User talk:Exucmember

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 G'day! 2 Image copyright problem with Image:UTS pic.jpg 3 Unification Church (User:Marknw's thesis on Politics in Divine Principle) 4 Unification Church clarification 5 New article 6 Thanks 7 Image:UTS aerial.jpg listed for deletion 8 Image tagging for Image:Andrew_Wilson.jpg 9 UC articles 10 Right-hand man 11 Channeling 12 John Gorenfeld article 13 AfDs 14 RE: Your question 15 Jonathan Wells (author) 16 Thanks for trying to help 17 Hyun Jin succession 18 Talkpage reverts 19 Hyun Jin Moon clarification 19.1 The problems with objective truth and the unification Church = 20 hi 21 A place for everything 22 Two paragraphs 23 Have a barnstar!!! 24 Two big ideas 25 Revisionism 26 Rev Moon and "Heavenly deception".. 27 GolfStyles 28 Love bombing 29 Can the Unification Church reform? 30 use of footnotes 31 Ex members? 32 Josette Sheeran 33 New article 34 ICUS article 35 Intelligent design RfC

[edit] G'day!

G'day there, Exucmember, and welcome to Wikipedia! Good authors are always welcome on the project, and I hope you like the place and decide to stick around!

We've got a few pages you might find helpful, such as:

• Our "five pillars"
• The lowdown on editing
• A detailed tutorial
• Our house manual of style

It's all best summed up here: write from a neutral point of view, play nice with others, and don't let the rules get you down.

If you have any questions or need any help, my talkpage is always open for business, or you can see Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. Here's a tip to start you off: if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any messages you leave on talkpages (like this one) Wikipedia will automatically insert your name and the current date and time after your message. Cool, eh? Happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:UTS pic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UTS pic.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. the iBook of the Revolution 03:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) PS: If you cut and paste the wording that says the pic can be reused onto my talk page, I can figure it out from there for you.

[edit] Unification Church (User:Marknw's thesis on Politics in Divine Principle)

Hello Exucmember, I would like to change some of the edits you made. It is wikipedia policy to colaborate on major changes to an article. You made some statements that seem heavily from you own POV. It is polite to ask before moving a whole section. I would like to change back some of the edits you made to the politics section I was working on. I would also like to colaborate with you if you have an interest in this subject. With Regards Marknw 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have delayed responding, as I found your comments and actions offensive, but have no desire to be in conflict with you or to express any emotion in my response. You say it is Wikipedia policy to "colaborate" on major changes to an article, but all I did was create a new page for the large section you wrote, which conforms in an exemplary manner to Wikipedia guidelines, as the page was getting too long (more than 32k), and that section was the most peripheral in my judgement (and, I would guess, in the judgement of most readers). Many people are honored to have a new page created from their material, and some editors boast about new pages they've created, even when they are not very substantial. Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly urge editors to be bold in editing. I am happy to collaborate, and I took the appropriate first step in doing so. Perhaps you thought I should ask your permission first before editing anything you wrote. You said you would like to collaborate with me, yet your actions - deleting everything I wrote - do not seem to conform to that claim.

You claim that what I wrote in the article (a small summary of your material) "seem[s] heavily from you own POV." I do not think so, I don't think most editors would think so, and I think it's odd that you would say so; I did not contradict your assertions or edit your content. Ironically, I think most readers might well characterize your section as POV. It certainly is out of place at present, discussing political implications in Divine Principle on the Unification Church page (section 5) before the book is even discussed (section 6.1). This doesn't really belong on the Unification Church page at all; it should be discussed very briefly on the Divine Principle page, with a link to the substantial essay that you wrote.

Your presenting a thesis and defending it with quotations from the book is prototypical of "original research" in the humanities, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You should be careful how you present it. -Exucmember 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unification Church clarification

Hello Exucmember, I just wanted to make a clarification on my edits on the Manhattan Center page. The goal of my contributions to this page is to ensure the factual accuracy of the details on the history of the building. Also, I'm aiming to keep the history section consistent with the history on Manhattan Center's official website. The entries on the official website are neutral, factual, and they should fit well within Wikipedia's standards. The website lists that the building was purchased by the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (the Unification Church). It doesn't say that it was purchased by Sun Myung Moon's Unification church. This phrasing is redundant; similarly, you would not refer to the Church of Scientology as L. Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology. If you were a Roman Catholic, you would not refer to your church as the Pope's Roman Catholic Church. The leaders (or some cases, originators) of the chuch are assumed. It's not that you wish to hide the information about the leader of the church, you only want to ensure the accuracy of the church's name when it is mentioned. For these reasons, all I ask is that the reference on Manhattan Center's Wikipedia page match the information on the website. Thanks. 69.38.167.178 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is better known than the Unification Church, and its history is less dominated by one man or even by all the popes collectively. My thought was that the name "Rev. Sun Myung Moon" in conjunction with that of the Unification Church was more well-known than simply the Unification Church by itself; however, I have solved this difference of opinion.

