwin's Law, but was used in conjunction with the comparison to having Jews wear a Star of David, which the new editor has correctly identified as regrettably close to the purpose of most similar lists that exist on the Internet). I'm well aware that members are very sensitive to anything they perceive may be a form of "persecution". My edit summary comment about "giving a little leeway to new editor" referred to my not deleting the whole paragraph, as I think it's valuable to allow people to make their point (even when they're mad and being less than civil). I see a way to delete another word which most would consider a personal attack which I didn't think of before, so I'm doing that now. He also makes a good point that a lot of critique of the Unification Church is of very poor quality, and I think editors here can use their judgment and be a little discerning, leaving out the sloppiest, lowest quality criticism. -Exucmember (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Star of David" analogy is massively inapt, as:

1. this list only identifies organisations (most of which aren't even active at a grassroots level), not individuals. If it were a 'hit-list' similar to those that anti-abortion activists produce of doctors who perform abortions, that would be a different matter;
2. most churches are quite open about their constituent organisations (often including the church's name, or that of a prominent church figure, in the organisation's name), so when a church appears to be obfuscating the connection (and in the case of WANGO, outright denying it) it leads, not unreasonably, to suspicion and curiosity;
3. the original Nazi 'Star of David' scheme targeted an ethnic minority, not a religious ones (in that it included Jews, and Jewish families, who had converted to Christianity).

In case you hadn't noticed, the internet loves a conspiracy theory, the more bizarre, the better. So if a church with strange beliefs, disguised offshoots, pots of money, and rumours of all sorts of improprieties appears, you can guarantee that they'll get more attention than anything since the Knights Templar. This isn't "persecution", even if much of the coverage is scathing, and even scurrilous. Of course this does not mean that we should include such material in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

CARP

How is it that there are only two lines describing CARP? This is much less than New World Encyclopedia or PWPA. There ought to be a fuller description of this "multi-faceted organization". -Exucmember (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One thing is that CARP started out as an anti-communist organization, to counter communist activities on college campuses in Japan. Then, in the USA at least, it became a kind of alternative UC, or at least tried to be. Now it seems to be mainly an organization for second generation college students. The complaints mentioned in the article were probably about STF witnessing centers, of which there were 2 in the country -- I think now 1. STF is a program where second generation people go out witnessing, fundraising, and doing various community and church programs for two years between high school and college. There are about 100 or so taking part at any one time. Most CARP programs (in the USA) are mainly social clubs for UC students, of course doing various service projects, etc. like other student groups. I don't know where you are going to find all this information in "reliable sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I think too much info is given on the PWPA and the encyclopedia, for a list of organizations. If people want to learn more they can visit their websites. If there are secondary sources then an article should be written. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and took off all the comments about CARP. CARP has had thousands of members over the years. Most current members are young people born into the UC and have nothing to do with any controversies. Also the opinions expressed in college newspapers are mostly not very unbiased. There is always the option to restart the article on CARP so that criticism could be included in a balanced way. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Living persons

Actually WP policy says that all articles are covered by BLP policy. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

All articles are, to the extent that they discuss living people. However that policy does not cover discussion of organisations -- as they are not living people. Given that this article does not include significant discussion of living people, only organisations, the tag is largely superfluous (as if you placed it on this article, you should place it on every article that made any mention of any living person, for consistency). Therefore placing it here would appear to be WP:POINT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have added the BLP box to many articles that are not strictly bios. In this case unduly weighted criticism of CARP reflects on CARP members, most of whom have not been involved in any controversy. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The CARP material discusses no individual members (and hasn't AFAIK ever done so), so raises no BLP issues. Again AFAIK, the WP:RSs on CARP are largely negative, so it is hardly surprising that (per WP:WEIGHT) the coverage on this article has been likewise negative. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both WP:BLP & WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Different kinds of relationship

The Unification Movement (UM) is not the Unification Church. Sun Myung Moon and his followers have established many organizations (some might say countless ;-) but not all of them are affiliated with one other. The relationship of affiliation has legal implications.

For example, CARP is not "the student branch of the Unification Church". It is incorporated separately, because among other things it frequently made political statements of the kind which are forbidden to a church.

The Unification Church of Ohio, however, is affiliated with the Unification Church of New York. In fact (last I checked) their bank accounts were even linked.

What all the UM-related organizations have in common is their link to Rev. Moon. In each case, either he started them personally, had a follower start it, or it was the follower's own idea.

