Talk:Hak Ja Han/Archive 1

Why it is biased?
I don't think the article is objecting a NPOV, there are unproven allegations about Unification Church, naturally some of it aimed at her too. She was one of the greatest ladies I have ever seen. Please look at the magnificent work she did and doing. --Cyril Thomas 13:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if the allegations are untrue, an encyclopedia article would include them for the sake of completeness. --84.188.191.1 12:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what is biased here? I see it stating facts not opinions. Where is there bias in stating facts? Putting in rumours and allegations is what you need to find in an encyclopedia? Really? I would think quite the opposite. State the facts and let them speak for themselves. Commentary and opinion is for the op-ed pages, not an encyclopedia.

removed uncited personal material
I had to remove this because it is not cited. Just someone's opinion put in the mouth of "the public eye" and "some" Steve Dufour 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reporting on such expensive speaking tours may create an impression of acceptance by influential people (especially good for PR back home in Korea), but the image of the Moons remains negative in the public eye. There is still a widespread reputation of their having created a cult of personality, a double standard for the use of money for their family (as contrasted with that of the members), an apparent disregard for laws which seem to interfere with their plans, and a willingness to withhold what some would consider vital information from a membership that sacrifices a great deal to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the teachings and organizations. See Unification Church: Controversy.

However criticisms should be reported, she is a public figure just the same as her husband. Steve Dufour 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had to remove it again. Still uncited material about a living person.  Steve Dufour 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay
Okay. For Heaven's sake. The neutrality of this page is totally...gone. --Anon. 7 September, 2005

I think this is an advert. --Anon. 27 September, 2005

I agree utterly. I would make changes but I know nothing about the subject, I was actually just looking for info. Hopefully someone who does know something will notice, so I'm going to flag it with an NPOV dispute. I doubt anyone would object reasonably. Sorry I don't have more to add. --Anon. 5 November, 2005

