This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This category doesn't really make sense for Unificationism. Is Hyo Jin Moon, born and raised in Korea, a musician who wrote his songs in Korean, an American? What about Sun Myung Moon, who has lived in America for almost 40 years? What about Hak Ja Han? Is the decision of category going to be made on the basis of something as insignificant as a green card? There is a very strong internationalist flavor to Unificationism (even within the central True Family), so nationality is not the best way to break it down. I think we should go back to the previous categorization rather than use this one, which was added by someone who in other ways demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of Unificationism. -Exucmember (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other members of religions are subdivided by nationality. There's really no good reason that this one should be any different. Other religions also have "strong internationalist flavors", and others might even be offended at being divided by nationality (e.g., Category:Jehovah's Witnesses by nationality), and yet we still subdivide them. The fact remains that subdividing by nationality remains the easiest way of linking these people into the Category:People by nationality category structure. That being said, people should be placed in the correct nationality — if you have sources that some of the people in the "Americans" category are not American, then by all means they should be moved to the correct one.
I'm a bit disappointed that you would set up the straw man of accusing me, the creator of the category, of "in other ways demonstrat[ing] a clear lack of understanding of Unificationism". Beyond the fact that it's a borderline personal attack, it's a bit childish to base your argument on the identity of the person who created the category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I had no intention of offending. My memory was that someone who hadn't edited Unification-related articles previously had come through and made edits, some of which showed some unfamiliarity with Unificationism, and I didn't expect to ever see that person show up again.
You're right that some might even take offense at the categorization, including some Unificationists. That was less of a concern to me than the fact that it just didn't seem like the best way to categorize. But I already suspected before starting this discussion that there might be larger issues I didn't know about. Except for my unwise crack about the lack of understanding of Unificationism, I actually thought I was using some restraint, as I took the time to voice my concerns here without reverting the categorization, because I am not too familiar with the network of categorization schemes on Wikipedia.
In the case of a person who could easily be justifiably placed in multiple categories (e.g., Korean and American), is placing them in both categories (a pretty good solution in this case) so frowned upon that it would be repeatedly reverted? -Exucmember (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I too took offence there too easily; I assumed you were referring to me, but it's entirely possible you were not. I'm sorry for that. I don't see a problem with including a person in two nationality categories, particularly if they are Korean-born and then gained U.S. citizenship. Albert Einstein, for instance, is in nationality categories for Swiss, American and German and there are plenty of people who are placed in two. I personally don't think it would be a huge problem. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no special objection to this category. However there are only 5-10,000 American Unificationists. In general most of the UC articles are way too USA-centric. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
