Talk:Unification Thought

Thought versus Theology, notability

How is the subject matter of this article not theology, and thus legitimately part of the topic of Unification theology (itself an even worse sourced article)? It is a purely religious philosophy, and the article talks about "God" in pretty much every section.

Further, the article presents no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability, and in fact gives no indication that anybody outside the Unification Church has even noticed this topic's existence.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that this topic should not have a WP article. If people are interested they can go to UC sites and find out about UC beliefs first hand. There is no real point in having a WP article which repeats the same thing, especially as you said since there are no comments and criticisms from other points of view available. The Divine Principle (the basic beliefs of the church) itself has been criticised and commented on by others (especially fundamentalist Christians, feminists, and religious scholars) and so can have an interesting article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am amused that anybody would find the 'failure to give a set of decomposing blood-filtration organs of a member of Canis lupus dingo' to be "offensive". Now if it had been 'failure to give a posterior of a member of genus Rattus', I could understand it. ;) I will however note that Divine Principle currently lists no 'criticism and comments by others' -- or any sources at all for that matter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested that it should have, but that's a lot of work. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused that anyone would translate "rat's ass" into such an impenetrable circumlocution, but good humor is a step towards assuming good faith, so I claim this as progress. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, given that Steve found " 'gives a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys' " to be "offensive", I did not dare state the above phrase in the open (and am insincerely shocked that you would do so). But more important to this thread is the question of (i) finding sourcing for the vast wasteland of unsourced material in this article & (ii) finding some evidence that the wider world has noticed the existence of 'Unification Thought' as a differentiated topic from the UC & its theology more generally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is now down to its two sourced (but neither third-party-sourced) sentences, and a lead that both makes unsourced claims and fails to define the topic. I would suggest it's time to redirect. Is it more appropriate to redirect it. Would Sun Myung Moon or Divine Principle be the more appropriate target? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)