Tony Bouza
Yes, this is the same Tony Bouza (policeman turned politician/author/social-commentator). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. About the section. It is common for retired public figures to pick up some extra money speaking at public events. And the UC has put on 100s of such events over the years hiring lots of different people to speak.  I'm not sure if President Bush's role is all that important that he should be the only one mentioned. Or if Mr. Bouza's opinion is so notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The information was introduced because the title of the section was previously 'Courting influential people' (of which it was the only verifiable instance). I have no problem with its removal, however I would note that the level of third-party sourcing is already thin, and this might be the straw that broke the camel's back. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Larson: "His marriage to his fourth wife, Hak Ja Han..."
Could Godneck & Exucmember please read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Larson verifiably states that that Hak Ja Han is the fourth wife. In order to change this, you need to: Simply changing it while leaving it cited to Larson violates both WP:V & WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Find more reliable source(s) stating otherwise.
 * 2) CITE THESE SOURCES in the article.
 * OK, I think following source is adequate.
 * http://www.geocities.com/craigmaxim/f-2a.html
 * What do you think?Godneck (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you need to read WP:RS as well as WP:V. Geocities does not come even close to being a marginal (let alone reliable) source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added several sources. Enough?Godneck (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not enough. One source was the same unreliable Geocities source, the other three are UC sources. I can find three books (Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality‎ by Bob Larson p503, The Holy Spirit: Works & Gifts‎ by Donald G. Bloesch Page 166 & The Encyclopedia of American Religions‎ by J. Gordon Melton Page 226 -- the last being a clearly solid source) as well three websites saying "fourth". Unless you can find a more reliable source than J. Gordon Melton, I'd say that "fourth" is verifiable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. you mentioned J. Gordon Melton's "Encyclopedia of American Religions" is the most reliable source. You know, the most recent version of the book is published in 2009. One of the coauthor of the book is James Beverley. In the academic book of "Controversial new religions" written by James R. Lewis and Jesper Aagaard Petersen, James Beverley's article, "Spirit Revelation and the Unification Church" is presented. In the article, he says that Mrs. Han is Rev. Moon's second wife.
 * As you see in this example, it is very ambiguous problem even experts of the domain can confuse or need to have discussion. That's why I tried to delete that kind of ambiguous information rather than describe more detail. Especially, WP:RS says that "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair." Therefore, I suggest not mentioning the number of marriage of Rev. Moon. What about others' opinion? Godneck (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is part of the problem. "Reliable sources" have not cared to cover Rev. Moon or the church in any depth. I have never found any article online giving even a basic background or overview for interested people. That is one reason I voted to merge this article, not because Mrs. Moon is not important. (BTW I think her name in the English language is Mrs. Moon. That is how she is most often refered to.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what I mean. Therefore, I suggest to delete conflicting facts like this based on the following reasons.
 * First, number of marriage is not important fact to mention on this issue.
 * Even, it is ambiguous that many sources states in a different way.
 * Finally, it can harm the honor of living person, which can violate WP:RS criteria.
 * I think Adding valuable information is more important than discussing conflicting facts. As many people said, this article has very few information compared with the general importance of the topic. Godneck (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is becoming a mess, consisting of mainly UC propaganda about Hak Ja Han. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also propaganda from people trying to discredit the UC. That's one reason I suggested a merge.  Very few people are interested in Mrs. Han for herself. Redddogg (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly, and I purposefully left out the more scurrilous things that Larson had to say. But the article currently contains far more information sourced to those eulogising Hak Ja Han than those demonising her. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is the people who like her who make her notable, not the people who don't. BTW back to her name. It is "Hak Ja Han" (or really Han Hak Ja since the family name is put first) but hardly anyone ever calls her that. UC members call her "True Mother." In the world at large she is most often refered to as "Mrs. Moon", as in "Rev. and Mrs. Moon." I also understand that in traditional Korean culture a married woman with a son would be refered to as "the mother of her eldest son," so "Hyo Jin's mother." Steve Dufour (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No Steve, it is third party coverage that makes somebody notable. What "the people who like her" have to say does not add to notability, and should used only with extreme care in the article (as should material from people who hate her). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then nominate the article for deletion if no one is qualified to say anything about her. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, meet WP:TROUT. That demand has no basis in either what I said or policy. It basically admits that you have no understanding whatsoever as to the relationship between third party sources, notability and AfDs. The only reason I'm not jumping up and down on you further is that this comment demonstrates that (your contributions log notwithstanding) you are still a newbie at heart and I therefore should not WP:BITE you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the trueloveking bio a reliable source?