Your statement: "all I ask is that the reference on Manhattan Center's Wikipedia page match the information on the [Manhattan Center's] website" is ridiculous. Suppose we were to agree on an institution that had something it prefered not to reveal because of its being controversial, say, an affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan. If its official web site neglected to say anything about this important affiliation, is that a sound reason for an appeal that it not be mentioned in an encyclopedia article? The raising of controversial issues and allowance for criticism is a hallmark of Wikipedia. -Exucmember 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to visit the official website? Obviously not, because every bit of factual information about the history of the building already exists with details about ALL previous owners including the Unification Church. Your edits continue to state that Manhattan Center wishes to hide pieces of information. This couldn't be further from the truth. There's not a company in New York City who is more proud of their heritage than Manhattan Center. The historical information on the website is neutral. I understand your point about the Catholic Church, and you're correct - they are very well known. I guess the Scientology example was better, but either way, thanks for your contribution. My only other comment is to be wary of your entries. As an excommunicated member, I question the neutrality that you may be able to bring your entries. 69.38.167.178 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that you are proud of your ownership by the Unification Church and your affiliation with Sun Myuung Moon. It is not as much the affiliation but the occasional attempt to hide or obfuscate the fact by some members that bothers people. Using the long corporate name in the Wikipedia article instead of the common name that Wikipedia uses ("Unification Church" only in hidden Wikification) seemed suspicious, and you can certainly understand why I thought Manhattan Center people were trying to hide the affiliation when one of your editors deleted all reference to the Unification Church, including the long corporate name that was there originally. (Check the history and you'll see this is what happened, but perhaps it was simply a mistake made by one of the editors from Manhattan Center.)

Of course I read the entire history on the official website before I made any edits on the Manhattan Center page on Wikipedia. My memory is that it did NOT mention the Unification Church, only the long corporate name, "The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity," but I see now that "Unification Church" is there in parentheses (unlike the Wikipedia page before I edited it, where it was not visible in the text), so I either misremembered or you changed it. Either way, I'm happy you're proud of your ownership, as I said. I don't understand your referring to me as an "excommunicated" member; I'll just assume it was a weak attempt at humor.

Unificationists are fine with the fact that I defend them against religious bigotry (on at least a half-dozen pages so far), expose the less-than-honest methods of the secular anti-cultists (dubbed Anti-Cult Movement by NRM researchers) on pages like Love bombing and Cults, or write positive things about New Hope Academy (virtually the whole article), UTS, etc., or make helpful contributions to pages like Unification Church (complimented by member Steve Dufour). On the other hand, if I reveal important but unpleasant facts that a healthy Unificationism should deal with rather than sweeping under the rug (see, for example, the review by a Unification Church member of Nansook Hong's book), I am suddenly judged to be incapable of being neutral. -Exucmember 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Chiming in a bit late, but I'm perfectly happy to see "important but unpleasant facts" mentioned. Just be sure to distinguish "fact" from "claim" when it's a matter of dispute. For example, it's a fact that Rev. Moon had children with at least one woman other than Hak Ja Han, his wife of 48 years. But many "hidden facts" are actually unconfirmed rumors or 'disputed' assertions. Let's work together on these, shall we? --Uncle Ed 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Exucmember, I was just hoping that you could clarify something for me. Here is a direct link to the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sun_Myung_Moon#How_Many_Wives.3F I am just really trying to understand the secret things about the Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon. So if you could clarify for me, I would really appreciate it! Jamesters 09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article

I hope you don't take the fact that I put your article up for deletion too personally. Notability of living people is a very difficult issue, and reasonable people frequently can and do disagree. You can comment on the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Folzenlogen. I've stricken the vanity bit. Cheers, Mak (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for correcting the number of couples in the Mike Jenkins article. I wonder why the other person changed it, kind of strange. Keep up the good work here. Steve Dufour 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:UTS aerial.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:UTS aerial.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. -- The JPS^{talk to me} 08:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Andrew_Wilson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Andrew_Wilson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UC articles

Hi, thanks again for your help. It's refreshing to able to work with a writer who has opposing viewpoints but who also wants to produce neutral articles.

Could you please take a look at a few other UC articles I've revamped today?

• Heung Jin Moon
• Nansook Hong
• Eileen McNamara
• Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers
• Returning Resurrection
• Soon Ae Hong
• Talk:Bo Hi Pak
• Bo Hi Pak

Thanks! --Uncle Ed 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to looking at these pages systematically. Some I've already addressed, but for those I haven't, a few tweaks seem in order. Nice to see Returning Resurrection - I know you wanted to put that one up for some time. I feel it's quite inadequate as it stands, however, not really conveying the basic idea of the concept to those not familiar with it already. I don't think I'm the right person to do all the writing that needs to be done about Unification beliefs though. -Exucmember 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right-hand man

I think our tussle over the application of this term to Bo Hi Pak stems from lack of clarity over what a right hand man is. I have always seen Pak as more of an "aide" than a "leader".

In the army an aide is a secretary or factotum. He hangs around the commanding general and may even be an officer. A chief of staff or deputy commander is a leader. He can make decisions affecting thousands of troops.

Pak established publicity organizations like Little Angels and did some diplomatic work in Latin America (CAUSA). He did not provide spiritual leadership to members; no leaders reported to him. He was a translator, to be sure, some say the best Rev. Moon ever had. But it was Rev. Kwak who told lower-level leaders what to do; wrote an influential book on The Tradition of the church (how to conduct pledge service, when to seek or avoid an abortion, etc.)

