Talk:Ahn Shi Il

Calendar
Can we make a calendar with the Ahn Shi Il dates marked in bold? --Uncle Ed 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can make a formula that says "how many days to the next Ahn Shi Il" then the days on which the result is zero can be bold. --Uncle Ed 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

merge
I don't think a merge is a good idea. Ahn Shi Il itself would not be of interest to people who came to the main article on the church looking for basic information. The fact that is is catagorized with other church beliefs will enable people who are interested to find it. Steve Dufour 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An explanation of the original Korean/Chinese calligraphy might be interesting, if available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.12.122 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge or delete -- this article is unsourced & offers no assertion of notability. HrafnTalkStalk 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll merge it to Family Pledge, which (in turn) could be merged to Unification Church. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything about Ahn Shi Il on the Unification Church page, so I undid the redirect. After it's merged, we can redo the redirect. Anyone care to help? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And I have reimposed the redirect. Where an article contains no sourced material, it is entirely appropriate to merge-as-bare-redirect (as introducing the unsourced material into the merged-to article would violate WP:V). If you think that Unification Church should say something on the subject, then find a reliable source and include mention of Ahn Shi Il there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you overlook this source material? (P.S., there's lots more where that came from. Please help build the article.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor: "Did you overlook":
 * WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

The "sources" you cite are not third party/independent.

Your continued restoration of this article, which was merged on the basis of an AfD, without adding "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is simply WP:POINT disruption. If you want Ahn Shi Il mentioned, then take these sources and do so on their basis in Unification Church, as I recommended above. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And incidentally Ed Poor, I bloody well did not "overlook this source material" -- because that source was not in the article when it was originally merged, so was not relevant to my above statement about that original merger. HrafnTalkStalk(P)

Oh, and as a further nail in the coffin of this article, the sources you are citing would most probably count as WP:SELFPUB, so "the article [cannot be] based primarily on such sources." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact you yourself added the material from this article into Unification Church here. It was most probably later removed because it was unsourced -- which would be perfectly in keeping with policy. To claim the consequences of your mistake in not sourcing that addition as a rationale to restore this article is utterly ludicrous, tendentious and has no basis in policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that if the Catholic Church is the only source about a particular Catholic doctrine or celebration, then (1) there are no 3rd party sources so (2) we should not cover it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I am. For doctrines or celebrations celebrated across the entire Catholic Church, the probability of this occurring is very low. But I dare say there is any number of celebrations of some subset of the Catholic Church that has escaped third-party notice, and so does not have legitimate call on having an article. And in response to your nonsensical edit summary, I have no "object[ion] to the previously agreed-upon merge" -- nor have I expressed any -- it is you who are attempting to undo it after all, nor do I have any objections to you including sourced material on this topic in Unification Church. As is too often the case with you Ed Poor, your WP:DISRUPTion appears to serve no coherent purpose, and appears to be nothing more than ill-considered reflex. Get a clue! I would hit you with a WP:TROUT, but if you haven't learnt anything useful in your years on wikipedia (and it would appear that you haven't), it is unlikely that 100 trouts would have any effect. You appear to treat wikipedia as being the same 'anything goes' epistemological 'Wild West' that it apparently was when you first joined. Wikipedia has passed you by, and it is time to either (i) make a genuine effort to learn the new rules & culture, or (ii) move on. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)