Godneck keeps trying to insert material cited to this PR piece into the lead. It is also cited for a large chunk of the 'edarly life' section. However I have strong doubts over its reliability. For instance, I can find nothing on Google on the "famous evangelist, Rev. Young Do Lee" (outside UC mentions of his relationship to her father). Should anything in this article be cited to this PR puffery? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain above, Mrs. Moon is mainly notable because of what UC members believe about her. I think it is reasonable to use primary sources to explain these beliefs.  Having said that I don't know much about that particular site.  I'd rather see official church sites used.  Steve Dufour (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve: your 'explanation' had NO BASIS WHATSOEVER IN POLICY! Read WP:NOTE. Read WP:NPOV. Read WP:RS. It is "reasonable to use primary sources to explain these beliefs" only to the extent that (i) they are clearly stated as beliefs, not facts and (ii) they are relevant. UC beliefs about Hak Ja Han's childhood are stated as fact in the article and do not appear to be particularly relevant to her notability.
 * I agree with you that her life story should be explained as coming from UC sources. I think the life story of just about any religious figure is going to come from sources in that religion, and I would expect that on WP that is usually explained. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The clearly distinguishing difference being that the articles on most religious figures don't come under WP:BLP. In any case, articles on such figures should not be based solely on primary sources, but rather on scholarly analysis and commentary of/on these sources (and if such scholarly sources don't exist, then the figure fails WP:NOTE). I am bemused that you are jumping up and down over at Talk:List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, where there is little to no BLP content, while defending the use of questionable sources here in violation of that policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, merely 'explaining that her life story came from UC sources' is insufficient. As a living person, her "life story" is primarily a factual issue, not an issue of belief. UC beliefs should only enter to the extent that they are core doctrine (e.g. the 'Wedding of the Lamb') necessary for explaining her prominence in the movement. I do not think that this covers the claim that Rev. Young Do Lee is a "famous evangelist" or details of her family's purported persecution. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, How about typing "이영도 목사" which means Rev. Young Do Lee in the Korean google? You can see that he was a famous reverend in Korea.Godneck (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what that would prove -- as I don't read Korean and would have no idea whether the results are talking of the same "Young Do Lee", let alone know what they were saying about him. I do know that the only English-Google hits of an "evangelist" of this name are from UC recounting of the Hak Ja Han story. If he was famous, I would expect him to turn up in some (English language) work on the history of Korean Evangelicalism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, I referred third-party source and I don't think there needs translation in the article. In order to avoid unnecessary discussion, I fixed the sentence about Rev. Young Do Lee.Godneck (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that the source in question meets WP:RS. Also, a translation was needed because as it turns out the claim made was not contained in that source (as I discovered by running a Google translation of it), but is rather a completely illegitimate exaggeration from it. Removing Young Do Lee does not change the fact that the trueloveking source is highly questionable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should Monthly Woman Chosun be considered a reliable source? The name, the article & the website give the impression of a superficial 'glossy' with questionable editorial and/or fact-checking standards. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed."Godneck (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream news organizations" = one of list of newspapers in South Korea or similar. I see no evidence that Monthly Woman Chosun is a "mainstream news organization". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Monthly Woman Chosun" is a woman magazine published by Chosun Ilbo, the best-selling newspaper organization in South Korea.Godneck (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that The Chosun Ilbo does not mention "Monthly Woman Chosun", and this article is not published on their website. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I make you understand that The Chosun Ilbo published "Monthly Woman Chosun"? As I know, there is no such criteria in wikipedia.Godneck (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Chosun Ilbo's website is www.chosun.com. The article you are citing is hosted on www.chojin.com, and appears to bear no relatiship to The Chosun Ilbo. You have established no relationship between the article and the newspaper. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So?Godneck (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, we have no evidence that this article came from The Chosun Ilbo stable of publications. The Google-translated attribution is merely "[Source - Monthly Women of 2003. 3 issue]" incidentally. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, according to Alexa, www.chojin.com is a Japanese site, so would appear to have no relationship to The Chosun Ilbo. According to a Google translation of this page, it is a UC website. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So, why should I show you the evidence? "Monthly Woman Chosun" is a paper magazine. The article is just for referencing.Godneck (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We require (i) evidence that this article was published by 'Monthly Woman Chosun' & (ii) evidence that it is a reliable source (just because it is published by the Chosun Ilbo, even if that is confirmed, does not mean that it has the same editorial standards as its parent). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. So, where is the wiki criteria about the last sentence you mentioned?