There's no point trying to settle the "who was his right hand man" issue until I've written the Chung Hwan Kwak article. When we see the two bio article side by side (Pak and Kwak), it will be clear who was more of a key man in the church leadership hierarchy.

By the way, I really appreciate your close attention to the articles and frequent roll-backs of vandalism. Have you thought of becoming an admin? --Uncle Ed 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment and words of support. Well, for one thing, I'm too new - I'm like a kid who has learned enough phrases to sound like an adult without really understanding the full meaning - I just have a vague sense of Wikipedia policies, having only read what I need to know to edit. Also, I'm not sure how an editor with my username would be received, either at an evaluation to become an admin or afterward (at least in relation to those who care about the Unification Church). But I do try to be fair. Some people (not you) seem to want their way (including even suggestions or implications that are misleading) if they can (sometimes barely) justify it within the rules; I think accuracy is the best goal. -Exucmember 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to the expression "right hand man" being used at all. It is an expression that is sometimes thrown around, but it has no definate meaning. Steve Dufour 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channeling

Hi. I answered you about "approval" vs. "allowing", here. --Uncle Ed 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've answered there (Talk:Black Heung Jin Nim) -Exucmember 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Gorenfeld article

Hi Ex. The article on John has been proposed for deletion again. Steve Dufour 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a slightly ridiculous policy in this case, but policy can change. If you are interested in where that is said, it is right below the yellow boxes on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Now, are you saying this version of the page is not a copyvio? The copyvio tag should only be added if all of the revisions are a copyvio (thus the 7 day wait), and if they are not, then you can remove the tag, since it would have been tagged improperly. Prodego ^talk 16:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs

AfD is not a vote, but acts like one in most circumstances. For example, if editors are debating whether a page is verifiable on an AfD, and 90% of editors say yes, while 10% say no, and they both explain why they think this, it would probably be kept, assuming that was the only issue. However, if on a similar AfD 90% of editors say keep, but don't address how the article is verifiable, and the 10% voting delete explain how it doesn't, the result of the debate would be to delete. There is a prossess somewhat like an appeal, Wikipedia:Deletion review, which is (for AfDs) used if the closing admin's decision is questioned. This would not be a new vote, and it will not challenge the results of the prior debate, just the interpretation of them. Prodego ^talk 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your question

I think you are referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which allows for Self-identification. My comments on the talk page were a personal opinion... that wasn't a reflection of policy or guidelines. Personally I think that an NPOV naming convention is best; not unduly weighing what a subject may consider themselves, but also not qualifing an article with a title that they might consider pejorative. In the case of the Wells article it would be my opinion that "biologist" would probably be a good middle ground based on his training.--Isotope23 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Wells (author)

Oh, give it up. Let's call him a "biology writer". For JoshuaZ and company, only scientists are "biologists". Wells does much more writing than research. --Uncle Ed 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry, I didn't read the diff. You already entered "biology writer". Nice work. :-) --Uncle Ed 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, author works too.--Isotope23 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for trying to help

I put in a lot of effort on the Wells article too and got nowhere. The ironic thing is if they had listened to my suggestions the article would have been a much more effective expose' of Jonathan, rather than the almost unreadable mish-mash it is now. Steve Dufour 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for trying to help. It doesn't seem like editing the article does any good. However, discussing on the talk page might reach a few people. Cheers. Steve Dufour 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyun Jin succession

Hyo Jin's problems and the death of Heung Jin are not disputed. What is not ready for prime time is the assumption that these alone are the reasons for Hyun Jin apparently being placed in the position of lead successor. Or even that these are the main reasons. For example, he has a Harvard MBA, a track record leading people and businesses, etc. It could come down to aptitude and qualifications, but in fact, nobody can say for sure. -- SanViejo 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Response on Talk:Hyun Jin Moon, the more appropriate place for the discussion. -Exucmember 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpage reverts

Actually it is not the best idea to restore an edit that an editor has removed from their own talkpage. Other adding unsigned templates and removing fair use images... it is probably best to leave other editors' removal of comments in their userspace alone. In this specific case Hondasaregood (talk · contribs) had some legitimate reason to term that vandalism as the individual leaving that commment had been leaving the same comment there for several days, restoring it every time it was removed, which was bordering on talkpage trolling (and the whole thing stemmed from Hondasaregood (talk · contribs) removing original research that IP editor was trying to add to an article.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't following what was going on between Hondasaregood and the other guy at all - I just stumbled upon a statement of "vandalism" that didn't seem at all like vandalism (and a claim by that person that he had removed the material that was objected to). Also, I think you're right about restoring the content an editor has removed on his own talk page. Thanks. -Exucmember 01:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyun Jin Moon clarification

I must respectfully disagree with the 28 July statements regarding the reasons for Hyun Jin’s apparent succession to his father’s mission. The sources citing Nansook Hong’s book, The New York Times and Massimo Introvigne are all accurate. The first two describe events in Hyo Jin Moon’s life, and the last one states accurately that Hyun Jin was named vice president of the Family Federation and given other important responsibilities. No dispute there. However, to link these disparate sources and say that the first two citations are the reason for the third, is speculation and logical sleight-of-hand.

