Talk:Unification Church and sex

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Nomination Withdrawn.

Religion: New religious movements

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
	This redirect is supported by New religious movements work group.

LGBTQ+ studies

This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Unification Church#Sex]] The anchor (#Sex) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Clues?

Googling "Unification Church "Clues that sex is"" turns up nada, other that wiki-based stuff. Are these lists official church doctrine? Citation? Fireplace 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up this talk page, and to answer your question, I don't think the "clues" stuff is church doctrine. It has a Hindu tinge to it, possibly intended as a "compare and contrast" piece. But that would make it other original research, or a personal essay. I'm going to shorten or delete that section. --Uncle Ed 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Wow, you really worked hard on that merge. And everything you tagged with {cn} really needs a citation. I'm tempted to delete each cn-tagged sentence, pending discovery of a ref (or all but the first, which is common knowledge). But lemme ponder a while.

Good working with you, Fireplace! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. =) Fireplace 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraged by this, I have added a section on Unification Church views to Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, with references. --Uncle Ed 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010: Merge

Hello, I think this article should be merged with Unification Church. If nobody says a word, I'll take it as a tacit approval. LiptonT (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:LENGTH apply? Will the merge make the target article too long? Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm sure that conciseness is preferred, therefore the target article and this article should be reduced, and merged. LiptonT (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take a long look at the history and evolution of the UC-focused articles. There's probably room for intelligent merging and redundancy-reduction, but they have been the subject of concerted elimination campaigns in the past, so what you see in many cases has already been reduced from a prior state. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Hope the moonies don't get violent. LiptonT (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religioustolerance.org

I propose removing the {{verify source}} tag because:

the RSN post cited by Hrafn is nearly six months old, which is a long time in the life of the Internet,
it doesn't establish any consensus anyways, as multiple editors argued both sides of the issue and it was never marked resolved,
It doesn't appear to reference the scope of other print media citing religioustolerance.org. Repeating the Amazon.com search described at [1] today (17 months after that page was last updated) yields 499 hits in books,
it is published on CD, not just as a website: [2],
And finally, because religioustolerance.org is cited by such a weide variety of generally reliable print sources, it clearly establishes that it is treated as a reliable, independent source by traditional publishers from throughout the religious spectrum. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in this case. As a UC member myself I know that what was posted there was for the most part true and accurate. I have also not heard anyone dispute it. I'm aware that some people don't the source because they feel it is too friendly to "cults", but in this case that doesn't make any difference. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens is misrepresenting the RS/N -- it showed a clear majority against it being an RS, with only two dissents that I could find.
The material is self-published, by an author with no relevant (e.g. religious studies, social sciences, etc) qualifications.
The site generally appears to be cited for reasons of convenience/accessibility rather than any particular reliability/profundity.
If Jclemens believes that the site has improved in the last six months, then they are welcome to seek a re-evaluation at RS/N. Unless and until a new consensus is formed, the old one should stand.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

critical analysing the activities of unification church

critical analysing the activities of unification church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.91 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the recent additions are not really on topic, that is they are not about Unification Church views of sexuality. I'm sure it's interesting to read about sex rituals for lots of people but that is not really the topic of this articles. It would be better to have an article on the Three Day Ceremony and one on the allegations of the "Six Marys" than put both here. (Or one on both together) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also made a suggestion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion Steve Dufour (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. I'm coming from the Religion project. A few points come to mind. The Six Marys incident is at present treated with separate sections in the main Unification Church article, our biography of Moon, and this article. "Overkill" is a word that springs unbidden to mind. I think by policies and guidelines such material is only supposed to be discussed at that length in one article, and it might be a good idea for us to choose which. Regarding the three-day ceremony, while that is clearly about sex, it is also a part of a larger subject dealing with marriage, and comes after an equally significant seven-day fast. Personally, given the importance of the topic of "family" in the church, I think it might best be presented in context in an article on the Unification Church and the family, which, so far as I can tell, doesn't exist yet. This article could be potentially expanded to cover that broader subject, but if it were I think it would also have to be renamed. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church Steve Dufour (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic material removed

I took out: "The Three-Day [Marriage Consummation] Ceremony" certainly an interesting topic but not about "Unification Church views of sexuality"; "Misogynist, homophobic, and misanthropist remarks" this material might be included in some form, but the section title is OR to say the least; "Korea is a giant penis, Japan a gaping vagina" quoting a speech but not about "Unification Church views of sexuality"; "The Six Marys (accusations of group ritual sex)" not about "Unification Church views of sexuality" I have suggested a new article Unification Church sex rituals in which information on this and the Three Day Ceremony could be given (there seems to be some public interest in this topic due to it coming up often both in the news media and in WP articles.) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]