2. You don't understand my word. Simply speaking, do you have to publicly prove that there is information about Rev. Moon's marriage in Larson's book in order to use it as a source?Godneck (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The relevant policies and guidelines are WP:RS, WP:V (especially WP:V) & WP:CONV/WP:CITE.
 * 2) You can look it up in Google Books here.

1. OK. If you contact to "woman.chosun.com", the webpage of "월간여성조선", you can see the link to "조선일보(Chosun Ilbo)" on the upper part.

2. The article is so old that you cannot find it on the site of the magazine. How about typing "한학자"(Mrs. Han) and "여성조선(Woman Chosun)" and "2003" at the same time in Korean google? You can see several pages with the same content on it.

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:CITE: "When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable, but editors should always exercise caution, and ideally find and verify multiple copies of the material for contentious items."
 * 2) Even were it proven that this is an accurate copy of the original, the credulous sycophantic tone of the article would make me question whether it is a reliable source -- as I said above "just because it is published by the Chosun Ilbo ... does not mean that it has the same editorial standards as its parent".


 * WP:RS : "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed." Is there any additional option? Godneck (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've raised the issue at WP:RS/N. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "credulous sycophantic tone" of the article may be a reason to question that particular article's reliability, but the publication is analogous to women's magazines in the U.S. like Redbook, Vogue, Better Homes and Gardens, O, The Oprah Magazine", etc. Recently Vogue published an interview with Michelle Obama. I doubt we would challenge Vogue'' as an unacceptable source if we found fault with that particular interviewer. -Exucmember (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, I was busy to discuss on this issue. I total agree with Exucmember's opinion. Even in English wikipedia, I think that we have to be more generous about foreign sources especially if the content is foreign people or foreign customs. Important thing is not the language but the knowledge. In Korean Wikipedia, we surely accept English sources without any more identification stage. If English wikipedia make some barrier to other language sources, I think it's making disadvantage to itself because it is limiting the source of contents. If we have to delete this article about Hak Ja Han Moon, we are losing information about important person, for only one reason she is Korean and she has few sources written with English. I think it's not desirable effect for English Wiki. Godneck (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The so-called "knowledge" appears to be simply credulously repeating UC PR without any fact-checking. Who are these "150 world leaders"? Mostly third-rate has-beens if previous UC conference guest lists are anything to go on (I seem to remember people like the former governor general of some Caribbean island and a man who was president of Egypt for only a matter of days, for example). If it had genuinely included 150 legitimate "world leaders", I would have expected it to have gotten major world-wide coverage. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your opinion is also right in some respect. As you said, we don't exactly know who "150 world leaders" are. However, this source is a reliable Korean magazine's interview article. I think the interviewer also couldn't check and list the 150 world leaders in the article. However, I just guess that he wrote this article in this way because he could feel the mood of the festival. What we can verify from this article is just there were 150 people who the interviewer thought that they were world leaders. Well, although I also want to verify who the 150 leaders are..., but there's no way for current situation. Godneck (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a minor change as a proposal for - taking a stab at - a solution. See my edit summary. -Exucmember (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting it completely wrong
The second paragraph in 'Role in public events' states: This source demonstrates no degree of fact-checking that might qualify it as a WP:RS. This paragraph is woefully inaccurate. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "On her 60's birthday(May 2nd, 2003)" -- but as even the unreliable source states, it actually happened in February.
 * "a 'Global Peace Summit'" -- but it was in fact titled 'The World Summit of Leadership and Governance'
 * "inviting about 150 'world leaders'" -- but as the source above demonstrates this was in fact "One hundred and seventy-six leaders representing over 70 nations attended. They included current and former heads of state, members of parliament, government and diplomatic leaders, religious leaders, professors, NGO and media representatives."
 * "professors, NGO and media representatives" are not "world leaders"
 * No current heads of state are listed. The only current head of government mentioned was the PM of the Solomon Islands, and the field thins out thereafter so quickly that the "former Deputy Prime Minister of Uzbekistan" gets prominent mention. Two former heads of state & one current head of government (the latter of a tiny state) + a number of less prominent people ≠ "150 'world leaders'"

Another UC source adds the former PM of Guyana, a former President of Seychelles, a guy whose main claim to fame was (as a self-nominated candidate) only winning 0.4% of the vote in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004, the former PM (for less than a year) of Egypt, the former PM of Iceland, the Deputy PM of Samoa, and a Cambodian prince/former deputy PM. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. There were some mistakes in translation. I'll correct it.