My second objection, regarding the subsection “Violence” in the section “Criticism,” is more nuanced but the concern is that one statement about a person, lifted from a longer piece, is used to convey the idea that Hyun Jin Moon is a singularly a violent man. Period, end of story. Dan Fefferman’s citation is not enough information to define the character of a man. You may reply that it is my responsibility to add further citations that counter that first citation, but I say that journalistic ethics and justice require that balance be part of the original story. Wikipedia is a community-edited freeforall that is arguably the most valued and frequently-cited information source around. What is occasionally missing is the application of professional standards. The violence citation in the article would be tossed by most editors, and the reporter would be told to come back with the whole story. Much obliged. Sanviejo 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate place for this discussion is on the relevant page, Talk:Hyun Jin Moon. -Exucmember 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The problems with objective truth and the unification Church =

The real problem is that the denial of people in the Unification Church of the actual and real failings of Mr. Moon's children is due to the fact that he has not been able to remove the root of sin; the original sin; in fact: his children being a good indication of this right up front: obvious to everyone. That this is painful for people who want to believe that their own children will not be born with original sin is the reason someone is erasing the proofs to the contrary: they are too painful; thus they are excised. Of course this is intimidation and bullying; but the unification church has more serious problems to deal with; like the coming death of their founder. As we know; the real messiah would be immortal; he would never die. In my correspondence with Bob Selle, a public affairs assistant to the FFWPU I asked if he would answer the questions that Jonathan Gullery and others at publishing headquarters would not answer that I bring up in my book "The Revelation of Salvation: the Regeneration of John" which deal with Rev. Moon and the Providence in quite a few areas; although Jonathan Gullery did give me permission to quote anything from the book "Divine Principle" that I wanted to. Sadly I never got a reply even from Bob Selle when I sent an open letter to them: and then him: no answer yet. Now my book is going to be published and I will never be able to take back or out what is written: what's there is going to be the final word: what a shame. I will add more later; I am still reading everybody's edits and contentions: it is the fact that I point out in my book that Rev. Moon is "the faithful and wise servant/steward" mentioned by Lord Jesus: and that his fate and destiny are spelled out to exact degree: even to the beatings and marriages. More laterUnicorn144 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] hi

Hi ExUC. Hope you had a nice Christmas and New Years. I left some comments on Talk:Kook Jin Moon. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. This article has serious problems. I don't feel that I should work on it myself but something needs to be done. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some of the problem material. I hope that the article now fairly gives the information about him. There was stuff that was a real problem with WP policies, as well as basic fairness. It was not just the lack of positive material. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I went overboard on this one. You are doing some great work here. However, I think the concept which you seem to have about the True Family, although a legitimate opinion, is kind of a fringe theory. There are only a few thousand UC members (or exmembers) in the English speaking world who could relate to it. But what could the millions of other WP readers make of your theory (here is how I understand it: "The True Children have failed to become the leaders they should have been and this is the cause of the failure of the UC")? I'm sorry we disagree on this topic but I really do appreciate many of your other contributions. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, that is not a "fringe" view. It is held by a large enough minority to be mentioned in articles. What we need to do is determine what proportion of members or ex-members hold the view. If we can't even figure out whether it's the prevailing view, or 50-50, or 5%, then we'll just have to say something like this:

• One view commonly expressed by English-speaking ...

That leaves "open" the question of how many espouse the view. Remember, we must remain scrupulously neutral, if we are to continue this fruitful collaboration. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant is that any opinion about Rev. Moon's family is going to be a fringe theory to the vast majority of WP readers, both that they are the True Children or that they are the cause of problems within the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I'm impressed that you have the ability to discover an unstated theory of mine that even I didn't know I held. Here's what I really think - My basic approach on Wikipedia is that I report on what I know about. Almost any position critical of almost any aspect of Unificationism may seem like a minority view to current members, who much more closely follow the Korean model of critique and free speech than they do the American model. Unlike the True Children, Rev. Moon has been widely criticized in the media for decades, and frankly I think the fact that much of that media criticism has been exaggerated and has an emotional quality of sarcasm and disdain has made it more difficult for members to have honest self-examination of real problems within the church. It leads to being overly defensive, and sometimes sees an attack where none was intended (such as the innocuous phrase "right-hand man" to describe Bo Hi Pak, which I think is completely neutral and quite accurate). When I was creating an overdue article about Kook Jin Moon, I never once thought anything like he "failed to become the leader [he] should have been." I was simply conveying the facts as I knew them as well as some of the controversy (not all of which I agree with - some believe designing a smaller, more lethal weapon will increase deaths; I don't know whether I believe that, but if a lot of people feel that and draw certain conclusions, this becomes potential content). The case of Hyo Jin Moon is different, and I think most honest members believe he did not act like an exemplary leader during the period Nan Sook Hong reported about in her book, which long-time leader Dan Fefferman said had "a ring of truth about it" (though again, counterproductively - though understandable in this case - there was the occasional phrase reflecting sarcasm or disdain). -Exucmember (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that Hyo Jin should have an article at all. He is only notable as Rev Moon's son. I also didn't think "right-hand man" was an attack. It was just original research. Besides that it is an undignified slang expression. I don't think a Catholic would like to see Saint Peter introduced as Jesus' "right-hand man". Steve Dufour (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, why are there any articles about Unification teachings? Unification theology makes zero impact in the larger world of theology. It is because the teaching are important to the Unification Church. A second reason is that they have been written about publicly. Hyo Jin Moon qualifies on both counts, as a member of the True Family and as someone who has been talked about in the press and in books a number of times. Why are there any articles related to the church besides Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church?