Thus we must distinguish between:

1. for-profit businesses with Moon ties (they pay taxes)
2. organizations of an educational nature (non-profit)
3. religious organizations (also non-profit)

I don't know if these distinction is more important in the US than abroad, but America is the center of the "providence". --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The 'Unification Movement' (Unification Movement merely redirects to this article) has no existence independent of the Unification Church. It's organisations are more or less wholly funded and controlled by the church. When the church ceases funding and ceases directing emphasis at them, they cease to be. The movement has no centre of gravity apart from the church. Therefore what affiliation they have is necessarily to the church. The movement has no hierarchy (leadership, headquarters, etc) with which to affiliate. It is a purely descriptive term.
2. Separate incorporation does not mean lack of affiliation. There are many affiliated groups that are separately incorporated.
3. What evidence do you have that CARP is not "the student branch of the Unification Church". Can you even demonstrate that it still exists as a coherent organisation? www.worldcarp.org does not appear to have been updated since around the time of the death of Hyo Jin Moon, its last leader (who is still listed as the current leader), and www.worldcarpusa.org redirects to www.wcarpusa.org which no longer exists (and a large number of other websites in the 'Global Network' are likewise MIA).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would personally be quite happy to describe CARP as "the student branch of the Unification Church", as long as you kind find a reliable source that says so. If it has died on the vine (so to speak), we can also find a source for that.

The businesses started by church members are not all controlled by the church. Finding the fine line that distinguishes, say, a highly successful member-founded business (which donates its profits to the church) and a church-owned business (like the car factory in North Korea) is something I bet a lot of readers would like - me included.

It wouldn't take too much googling to find SOME source who asserts that Rev. Moon's role as church founder means that everything he does is "church-affiliated". I'm curious to see what you come up with there. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Membership and involvement

The percentage of UC members in any given Movement-related organization varies a lot. In CARP (at least when I was a member), I thought all the members and leader were church members, i.e., that there was a 100% overlap. For the ACLC, much less than half of the members are UC members. As for the Science Conference (ICUS), probably none of the scientists invited to give papers would have been UC members. So far, no one in the UC has won a Nobel Prize.

It's important to make the distinction between church and movement, because involvement in a Moon-related organization is not the same as membership in the Unification Church. First of all, it can't be claimed by the church that you are UC member (or even a "Moon follower") just because you attend a scientific, educational or even religious conference. This may be a disappointment for church boosters, who want to claim as many members as possible. Secondly, it can be important for professionals who feel a need to make a distinction between theological agreement (which they might NOT have) and working together in an ecumenical way. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jonathan Wells once presented a paper to the ICUS. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all the seminary grads who went on to get PhDs who didn't leave the church by 1990 have presented at ICUS.

Ed, are you saying ICUS isn't affiliated with the Unification Church? If your explanation is meant to give a justification for moving articles to "Unification Movement", it falls well short. "Unification Church" is the name that's well-known, and the term used by the sources, so unless you're going to make a case for Rep. Donald Fraser's "Moon Organization", you should accept "Unification Church" and not try to change the terminology here to in-house Unificationist language that has no currency in the wider world. I agree that Unification Movement would have been a better name, so perhaps you should ask Sun Myung Moon before he dies why he insisted on using such old-fashioned language in the U.S. -Exucmember (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An older American member recently told me that Rev. Moon didn't want to start an organization called a "church" in the first place but that members had insisted on it. Of course this might be one of those good stories that are not really true. Anyway the article on the Unification Church says that it is a "new religious movement." I agree with Exuc here. The common name of the Unification Movement is "Unification Church" and that is what should be used here. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Exuc, I don't know what relationship existed between the church and ICUS. All I know for sure is that both organizations were started by Rev. Moon; hence, both are part of the Unification Movement. Attending a Moon science conference doesn't mean you agree with his theology, let alone that you are a member of his church.

How was ICUS funded? I assume it was some UM source: but was it the church? If so, how much came from overseas, e.g., Japan? Whom should we ask about this? Maybe Gordon Anderson or some of those UPF guys? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to link business and church

Here's something from the Chicago Tribune:

• Wang Kim, a Chicago-area youth ministry director and Moon critic, was certain he could find local Korean Christian sushi restaurateurs who didn't use True World because they might consider his views heretical. As Kim said, Moon "says that he is the Messiah, and we hate that."