 * Actually, as you indicated, the definition of "world leaders" is very subjective. If you think they are not, they are not. However, anyway, the article says that they are world leaders. I think that the quotation mark Exucmember marked represents that kind of subjectiveness. Anyway, what's your definition on "world leader", Hrafn?Godneck (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not merely "subjective", it is wrong. "World leader" generally indicates the (current) head of a major country. At a stretch it could mean the former head of a major power, or the current head of a lesser country. It does not, even at a stretch, include the former deputy PM of a relatively minor country, deputy or former leaders of tiny countries, a self-nominated presidential candidate or "professors, NGO and media representatives". The appearance is that Hak Ja Han (or her staff) told the interviewer "150 world leaders" and the interviewer simply accepted that description without fact-checking. This is not the actions of a reliable source. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "World leader" generally indicates the (current) head of a major country. <-- What made you think so? And, what's your definition of a "major country"? Godneck (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the defintion of "world leader" described above is just your own definition. Can you simply say about the question, "who leads the world?"? Maybe, current head of a major countries can. How about former heads of countries who affects to the opinion of current major heads?


 * You say that world leader should be from major countries. However, what is "major country"? In UN, every nations have equal vote. In this situation, can you simply say that "more powerful country" is "more important country"? How about "Kim Jung-Il"? Even if he is the head of very poor country, he can affect much of world's situation.


 * Actually, the defintion of "world leader" described above is just your own definition. Can you simply say about the question, "who leads the world?"? Maybe, current head of a major countries can. How about former heads of countries who affects to the opinion of current major heads?


 * You say that world leader should be from major countries. However, what is "major country"? In UN, every nations have equal vote. In this situation, can you simply say that "more powerful country" is "more important country"? How about "Kim Jung-Il"? Even if he is the head of very poor country, he can affect much of world's situation.