"Right-hand man" is not original research. Bo Hi Pak was referred to as Rev. Moon's "right-hand man" probably 100 times in media articles in the 70s and 80s. Are you not aware of that? I never thought of the expression as "undignified." But I'm happy to see that both you and Ed are giving attention to the nuances of language, something that has largely been absent in the Unification Church throughout its life in the West. I'm not sure your Catholic analogy holds up - Catholic views of Jesus and Peter have been in the background of Western culture for thousands of years, and it may not be fair to compare to the sensitivities Americans may have to what might make pious Catholics bristle. If Jesus and Peter were alive today, they wouldn't be written about on Wikipedia with such sensitivities. -Exucmember (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At least the UC doesn't have as many WP articles as Scientology. When I last checked there was one for every 300 members. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this because the Unification Church is losing its potency? - It seems to have fallen behind Scientology in controversy. [This weak attempt at a joke was conceived before - but written after - Ed's comments below.] -Exucmember (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish that the Church of Scientology would hire a Moonie as its PR director. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for hosting this discussion, ExUC. While I don't always agree with you, I am impressed with your unfailing courtesy and patience.

Steve, are you suggesting that we collect all the information about the True Children into one article? Or even stuff them into a section of Sun Myung Moon? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard that there were:

-More social scientists writing about Satanism than there were Satanists

-More Western people studying Tibetan Buddhism in one particular place than native practitioners

-More anthropologists researching a certain tribe in New Guinea than there were members of that tribe

Don't know if any of these things are true. The point is that sometimes a topic is notable if people pay attention to it and/or there is controversy. So most of the articles about Unification topics belong on Wikipedia, keeping in mind that if critics want to focus attention on a particular Unification behavior, it would be fair and balanced to have material that puts that in context, including Unification beliefs, practices, and key people & roles.

It seems Steve doesn't fully appreciate or agree with that. -Exucmember (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that we UC members should honor the True Children because they the are children of the True Parents. However WP is writen for people in general, not for UC members. There are only about 10,000 members in the USA and about another 10,000 in other "Western" countries. So anything we think is going to be a fringe theory to the general public. There shouldn't be articles on the True Children unless they have done something notable in their own right. They could be listed or mentioned in their parents' articles however. I'm sorry that I edited an article after I said that I wouldn't, however it had and continues to have serious BLP problems and no one was doing anything about it after I posted a notice on the BLP board. So my duty as a WPer conflicted with my promise there. I'm trying to stay away from the articles about the True Children. One thing is that I don't get upset when Father himself is attacked, he after all is a public person and chose to take on the position he has. His children, on the other hand, didn't choose the family into which they were born. I get rather upset to see attacks against innocent people, even if they are not as perfect (or don't seem as perfect) as some people think they should be. Wishing everyone well as always. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the desire to delete the criticism of the True Children and the difficulty for someone with your piety to restrain yourself from going overboard, thus deleting too much from the Kook Jin Moon article. I went back over it and tried to do what you might have done, to delete the most questionable items and negative opinions. I may comb through it again and see what else should be deleted or demoted to footnotes. But deleting way too much invited me to revert rather than respect your attempt at being fair, which was lacking in that case (though generally I'd say it is quite good). You might say what you think are the clearest BLP problems that remain.

You have not addressed the points I made above:

• Steve, why are there any articles about Unification teachings? Unification theology makes zero impact in the larger world of theology. It is because the teaching are important to the Unification Church. A second reason is that they have been written about publicly. Hyo Jin Moon qualifies on both counts, as a member of the True Family and as someone who has been talked about in the press and in books a number of times.

Hyo Jin Moon and Kook Jin Moon did not choose to be born into the True Family, but Hyo Jin did accept the top leadership position of the student branch (CARP), and chose to act in such an abusive manner toward his wife that it made interesting reading for people outside the church. He also chose to get high before giving the Sunday sermon in Tarrytown, and 60 Minutes felt these things were newsworthy. (Their report is on YouTube.) Kook Jin is notable for Kahr Arms, but also because of his position in Unification teachings, and also because of the public controversy - you may not agree, but he is criticized for enabling lethal violence. Heung Jin Moon is very important in Unification teachings (greater than Jesus - don't deny it), and even the Black Heung Jin Nim was an important chapter in the story of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. Nan Sook Hong was regarded at one time by all the members I knew as the probable next-generation True Mother, but also later revealed many of the secrets of the True Family (after living with them for 15 years) that the media found newsworthy.

The True Children have such an elevated position in both Unification teachings and in practice in the Unification Church; this alone makes them notable. And they're all adults now. They can handle a few public criticisms now that they've decided to align themselves with Unificationist organizations. Hiding criticisms is an east Asian cultural artifact that has done the movement in the West a disservice.

