The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Unification Church. NW (Talk) 04:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Church antisemitism controversy[edit]

Unification Church antisemitism controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article was recently nominated for deletion and I voted to keep. (I am a Unification Church member BTW.) Since then it has been an object of contention and the focus of the article has been narrowed down so that it is mainly about one incident. Information about the Unification Church's support for Israel and the Jewish community has been removed, as well as information on Jewish support for the UC. I don't think there is enough for a stand alone article anymore and discussions are underway to merge the information to other articles. I thought it was a good idea to nominate for deletion a second time as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If discussions are underway to merge the info, why not just do that first? An AfD seems premature in this case. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was recently nominated and voted to be kept I thought it would give it a second chance rather than just taking it away by merging.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (preferred) or keep: the material is sufficiently well-sourced to meet WP:GNG, but is sufficiently short that a merge to Unification Church would be appropriate per WP:MERGE#Rationale #1 'Text'. If kept, it should probably be renamed to 'Unification Church and antisemitism', as there is no single "controversy". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Unless I missed something none of the sources used the word "controversy." Borock (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would note that we have simultaneously, a 'requested move', a 'merger proposal' (to American Jewish Committee) & an AfD on this article, all currently open, all initiated by Steve Dufour, and none of them (as of the time of this comment) supported by anybody else. This would appear to be abuse of process and/or forum shopping. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the article, and voted to keep, when there seemed to be a possibility for both sides of the "controversy" to be presented.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — we have way too many articles of the form "Group X and anti-Semitism" and most of them are heavily POV. *** Crotalus *** 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:' Hrafn's account of the facts appears accurate, even if I dispute his conclusion. Deletion means that the material must be removed from the encyclopedia, which is probably not what Steve wants. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Unification Church. The information in this article is important; however the article has serious problems, mainly original research and POV fork. I nominated it for deletion the first time. Borock (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created in August 2002 by a Unification Church member. Of what could it possibly be a "POV fork"? And what "original research" is left in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly when two things are put together, like "Unification Church" and "antisemitism", that is considered original research on WP. The information is about the Unification Church and should be on that main article, not segregated to a POV fork - regardless of who did that. Is the Unfication Church mentioned in any other articles on antisemitism? If not it is a clue that the topic is only notable relative to the Unification Church. Borock (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The UC is now mentioned at Jewish Defense League. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Only because you cherry-picked the tiny UC mention out of the dozens of items in the ADL chronology on the JDL, for inclusion in the latter's article. There's no indication that the JDL especially targeted the UC, so I've removed it. Nor is that an 'article on antisemitism', but rather on Jewish chauvinism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JDL, although a criminal, terrorist organization as you correctly pointed out, says that its purpose is to fight antisemitism "by any means necessary." So it is related to antisemitism. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked and they say "whatever" not "any." The original expression was in French, although Malcolm X made it popular. He himself did not follow it since there were many means he did not use. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That makes it an article on the violent response to antisemitism, which is at best only peripherally on the topic of antisemitism itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also made a few other changes to their article since it had some serious BLP problems. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is of lasting importance. While some Jews like the UC and cooperate with it, others condemn it because of the linkage between the Holocaust and Indemnity (Unification Church) that Rev. Moon has made. (Note: information about this issue is scattered and fragmented - there are nearly a half dozen different places in WP where it's mentioned. Consolidating all these into (a) one article or (b) one main article with one or more child articles using the ((main)) template would help.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please list these "half dozen different places in WP where it's mentioned"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• From the silence, I will take it that there is in fact no "nearly a half dozen different places" and no "scattered and fragmented" information needing "consolidating". Thus, per WP:MERGE, the situation is that this "page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it … makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic", i.e. Unification Church. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That's not what my silence means. I'm still hoping you will help me locate those places. You yourself have written on multiple article talk pages about this. I wish you would work more in the spirit of WP:TEAMWORK, because it is not possible for any of us by himself to produce a comprehensive and neutral article about such a controversial subject as the antisemitism charges against the Unification Church.
  2. I have been trying to accommodate opposing views, even when they are repugnant to me or even downright silly, because of my dedication to the founding principle of this encyclopedia. WP does not exalt an objective view or a consensus view; rather, the "neutral point of view" policy requires that each view be presented fairly, without picking any of them as valid or invalid. We simply report that A said B about C.
  3. As a church opponent, you would naturally be more familiar with opposing views, while I as a church supporter and member am more familiar with the church's own views. We can help each other to create a comprehensive, balanced and (above all) neutral article by filling in the gaps wherever they exist.
  4. So, rather than deleting views that promote the "other side" we should each diligently search for the sources from which those views ultimately stem. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal rebuttal:

1. Making factual claims for which you have no evidence is at best truthiness, at worst lying. Either way, it has no place on an AfD. Expecting those who dispute your claims to find the fact to back them up is totally unreasonable (and puts them in the impossible position of trying to prove that these "places" don't exist).
2. I would suggest you read WP:WEIGHT again. It states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (My emphasis) This means that you have to find reliable sources first.
3. I am not a "church opponent". I am an "opponent" of your attempts to create large amounts of material on the UC that are neither verifiable to reliable to sources nor notable (and generally nowhere near neutral to boot). I do this even for articles whose viewpoints I do share.
4. So stop trying to get others to do your work for you, get off your arse, and find some reliable sources to substantiate the views that you want to include in articles.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 23:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  00:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to main article. This looks like a POV fork. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.