 * How about Pope? How about Dalai Lama? Aren't they world leaders? In some respect, they affect much more than American President, I think.Godneck (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] See above (which would probably qualify the Pope, as the leader the world's Roman Catholics). But you are wrong that "they affect much more than American President" -- as most Catholics go along doing what they've always been doing, be the Pope reformist (see Traditionalist Catholicism) or conservative (see the large numbers of Catholics ignoring the Pope on contraception abortion and divorce). But neither the Pope nor the Dalai Lama attended -- it was the former Deputy PM of Uzbekistan, the former PM of Guyana, a former President of Seychelles, a guy whose main claim to fame was (as a self-nominated candidate) only winning 0.4% of the vote in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004, the former PM (for less than a year) of Egypt, the former PM of Iceland, the Deputy PM of Samoa, and a Cambodian prince/former deputy PM -- none of whom are "world leaders" by any reasonable definition. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A question for Godneck: what reasonable definiton of "world leader" would qualify Serhiy Komisarenko as one? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that there are no general definition about "world leader". Godneck (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not asking for a "general definition" -- I am merely asking for a reasonable definition that encompasses its usage here. If no such definition exists to justify this usage, then the phrase is misleading and should not be used. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the exact expression shown in a reliable article based on wiki criteria. Is there any criteria that the editor should explain it?Godneck (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (i) The cited source does not use this "exact expression" -- it is merely a translation of it (possibly an inaccurate one). (ii) We have not established that it is an accurate copy of the original. (iii) We have not established that the original publication is a reliable source. (iv) As you cannot or will not give "a reasonable definition that encompasses its usage here", I am forced to conclude that the "phrase is misleading and should not be used." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what's your justification about the fourth claim based on wiki criteria?Godneck (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BETTER & WP:PEACOCK. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Godneck: kindly cease and desist refactoring the talk page. If you want to 'unsay' something then strike it, do not delete it. I was in the middle of replying to your comments when you deleted it the first time, and your second attempt made this reply appear to be in response to another (unrelated) question. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I was about to cancel the paragraphs because it was not complete version. I didn't know you were editing at the time. So, is it wiki convention to "strike" one's own opinion rather than deleting in the talk page?Godneck (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Segye Ilbo is owned by the UC
The third paragraph in the 'Role in public events' is cited to Segye Ilbo which is owned by News World Communications and thence by the UC. As it is surprising for a fairly liberal Democratic Party US President to be sending congratulatory messages to a figure long and rather closely associated with the more conservative elements of the Republican Party (and social conservatives more generally), I am deleting this passage, per WP:REDFLAG. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a fact reported by many Korean newspapers. I added another reference, which says about more unbelievable story about Kim Jung-Il's present.Godneck (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The various electronic translations I've run on that new source do not appear to be talking about Obama giving a message, but give garbled sentences involving '31 May', 'Abel', the UN & New York. I would suggest that further explanation would be desirable. I also refer you to WP:V. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 버락 오바마 미 대통령은 31일 뉴욕에서 가정연합 주최로 열리는 '아벨유엔 창설 축하 천주대회'에 축전을 보낸다. Godneck (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Above sentence says that "Obama sent the celebrating message."Godneck (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 버락 오바마 미 대통령은 31일 뉴욕에서 가정연합 주최로 열리는 '아벨유엔 창설 축하 천주대회'에 축전을 보낸다. Godneck (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Above sentence says that "Obama sent the celebrating message."Godneck (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exact phrase-level translation is as following:
 * 버락 오바마 미 대통령은 --> "American President, Barack Obama"
 * 31일-->"on 31st(January)"
 * 뉴욕에서-->"in New York"
 * 가정연합 주최로 열리는-->"hosted by family federation(UC)"
 * '아벨유엔 창설 축하 천주대회'에-->"the celebration meeting(?) of construction of Abel UN"(I don't know the exact English name of the event)
 * 축전을 보낸다.-->"sent the celebrating messaging"
 * In all, "American President, Barack Obama sent the celebrating message on 'the celbration meeting(?) of construction of Abel UN' hosted by family federation on 31st Jan. in New York.Godneck (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And this has what precisely to do with a birthday party in Chongpyong? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In other articles, they say that "Obama's message is celebrating Rev. Moon's birthday". We don't have to seperate two events.Godneck (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the UC has previously attempted to use the UN to give their events 'official' status, I don't think we can equate the two quite so casually. Obama may have thought that he was simply giving an encouraging message to some UN get-together. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Public Events" that aren't
Therefore the description of these as "public events" is erroneous. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The George H. W. Bush speeches were ticket-holder only events -- nor is there any indication that Hak Ja Han 'led' them.
 * 2) The "The World Summit of Leadership and Governance" was not open to the public either, just to
 * 3) There is no indication that the 'birthday party' was a public event (nor why it is noteworthy at all).