But I understand your concerns. I used to have them myself. And I still have a sense of fairness. I'll try to weed out anything with gratuitous criticism, like the "shared the passion of the street" innuendo. -Exucmember (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two hearsay opinions in Kook Jin's article. Even if quoted in a "reliable source" they are still hearsay opinions, they should not be in an article on a living person by WP policy. To answer your other question... There should not be articles on UC teachings on WP. Not because UC teachings are not important, but because there is no interest in understanding UC teachings in "reliable sources." There should be links to UC sites in the main articles on the UC so that people who are interested can do research. Of course there should also be links to anti-UC sites for fairness. I also object that the article on Kook Jin is not about a notable gun designer but instead is about: THE SON OF REV MOON IS A GUN DESIGNER!!! That might be an important topic but it is certainly not encyclopedic. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion somewhere more public?

I think we can sum up a lot of criticism of "True Family" as (1) the church says [fill in blank], but (2) when we look at the True Family we see glaring contradictions. It doesn't matter how you fill in the blank, the argument is always the same: Rev. Moon can't be the Messiah, because his teaching is contradicted by (this and that behavior).

So the chief interest of church opponents in any of the "True Children" is how untrue their behavior seems - which provides fodder for an attack on Rev. Moon.

That's okay as far as it goes, but I think it should be balanced with the church's statements of defense (and any supportive statements from outside the church). Chief among these would be (1) denials of certain charges: e.g., the church denies the pikareun charge of Madeleine Pretorious (not currently a notable person, cited in the Nan Sook Hong book. Also important would be the church explanation of things like (2) Rev. & Mrs. Moon neglecting their children while doing church work (i.e., it was a providential "condition" needed to save the world. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A place for everything

As my grandma used to say, "A place for everything, and everything in its place." That's why I'm glad you trimmed my recent addition to Sun Myung Moon. [1] I agree that we should avoid bloat, and I could use some help with articles related to Rev. Moon, such as Unification Theology. Do you know anything about the Ambassadors for Peace? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two paragraphs

Hi, ExUC. Can a pick a bone with you in a friendly way? You are usually very careful and fair in all your contributions, so I was wondering if the following was an oversight.

I refer to this change to Bo Hi Pak, which looks like the restoration of a previous version.

The following two paragraphs were lost:

• Pak tried to establish an endowment for the various organizations he created. When his attempts foundered, he borrowed heavily. Unable to repay his debts, he was charged with financial fraud. He served 2 years and 3 ½ months of a five year sentence and released on probation.

• Pak's daughter in law, In Jin Moon (the second daughter of Sun Myung Moon), says that Pak was the victim of "certain church members who introduced him to the fraudulent deal" and "made a terrible mistake in following bad investment advice from people with criminal motives". She castigated those who let her father be derided as "an insecure man destroying the very visible disciple who helped him"; and she called upon church members to help get her father-in-law out of jail by contributing funds or buying a music CD created as fundraiser.

I'm hoping you won't mind if the bullet points above are merged into what you wrote. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm extremely reluctant to "mess" with your version, because you're so good at phrasing UC-related material in general. For example this "Moonie" edit was brilliant. I couldn't have done better myself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for being - not only civil - but complementary. You're right, I wasn't my normal careful, fair-minded self for that Bo Hi Pak edit. I saw that you had blanked a section of sourced material I added and replaced it with a very abbreviated version with no more explanation than that your version was "better." But since you were so gentlemanly in raising the issue, I will take a look at it and try my best to integrate what you wrote back into the article. -Exucmember (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I just made the edit, and it seems you were the one who was not careful. I combed through each phrase in the two paragraphs above, comparing it to what was already in the article, and was only able to add ONE phrase that was not already there! I didn't add "CDs", and I didn't want to delete InJin's word in the verbatim quote ("belittle") and substitute it with your characterization ("derided"). -Exucmember (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it goes to show that it's not easy for someone who cares a lot about a subject to write about it neutrally. I'm glad to work with you, because you are usually even more careful than I am! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a barnstar!!!

_Steve Dufour (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two big ideas

Hi, Ex. How's it been going?

I have two big ideas to share with you:

1. I'd like to rework and probably rename the Black Heung Jin Nim article. Much of it can go into bio of Cleopas Kundioni, the Zimbabwean man who reportedly embodied the deceased Heung Jin Moon in the mid 1980s.
2. I'd like to start an article - probably to become a section - about the lenience of Sun Myung Moon or the "tolerance" or something that describes his laid back attitude toward people who don't quite do what he asks - or even defy him outright.

