Talk:Global Peace Foundation

Should be deleted, probably speedied

People are not following procedure as I understand it. User:Cunard and User:Pedro (neither of them admins) have removed the speedy tags with comments like "speedy declined" implying that they have the authority to make the speedy decision. Also, my understanding is that someone who disagrees with a speedy tag should use the "hold on" tag and not remove the speedy tag.

The article is nothing more than promoters of a non-notable Unification Church festival hyping it in order to have a vanity article. The article doesn't really make any clear claim of notability, it only makes vague, very peacock pronouncements that amount to nothing more than fluff. User:Pedro says "has refs asserting notability" but the article itself should make a clear claim of notability. Besides, ALL the refs are from the Global Peace Festival web site!!! -Exucmember (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the son of Rev Moon is speaking there doesnt mean that its bad...it reminds me of the Nazi time when the gouvernment said: it's jewish, so its bad... the GPF is intercultural and interreligious...it's no promotion for Unification Church (they dont try to get money or members through it)...it's just celebrating what humankind is one family under god....so WHAT THE HECK IS BAD ABOUT IT??? I think some people(organisations are just jealous because they never had such success with bringing religions and nations together! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.186.152 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Exucmember - Please note that, I am, in fact an admin. [1]. I'd recommend AFD. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The first user to revert User:Cunard clearly isn't. I looked at your userpage, saw "I'm an editor on en.wikipedia", skimmed the rest and didn't see anything about your being an admin. -Exucmember (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, A7 now has a factor that having refs may be an assertion of notability and should be included in the decision process before speedying. Pedro :  Chat  23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If ALL the refs are from the subject's web site, does that add any real evidence of notability? Shouldn't the article itself make a clear assertion of notability? -Exucmember (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

this appears to be the version that Mr. Pedro first decided to decline the speedy deletion proposition - the article in this version, and in its current form, clearly assert notability. The best place for this discussion would be WP:AFD. Even in the absence of references, the article is not written in a promotional tone. Also, remember that in order to meet the CSD criteria, the subject cannot be a derivative work, which a festival would certainly fall under. Finally, only the author is discouraged from removing the speedy deletion tag. If other editors feel it is not a candidate, they may remove it in good faith. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article "clearly assert[ed] notability" (I believe it was muddled, peacocky, vague, and unclear), but I'll accept the view of several people here and will nominate for WP:AFD. -Exucmember (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Peace Festivals are certainly notable, having been mentioned in the news media in several countries. The article could be improved however. The Festivals are also mentioned on List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No third-party references

The morning of November 6, admin User:Pedro added the Notability tag, which clearly explains that the article needs to "reference published, third-party sources about the subject." A little over a week later, there is still not a single reference in the article except from Global Peace Festival web sites. -Exucmember (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Steve Dufour above:

There have been several claims of notability here on this talk page, but more than two weeks after the policy of reliable sources was explicitly explained (3 1/2 months after the article was started), there is still not a single reliable source in the article. I think I have been very patient in waiting for (and making repeated requests for) this rather than quickly initiating an AfD. I could make a crack that ignoring rules seems to be an occupational hazard of Unificationists, but that's not important here. Reliable sources (the core of "one of Wikipedia's core content policies" - verifiability), however, are important. -Exucmember (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for greatly improving the article (adding real refs, deleting peacock language, rewriting very poorly written material); perhaps the article can be salvaged. It still doesn't really say what the Global Peace Festival is (which should be in the intro), and there is no explicit claim to notability. Why is this festival important enough to be in an encyclopedia? -Exucmember (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start the article and I don't know what importance the GPF will have. I think the fact that they are large events and are mentioned in the news media should be enough to have a WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Take out table?

I think the article would be better if the table at the end were removed and the items (if well cited) were just given in chronological order, as would be normal in a WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

By "table", do you mean the lists of Global Peace Festivals by year? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think the headings and subheadings just get in the way. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Would agree -- there's generally not enough in each subsection to balance out the headings. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

20 Festivals in 2008

"Global Peace Festivals have been held in over 20 nations this year, including two in North America, three in Central and South America, four in Europe, two in the Middle East, one in Africa, six in Asia and Oceania."[2] -- that adds up to 18 -- so where were the other 2 held? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I will correct, or tone down, the wording so that only what is in the source is reported. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the source itself has this garbled. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unification Church affiliation

We have two reliable sources tying the GPF to the UC (quite apart from the fact that its chairman is Sun Myung Moon's son). We have been offered no reliable source stating the contrary. Removal of this information thus amounts to either WP:CENSORship or WP:OR. Please cease and desist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out, in response to the claims made in this edit summary that, as of 2008, Hyun Jin Moon was co-chairman of UPF,[3] and that I can find no indication of the existence of a "GPF Foundation" outside the Philippines (nor any information on its formal structure, funding, etc, anywhere). 10:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting it more formally, in what jurisdiction was the legal personality of the "GPF Foundation" formed, and what public records are there of it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You might do better to write to some of the major newspapers and ask them to do a story on it. Otherwise I don't see how the information is going to get into WP. Wolfview (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Has the UC money-hose been turned off?

Back in the AfD, I commented about the effect of 'turning off' the UC 'money hose' on the organisations it creates. I cannot help but notice that GPF had 18 festivals in 2008, but only one prominent festival and one prominent convention (both in 2010) since. Does this indicate that the GPF has lost most of its funding? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Formal/legal structure and funding of the GPF

I would note that the degree to which the UC controls/funds the GPF has been an issue of considerable dispute in the past, and that therefore the lack of reliably-sourced information on its "formal/legal structure and funding" is therefore particularly problematical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't see how putting a tag on the article is going to help.Wolfview (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Such tags act as reminders -- that cause editors to think about the problem, and discussions like this to happen, and hopefully mean that eventually the problem gets solved -- instead of simply being forgotten about. It's all to easy to forget past problems, even when an article turns up on your watchlist, unless there's something to jog your memory. At least that's what I've found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please count me in 100% agreement that the information should be included in the article, as soon as it becomes available. Wolfview (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

New name

The GPF is now using the name "Global Peace Foundation." Probably the article should be updated and renamed. Borock (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global Peace Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712053428/http://www.globalpeace.org/project/rift-valley-peace-initiative to http://www.globalpeace.org/project/rift-valley-peace-initiative

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Chung Hwan Kwak

The article on Chung Hwan Kwak says that he left the Unification Church in 2009 and is now a "retired religious leader." Is this correct? I understand that he also had a leadership role in the GPF but this is not mentioned in his article. Mightyherculescalifornia (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Family Peace Association?

The Global Peace Foundation seems to be the same as the Family Peace Association, just a new name. Should the two articles be merged? SnailsSpace (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)