• But Kim called back empty-handed. "I checked with several of my friends," he said, "and they know it is from Moon but they have to use [them because] they have to give quality to their customers." [2]

I can recall dozens of attempts to thwart the Unification Movement's operations by contacting people and "revealing" that there was a link between the organization and Rev. Moon. Of course, it's all based on the preconceived notion that there's something sinister about the man and his movement. I wonder how many more decades it will take before people realize that all these dire warnings were based on nothing but fear and ignorance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people are already there. Others will take longer. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Per discussion in #CAUSA I'm proposing that CAUSA International be merged here, per WP:MERGE#Rationale #3 "Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If the intent is simply to consolidate short articles about the Unification Movement into a single page for easy reference, than I approve. If it's an excuse to delete important information, then I oppose.

Our goal should be to work together to add information about worthy topics - not to promptly delete each and every unsourced statement. (There are hundreds of articles on other topics with fact tags which have been in place for over a year.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed: your rant ignores (i) WP:AGF, (ii) WP:V & WP:NOR and (iii) the contents of CAUSA International. If you cannot be bothered to either familiarise yourself with content and policy, then I don't see why anybody should bother listening to you. You failed to give an answer to the proposal that wasn't so equivocal as to be worthless, and the rest of your rant is both off-topic & grossly distorts policy. If you want to work on an encyclopaedia that has its sole aim to add "important information" (no matter how unverifiable) to "worthy topics" (no matter how idiosyncratically defined), then I'd suggest that you'd be more at home on Conservapaedia than here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I actually think that: 1. WP has way too many articles and many are so short that they are uninteresting. (The New World Encyclopedia is much better. :-)) 2. CAUSA International and the UC in general suffer from major problems on WP due to lack of good sources. I agree with Hrafn that this article should be merged since there is not enough info to make a worthwhile article. Note that it is controversy and differences of opinion that make an article interesting. In this case the article is just about the existence of its subject. There are no published opinions saying, "Yes, CAUSA helped defeat communism" or "No, it was ineffective", etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when is "interesting" the standard on WP?Borock (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I thought it was the communists who wanted to rewrite history. This organization was considered important at the time, as shown by articles in the Washington Post and Christianity Today. There is no requirement to merge an article on a topic that people might want to learn more about just because the article happens to be short. Encyclopedia articles should be short so that the average reader can get the basic information on a topic and people who want to learn more than that can be directed to other sources.Borock (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  Per Borock, let's not do a merge, if there is no strong objection to CAUSA International being a short standalone article. I don't care where the information about Unification Movement projects goes. I just want to make sure that a hasty merge-and-delete or merge-and-redirect doesn't end up removing valuable information. (As I've said elsewhere, if the main problem is that the information is unsourced and that one contributor thinks this is an urgent problem, then we should all work together to find references instead of removing information. That's what the fact tags are for. You know, there are hundreds of articles with fact tags that are over one year old! --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hasty"? The only thing "hasty" here is Ed's repeated creation of "hasty", ill-thought-out, WP:OR articles, often with built-in {{merge}}-tags. He then whines in piteous faux-martyrdom when his OR ejaculations eventually get deleted (often having sat around for some months as full-text merges). I am sick of this, as I am sick of his current canard -- that of employing WP:TEAMWORK in a tendentious attempt to shift HIS WP:BURDEN to source the claims he introduces into mainspace. Stop peddling this WP:Complete bollocks Ed, nobody's buying. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article." This is, "an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Hrafn, do you feel that this policy applies to you? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I apply that policy. Generally I tag unsourced material and "giv[e] them enough time to provide references" -- generally at least a month or two. I would note that this policy explicitly leaves whether, and how much, time to allow to editor discretion. One exception is when "the overall state of the article" is that it is completely unsourced -- in that situation I tend to redirect or WP:PROD. None of this is an abuse of the editor discretion allowed under WP:BURDEN. And none of this ameliorates your NEAR UBIQUITOUS FAILURE to provide reliable sources for your contributions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge, per the above rationale as provided by Hrafn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref-bombing

Normally it would only require a single reference to demonstrate that an organisation is affiliated with the UC. Where the relationship may be controversial (i.e. may be subject to challenge), a second reference might be acceptable. 4-5 references (as we have for Global Peace Festival, Middle East Peace Initiative, CAUSA International, Universal Ballet & Sun Moon Peace Cup, most of which have their own articles anyway) is completely superfluous. Please desist in throwing extra refs. If you find a new ref that is more authoritative then replace the previous one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if an organization has its own article a reference here would not even be needed (although that might confuse some people). On the other hand on a group without an article additional references could be a good thing for readers looking for more information. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

References aren't meant to be a substitute for WP:ELs. If ELs on individual orgs are considered needed, then they should be added in the EL section at the end of the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Material that has nothing whatsoever to do with the merge proposal

Stop accusing me of what you do yourself. For months now, you've been saying that there is no Unification Movement but have not supplied even one source to back up your personal opinion.