A year and a half ago, you wrote this comment:

• Ed, you said Sun Myung Moon "let it happen." That's essentially the same as saying it was authorized. Are you implying SMM thought Cleophas was a fake and let it happen anyway? I'm sure there were some skeptics all along, and in growing numbers as Cleophas's behavior became more and more strange. But you seem to be arguing that he had to have been a fake from the beginning for theological reasons. Sorry, but that was simply not the position of the Unification Church. The official position represented at the meetings with him was that he was channeling Heung Jin Nim. This was clearly the view expressed by the majority of members at the time also. You might want to ask yourself whether your personal theology on this matter is heretical. Members debated (almost entirely afterward) at what point Heung Jin Nim's spirit left Cleophas. But it is simply not accurate to imply that the official position of the church, or the majority view among the members, was anything other than accepting that the words Cleophas was speaking were coming from the spirit of Heung Jin Nim. And it is simply not credible to imply that Sun Myung Moon did not authorize the tour. -Exucmember 05:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My response takes the form of two distinct, but related, ideas. First, "letting it happen" is not the same thing as condoning it. For example, way back in 1976 Rev. Moon knew that some fundraising captains were employing so-called "heavenly deception". In an interview with Frederick Sontag, Rev. Moon gave these leaders a mild - but unmistakable - rebuke:

A member must say that he is a member of the Unification Church and that he is the follower of Sun Myung Moon. If he doesn't have the courage to say it, he is not worthy of me. I tell them it's wrong not to speak out for fear of bringing greater persecution to themselves, because that greater persecution will bring equally greater blessing. If they try to shy away from persecution, actually they are missing the whole blessing. Some local leaders may have tried to be expedient, but they didn't have any bad motivation. I can understand why such things may have happened in the face of persecution, but I do not condone such action. [2]

Another time he chided Larry Moffitt for not having learned Korean. I do not find that Moffitt reported any further mention of the subject - certainly nothing like being pressured to attend Korean language classes or being fired from his church-related media job.

There is often a tension between what "the Messiah" tells his followers to do, and what they are willing and able to do. Tolerance, forbearance, magnanimity, and just letting people grow at their own pace seems to be what Rev. Moon is about. This contradicts critics' claims that at some future point a crackdown is coming when (despite all the previous nicey-nicey stuff) violators will be in for (unspecified!) harsh treatment. I ask you, is it likely that a man would put leaders in charge during his lifetime who were pushovers and nice guys, but then expect them to become rigid dictators upon his death?

Anyway, I thought I'd bring it up here on your user talk, rather than on any specific article talk page, because it's a crosscutting issue. It affects one's entire perception of Rev. Moon as a man (of God). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to the first idea on the Black Heung Jin Nim article Talk page. On the second idea, I think it's a good one, if you think it's sufficiently notable. I think Tolerance of Sun Myung Moon is better than "lenience," because "tolerance" is the more normal word for what you're talking about here, and "lenience" seems misleading - his leadership style is authoritarian, and he talks about "absolutes" and the like, and he doesn't seem to be very lenient when it comes to things he considers central, like rules and regulations concerning sexual behavior (except perhaps for his own family...). -Exucmember (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionism

I appreciate your warning about becoming revisionist - that is something I do not want to do. I thus quote (to myself) the following:

• Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues. [3]

Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. As True Father said, "Honesty comes first." --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rev Moon and "Heavenly deception"..

Hi Ex,

My understanding is that the "heavenly deception" quote was an insider paraphrase of Moon's "even G-d lies sometimes" explanation, and that it's attribution is solidly connected to previous church members...I didn't make the edit, but have I got this wrong? WNDL42 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a well-connected, full-time member for two decades, including during the period when the "heavenly deception" accusation was strongest. I never heard it advocated in the church. Only one time (I think it was 1975) did I hear a rank-and-file member (not a leader) advocate something similar, and everyone else disagreed. I've never heard even a rumor that "'heavenly deception' was an insider paraphrase of Moon's [statement]," and I've never heard that Moon said "even God lies sometimes" (although that might be possible). It is pretty easy to check these things because devoted members have been busy putting nearly every talk Moon has ever given online. It was amazingly easy for me to find Moon's rejection of the "heavenly deception" accusation with a Google search. On the other hand: Google: "even God lies sometimes" "Sun Myung Moon" yields no results. (Unificationists don't use "G-d," as Unification theology emphasizes immanence over transcendence). I did find something with a similar phrasing to "even God lies sometimes", but there were three different versions of the same supposed quotation, and no original source quotation (not encyclopedic).

It might be a good idea, however, to find a (reliable) quotation by Rev. Moon that reveals the fact that honesty is not his number one most important value, as it is for many Americans. That line of argument has some merit, and has indeed led to conflict with American society in a number of ways. An observer might expect that his rhetoric about building a unified world culture would assimilate this vital virtue so central to Western sensibilities, but it's remarkable how resilient small, third-world thinking is within the top leadership of the Unification movement.

Nevertheless, the assertion that the Unification Church teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception" is patently false. The insider paraphrase, even if true, is not sufficient reason to make (or even mention in an encyclopedia, imo) the false claim that the Unification Church teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception". The church already has a persecution complex (which you can even see revealed in subtle ways by the overreaction of Unificationist Wikipedia editors to certain relatively innocuous statements that remind them of spurious critiques of the church). To me it's just not helpful to dredge up the flimsiest criticisms when so many others have a strong case behind them. -Exucmember (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ex...my response is at the article's talk page] WNDL42 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GolfStyles

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article GolfStyles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of GolfStyles. Gwernol 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:GolfStyles. Better sources are needed to establish notability. Thanks, Gwernol 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love bombing

Hi Ex. In general I have not worked on the "anti-cult" articles. It mostly seems to be a waste of time for me. I'm going to leave this one alone too. Thanks again for all your work. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can the Unification Church reform?