 * OK. What I mean public is that the article refers many international leaders who were invited, visited, and gave messages. And, the event was also open to general media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godneck (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (i) "Public" does not have that meaning. (ii) If it was "open to general media" then why didn't any of the media cover it (so that we're forced to use an interview from Hak Ja Han & a UC webpage as our sources)? (iii) That explanation only applies to one of the three events in any case. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that Hak Ja Han does not appear to have 'led' the 2003 'World Summit on Leadership and Governance', and does not appear to be even listed as a speaker at this event. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the events, the people who were there, the messages sent, etc. are not really about Hak Ja Han anyway. I am going to nominate the article for deletion as I suggested before. Redddogg (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Those 3 above "events" are poorly sourced in this article and that material should be removed. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources and poor sources
What's with all the primary sources and poor sources in this article? Namely 1, 3, 10, 15 - and probably others as well. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's generally only incidental coverage of her in independent third-party sources -- so the "primary sources and poor sources" are certain editors' attempt to make up for this. 1,2,3,10,12,14,15,16 are all UC affiliated. 20 & 21 are to a book written by her estranged daughter-in-law. 9 has major reliability clouds hanging over it & it is unclear exactly what many of the other Korean-language sources actually say. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of cleanup is needed. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Did a bit of research, added info to the article from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. More later. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Additons to intro
The article is supposed to be about Mrs. Han, not Dan Quayle, Bill Cosby, etc. More evidence that it should be deleted if an intro paragraph can not be written about the subject. Redddogg (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, these were notable individuals recruited to speak at events organized by the subject of the article, to speak at an event founded by the subject of the article, directly prior to world tours by the indvidual promoting these organizations. Highly relevant. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So in the intro to the article on John McCain should it discuss people who left the Republican Party during his presidential run? Redddogg (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to a discussion of this article please. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The material added to the lead appears to be a heavy-handed duplication of material from 'Unification Church involvement'. Further, I can see little indication that the 'Women's Federation for World Peace' has any existence beyond a vanity exercise (and thus an excuse to go on speaking tours, hold lavish conferences. Given that the UC itself is currently titled the 'Family Federation for World Peace', is the WFWP anything more than a 'UC Women's Auxiliary'? Also I would note that she is listed in at least one of the cited sources as merely a "co-founder" of this organisation. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an WP:OR interpretation of the events, we can only go by reliable sources and what they have to say about it. And per WP:LEAD, the lede should be a summary of the article, naturally the whole lede will be a summary/repetition of material that appears later in the article. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Editorial decision-making inevitably involves the use of processes that would, if explicitly stated in the article, be WP:OR. I was questioning the emphasis given to WFWP by the article, given the apparent lack of substantive activities by that organisation, and its lack of clear differentiation from the UC. The important thing in writing leads is that they're closer to a "summary" than a straight "repetition". Some recent versions have tended to closely towards the latter, but this appears to have since been corrected. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please back up your claims with citations to reliable sources. We do not deal with WP:OR and assertions and claims made with no sources on this project. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The " citations to reliable sources" are already there in the article -- and give no evidence of activities other than speaking-tours, conferences & similar insubstantial activities. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You said: the 'Women's Federation for World Peace' has any existence beyond a vanity exercise (and thus an excuse to go on speaking tours, hold lavish conferences. Given that the UC itself is currently titled the 'Family Federation for World Peace', is the WFWP anything more than a 'UC Women's Auxiliary - reliable sources to back up these claims? Cirt' (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mangling what I said into a definitive statement of the exact opposite of the tentative statement I in fact made. What I in fact said was "I can see little indication that the 'Women's Federation for World Peace' has any existence beyond a vanity exercise (and thus an excuse to go on speaking tours, hold lavish conferences[)]." I was making a statement about a lack of information on (not information on lack of) substantive activities of the organisation. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Has a notable individual come to these conclusions and made them in a reliable source, or are these your own personal views of these organizations? Cirt (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, which is why I said "I can see little indication that the 'Women's Federation for World Peace' has any existence beyond a vanity exercise (and thus an excuse to go on speaking tours, hold lavish conferences[)]." NOT "I think the article should state that 'there is little indication that the Women's Federation for World Peace has any existence beyond a vanity exercise". I was making an editorial assessment of the material in the article, NOT suggesting new content for it.
 * Such editorial assessments would appear to be perfectly permissible under WP:TALK.
 * The assessment is consonant with the material cited in the article.
 * <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are of course free to make your own assertions and have your own opinions and beliefs - but without referencing reliable sources, this discussion is veering away from being constructive in nature and instead towards WP:NOT. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, my 'assessment' was not "veering ... towards WP:NOT", it was merely suggesting that the article might be over-emphasising the distinction between WFWP & the UC, and her activities with it. YMMV on whether the distinction is over-emphasised, but the topic is clearly permitted within WP:TALK. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually above you had said you thought these organizations consisted of a "vanity exercise", and that the Women's Federation for World Peace was a "Women's Auxiliary", these seemed to be your assessments of the organizations, not of the article. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is also an assessment of the article's coverage of these organisations. If an article's coverage gives the impression (through lack of information other such things as speaking engagements, who said what about whom, and the rationalisations they gave for doing so) that one editor might characterise as giving the impression of a "vanity exercise", it implies that some of this 'froth' should be removed and/or replaced by more weighty material. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. And you still have yet to present any reliable sources to back up these assertions you are making. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as what reliable sources have to say: --The Sociology of Religious Movements By William Sims Bainbridge, pp204-205 <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice - but other than saying it is a "superficially independent organization", doesn't really provide any worthwhile additional info for the article. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was suggesting de-emphasising this aspect as a "lavish"ly funded attempt to give the "appearance of ever greater success" (i.e. what I called a "vanity exercise"), not suggesting new content for the section on it. Incidentally, Cyberculture Counterconspiracy By Kenn Thomas (p 87) calls it "one of the myriad fronts for the Rev. Sung Myeng Moon" (in discussion of its use as a conduit for funds to bail out Jerry Falwell's Christian Heritage Foundation), further calling into question the degree of substance it has. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * further calling into question the degree of substance it has - no, further simply saying it is a front organization. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Front organization[s]" have substance? Since when? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P)