Rodney Sawatsky made reference to the Unification Movement here:

• He wrote, "The spiritual and material, the physical and supernatural, the sciences and humanities, the subject and object, male and female, all religions and all denominations, all the dualities of the created universe must be restored to their essential unity under God. To achieve these ends Unification seeks to be a catalyst. It is not interested in becoming another sect but acts as a movement which can disappear organizationally as its goals are attained. [3] (emphasis added for Wikipedia discussion)

Unless consensus objects to Sawatsky as a reliable source, I intend to add this to the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Theology Today seems like a reliable source to me. I would recommend adding that quote in some form to Unification Church. Dr. Sawatsky is very insightful. (I'm assuming that a person writing for TT would be a Dr.)  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, please use full sourcing next time. Looks like webpage you linked here is accessible only trough university campus. But Theology today looks reliable enough.--DeeMusil (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Get a bloody clue Ed!

(For those who don't know what Ed is rambling on about, see Talk:Unification Church political activities#There is no 'Unification Movement' independent of the Unification Church.)

1. NO, I will not, cannot and need not prove that there is "no 'Unification Movement' independent of the Unification Church", any more than I will/can/need prove that there is no Unification Cossack Dancing Troop "independent of the Unification Church" or that there is no Unification Teapot "independent of the Unification Church". Proving a negative is generally impossible. It is for you, who was trying to claim that it is the 'Unification Movement' not the Unification Church that is the instigator of these "political activities" to prove that an independent movement does exist.
2. Your quote proves nothing of the sort. "It is not interested in becoming another sect but acts as a movement which can disappear organizationally as its goals are attained." Note the third person singular. It=the Unification Church = the "movement". No independent movement asserted by the source.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis by Hrafn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Unification Church" should be used as the name of the "Unification Movement" and/or the community of believers in the Divine Principle since it is the most commonly used term. Some confusion comes about due to the dual meaning of UC as also the name of the official organization. This should probably be explained in each case where there is an issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability of membership in this list

In response to questions raised on this topic on Talk:Dan Fefferman‎:

1. It has been the standard, since this list's inception, that inclusion on it requires a citation verifying the organization's affiliation with the Unification Church.
2. Where this affiliation is uncontroversial, a single citation has been considered sufficient (and more cites to be 'ref-bombing').
3. Where an editor considers the affiliation is controversial, or the cited source insufficiently reliable, they are welcome to include the appropriate inline tag, and an additional/replacement reference can be provided.
4. Alternatively, you can find additional sources verifying the affiliation using the {{find}} tag (here on talk, or in your sandbox), e.g. for 'Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles': {{find|Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles|Unification}} will list a large number of sources (many of them reliable) linking CARP to the UC. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
5. Please see the archives for additional discussion on this issue.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually look at it a little differently. To me the expression "Unification Church" means the whole community of people who believe in the teachings of Rev. Moon. So any organization of these people is related to the church. Why not take off the legalistic word "affiliated" and just call them "Unification Church organizations"? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it would give Ed Poor apoplexy. ;) More seriously, because the relationship is often more than a little ambiguous -- often it would seem simply a case of money and a senior church member being thrown at an idea. "Affiliated" allows for this degree of ambiguity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Unification Church related organizations" is also possible, and might be more inclusive than "affiliated." Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That fails to indicate if the 'relationship' is sympathetic or antagonistic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't think of that. :-) I would vote for "Unification Church organizations" then.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve: Ed kicks up enough fuss at the statement that these are "Unification Church affiliated organizations", can you imagine how much fuss he'd kick up at the more-closely-related-sounding "Unification Church organizations". Another problem is that the 'closer' we word it, the more problematical sourcing becomes (and the more likely that the article crosses over into WP:SYNTH). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It could also be "Unificationist organizations." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Status of CARP

Here's where we all agree:

• CARP and Unification Church have the same founder
• Their purpose dovetail in several respects

Here's where there's a dispute:

1. One newspaper called it the "student arm" of the church, but
2. CARP leadership has denied any "affiliation" with the church (in the sense of a dependency relationship, or being a branch or arm)

This is another excellent reason for reviving the Unification Movement article, where we can place all related organizations, even when such relationship is not an "affiliation" in the sense of church = main, org = subordinate part.