Here's a 2006 comment from my User page asking whether there's any hope that the Unification Church can solve some of its biggest internal problems. A small sample of such problems are named.

Recently I have also added some items to certain pages related to Unificationism that I believe may help the Unification community to improve, although I do not hold out much hope. These include bringing out into the daylight some of the more difficult issues such as those raised in Nansook Hong's book In the Shadow of the Moons, which Dan Fefferman described as "having a ring of truth." I am also concerned about the violence, that seems to have been accepted at the time, not only from Hyo Jin Moon, but also from the official channel for Heung Jin Moon, and from Hyun Jin Moon as exemplified by his assaults of the Contemporary Realism painter Tim Folzenlogen when he was a member. If Unificationism is to survive, these issues must be faced by members and dealt with somehow, not swept under the rug. I realize that it might be better for a current member to take this bold action; I stand to be accused of being "negative." Any brave reformers still in the church who want to take up the challenge of solving internal problems as a foundation for saving the world? (written July 25, 2006)

Well, I once told Rev. Moon that "I love you but I can't understand your broken English". Does that count? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use of footnotes

Please read up the proper use of it in the discussion page of Yonsei University. Thanks. --BirdKr (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ex members?

FYI, I have heard through "back channels" (off Wikipedia) something that I have only suspected for a long time now, that is that certain editors who claim to be "ex-members" of the Unification Church are in fact very active members and are editing on wikipedia explicitly for the purpose of acting as "straw puppets". It's a well known tactic and I'd be shocked if the Unification Church was not using it. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEAT#Straw_puppets

The "game" is that there are supposedly unification church members who have "left the church" and therefore falsely give the appearance of legitimacy when they defend the church of the most serious charges. Meanwhile they also make or support mild criticisms of the church here and there to "look" as though they are "critical" of the church.

Meanwhile, I have noted that this notion of an "ex member" of the church leaving and then devoting their time on line to "reforming" the church appears to be a phenomenon that does not exist outside of the world of wikipedia.

Do you have any links to off-wiki reliable sources that demonstrate the existance of other ex-members who think like you do?

I am very curious. ---- [improperly signed by Wndl42 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)]

You're a real trip. First you keep reverting multiple edits because of a single phrase you don't like, claiming that the phrase "new religious movement" is what the Unification Church calls itself (as contrasted with what others call it), apparently completely ignorant of the sociology of religion literature. The phrase is removed from the article and no one objects; I refrain from pointing out your gross ignorance and obstinacy.

Then you come back after 3 weeks of absence like the very definition of a bull in a china shop and revert about 50 edits, screaming about bias and giving an example of edits which were not even among the 50 edits, but were made months earlier and already reverted. You loudly proclaim you will seek intervention, apparently not noticing that not a single one of these 50 edits was made by a Unification Church supporter, but were a combination of fixes, referencing, and criticism.

Did you even look at my edit history in various Unification Church category articles before launching into your ludicrous diatribe above? Of course you didn't, or you would have seen that I am far and away the most prolific and most effective critic of Moon and the Unification Church on Wikipedia, that my criticisms are informed, well-referenced, and that they pierce right to the heart of Unificationist claims as contrasted with the feckless cacophony of uninformed (sometimes bigoted) outsiders and what one moderate (the majority) ex-member cleverly called his extremist (the minority) colleagues: "reverse-polarity kamikaze zealots." These tend to undermine valid criticisms.

Some of the most damning critiques that exist anywhere of Sun Myung Moon and the "True Family" are made by ex-member Nansook Hong, who lived with the Moon family for 14 years, an eyewitness to many revealing events and facts that remained hidden from the vast majority of church members. These are effective in part because they are not wild exaggerations, but rather have what long-time American church leader Dan Fefferman called a ring of truth about them. At least 95% of the referenced material on Wikipedia from Nansook Hong was put in a wide array of Unification Church category articles by me.

You pointed out once that a cabal of self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy have imbued certain articles with such obvious bias that they are a joke and an embarrassment to Wikipedia, yet you seem to be adopting the very same attitude. You are even getting complaints that this is precisely what you're doing. Should I conclude from this that you are trying to make criticisms of Moon and the Unification Church look bad, or that you are a Moon follower trying to sabotage these criticisms on Wikipedia? Get a grip. -Exucmember (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josette Sheeran

Hi. My reason for adding the link to Damian Anderson's essay to the article was so people would have a chance to see his tolerant attitude, which is typical of most American members, towards someone who left the church. I wasn't trying to promote any conspiracy theories. BTW Damian (like Josette) is also divorced. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article

Thanks for your help with User:Steve Dufour/The Unification Church of the United States. I am just about ready to post it the WP mainspace. Please feel free to add any information you like before or after I do. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article, now Unification Church of the United States, is now being questioned by people who don't believe that there are only 5,000 members. I made a comment on User talk:Gatoclass. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICUS article

Could you check out International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences? The notability of the conferences is being questioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design RfC

At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in a RfC on behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)