If there is a real-world dispute about whether (a) the church is the axle, and all other related org's are spokes on the wheer or (b) the church and the other related org's are all planets orbiting the sun (with perhaps the church as one of the closest planets - then Wikipedia should describe that dispute rather than trying to settle it (or writing as if it were already settled). --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The real facts

• CARP was founded by Moon
• According to the UC's at-least-semi-official history "[t]he Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles (CARP), founded by church members at Waseda University, Japan, in 1964" and held its second annual annual International Leadership Seminar "at the Unification Church's International Training Center in Barrytown, New York".
• Its most recent president was Moon's son, Hyo Jin Moon.
• Since Hyo Jin's demise its principle websites www.worldcarp.org & www.worldcarpusa.org have fallen over.

(I would note that all of this has already been brought to Ed's attention on Talk:Dan Fefferman.)

This combined with a WP:RS stating that it is the "student arm" of the church, is more than sufficient to list it as 'affiliated'. The claim that "CARP leadership has denied any 'affiliation' with the church (in the sense of a dependency relationship, or being a branch or arm)" is (i) unsourced, (ii) equivocal (affiliation does not necessarily mean dependent/branch/arm) & (iii) contradicted by known facts and reliable sources. I would further point to Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- which finds a wealth of further reliable sources linking CARP to the UC.

On the point of the 'Unification Movement', we have seen no evidence that there exists a movement with organisations having an existence and governance structure independent of the UC (with Moon himself at the head of it). On the contrary, we have seen senior church members and Moon's children appointed to senior positions in these organisations, and funding for them eb and flow according to their utility to the church and to Moon himself. A Church in Flux Is Flush With Cash clearly documents this lack of independence, and AFAIK, no reliable source disputes this -- so there is no controversy. There is no 'Unification Movement' apart from the UC and its purely subsidiary "affiliated organizations", therefore there is nothing to describe in a 'revived' Unification Movement article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, part of the problem is the dual meaning of the word "church" in the English language. The original meaning is a group of people who share the same religious beliefs. The secondary, but now more common, meaning is an organization with a religious mission. By the first CARP is 100% a part of the UC and always has been. By the second CARP and the HSA-UWC (or FFWPU) may or may not be affiliated in a legal sense. I personally don't think that is a very important issue, or one that would be of much interest to WP readers. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have been reading some of the history of the American UC, including Dr. Sontag's book. When the word "movement" was used back in those days it seemed to mean the movement of people to join the UC, or at least to believe in Rev. Moon. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. And Ed, I agree 100% that there should be an article on the Unification Movement. There already is: Unification Church :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by Hrafn's subheading: the "real" facts. To me, such a phrase indicates disagreement, but the first thing he does is affirm my first point, i.e. that we agree that the founder of the UC also founded CARP.

Hrafn, could you please tell me whether you agree (or disagree) with the following point?

• CARP and Unification Church have the same founder

After that, I will address the rest of this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Already answered -- see my first bullet-point above (it would appear to be the sole point of agreement). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Aman v. Handler

I would note that the finding of the court states:

The record suggests that CARP, from a formal point of view, is several different organizations with different geographic responsibilities. CARP was initially founded in Japan by student members of the Unification Church. Subsequently, a CARP-U. S. organization was founded with national responsibilities. State CARP organizations exist, as do local CARP organizations on college campuses. These organizations all bear some relation to the Unification Church, the exact nature of which is disputed in the record.

The court's finding that "These organizations all bear some relation to the Unification Church" is sufficient to list CARP as a whole as "affiliated". I could not find within that finding the court's acceptance of the assertion that CARP is "independent". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a reasonable person reading this article would think an issue was being raised about some legal concept of "affiliation." The facts that CARP was founded by Rev. Moon and the members are Unificationists should be enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The word related is better than the word affiliated because the former can indicate any kind of relation, while the latter implies "typically in a dependent or subordinate position". --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn's personal views

We should not follow one contributor's views. I have no idea what he means by a "reliable source". Is this supposed to mean that if one quotable or significant person gives an opinion that a contributor agrees with then there is no controversy? That the chosen viewpoint can be considered a fact?

There is actually a controversy between those who call CARP the "student arm" and those who deny this. If it so happens that the main parties to this dispute are (1) opponents of Rev. Moon and (2) supporters of Rev. Moon, this should not require us to pick one of these sides and to reject the other: that would violate our neutrality rules here.

The idea that it's not a movement (consisting of a church and other parts, some church-affiliated and some not) unless the other parts aren't loyal to Moon is merely Hrafn's personal view.

Let's keep our personal views out of this and stick with (A) the indisputable facts and (B) a neutral account of the controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UPF

I added something about UPF's leadership which was deleted hastily. It only took me 30 seconds of googling to find a ref. I'd prefer that contributors interested in improving the article help by locating references, rather than deleting information which is so easily confirmed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Page move by user Ed Poor

Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a conflict of interest at Unification Church-related articles and should not be making controversial page moves on this subject, certainly not against consensus. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of any conflict of interest, and you have not replied to the reasons I gave for the move. Please avoid making personal attacks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[4] Cirt (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Title

It has been pointed out that the meaning of the word "affiliated" is somewhat unclear. I would like to suggest leaving it out and calling the article "Unification Church organizations." Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and unless there are 8 others who disgaree, then there is no 85% consensus to keep "affiliated" in the title. Let's move it back now. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How about giving some others a little time to chime in? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't mean "today" when I said "now". It was in the sense of "now that ..."

If I don't see a consensus opposing the move within a week or so, then I will conclude that Cirt's objection of "against consensus" does not apply. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

to bring or receive into close connection as a member or branch, to associate as a member, to trace the origin of = "affiliate" is most appropriate term. The page should remain here. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We also need to define "church" and "organization." Or so it seems to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How so? Cirt (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, "church" has several meanings, the core one of which is the group of people who share a common religous practice. I'm sure "organization" could be defined in more than one way as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

American Life TV

The article defines UC affiliated organizations as those founded by Rev. Moon, or at least by church members. American Life TV, now ALN (TV channel) does not meet this definition and probably doesn't belong on the list. It was an already existing company purchased by the church and later sold to new owners as explained in its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It was owned and manipulated by Sun Myung Moon for almost 10 years. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the intro should be rewritten if the scope of the list is beyond organizations founded by Rev. Moon or the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"supported"

I see the word "supported" is now included in the first sentence, unless I overlooked it before. Is every organization supported (I guess that would mean given money or volunteer help) going to be included on the list? Just asking. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a form of affiliation, yes. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence could be a little more clear about what is meant by "affiliated." (It could be retitled "Organizations owned or supported by the UC.")Steve Dufour (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There could be a new section for organizations supported, but not owned by the church, like the University of Bridgeport. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you did that I think it would run afoul of WP:Original research.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem if UC support for the organizations is documented in reliable sources. Borock (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing merging American Freedom Journal here. The organisation that published it, American Freedom Coalition, already redirects here, and WP:MERGE rationales #3 'Text' & #4 'Context' would appear to apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree That makes sense, especially as there is so little information available on the publication. Wolfview (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support If the organization is already merged then merge the article on the magazine too. Besides which both are notable as an example of Unification Church activities, not so much for themselves. Borock (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will do the merge. Borock (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

As True World Group is (i) very short & (ii) has not received coverage since a short period in 2006, I'm proposing merging it here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Merge That sounds like a good idea to me. The article contains only 2 or 3 facts, which are pretty much already here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge makes sense to me too. Especially since the sources, the Chicago Tribune and the Willamette Weekly, are not really experts on the seafood business. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• It sounds like there is a consensus to merge. Borock (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it was merged. -A876 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

More orgs?

The article might have missed a few.

"The first 12,000 articles of New World Encyclopedia were funded by the generous support of UPF/IIFWP, and managed under contract, by Paragon House Publishers." [5]

• UPF is Universal Peace Federation, founded by the Moons.
  • a list of affiliated organizations
• IIFWP is "Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace". (iifwp.org now redirects to upf.org.)
• IRFWP is Inter Religious Federation for World Peace, founded by Moon in 1991.
• IIPC (mentioned with IIFWP)is "Interreligious and International Peace Council"
• Paragon House publishers - ties if any are less obvious. "Paragon House is a member of the Continuum International Publishing Group, New York." Continuum looks independent.

Sounds similar but not related:

• IIWP is Institute for Individual and World Peace "Foundation for the Study of Individual and World Peace" part of [Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness] (MSIA). -A876 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901005321/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200305/ai_n9239403/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200305/ai_n9239403
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912022526/http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=69082 to http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=69082

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)