 * On further reflection, "worthwhile additional info for the article" can be gleaned from the first source, e.g. something along the lines of:


 * This would provide some context to all these speaking engagements, etc. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Added using your recommended wording - hope that's okay. Cirt (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced change
- source please? Let's not get into the habit of making changes to this article that are not backed up to reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Unification Church (which Family Federation for World Peace redirects to -- which should have been a hint). This fact is mentioned (and cited) in the lead of that article. If you really want, you can copy that citation here -- but it appears to be belabouring an obvious point. I actually don't see any reason why we should be mentioning FFWP at all, given that referring to it is confusing renaming of the organisation already mentioned in the main section title 'Unification Church involvement', but could see no easy & elegant way of removing this entirely, so merely clarified it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would note that instead of seeking clarification/citation of this obvious point you reverted back to the erroneous claim that FFWP was a "Unification Church-affiliated organization". I would question whether this piece of incorrect information was contained in the sources. I have corrected this error again, and have included a (to my mind unnecessary) citation for it copied from Unification Church, where the UC's official names is discussed in more detail in that article's lead. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not add unsourced material and assertions to this article again not backed up to a citation to verifiable and reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not add demonstrably false material and assertions to this article again. If you wish to defend your original wording on the basis of WP:V (verifiability, not truth) then please quote the wording in the source that originally verified it. That Unification Church and Family Federation for World Peace are the one and the same is prominently mentioned and cited in that article -- which I linked to in the contested edit. It did not (and still does not) seem to me to be necessary to belabour that point again on this article -- with the resultant 3 citations for a short sentence. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The material I had added to the article was backed up by cites - yours when you added it was backed up by zero cites - you did not add any when you added it. Please do not add unsourced material to this article again. Cirt (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? Then please quote the source that "backed up" the claim that FFWP was a "Unification Church-affiliated organization" rather than the church itself. As far as I knew, the fact that FFWP=UC was undisputed, and this mere clarifying edit did not need a citation. When challenged, I provided one. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The wife of the Unification Church's founder is touring the United States to promote the Family Federation for World Peace, an organization established by the Moons.
 * 2) In Washington, Moon opened his checkbook to  such Republican Party mainstays as former Presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush, GOP  vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp and Christian Co- alition leader  Ralph Reed -- all of whom appeared this year at conferences  sponsored by Moon  's Family Federation for World Peace. 
 * 1) In Washington, Moon opened his checkbook to  such Republican Party mainstays as former Presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush, GOP  vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp and Christian Co- alition leader  Ralph Reed -- all of whom appeared this year at conferences  sponsored by Moon  's Family Federation for World Peace. 

added this source to back up the claim that the Family Federation for World Peace is the current official name of the Unification Church - however the source says ''[http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm In 1991 Rev. Moon reorganized a number of groups into different, new international federations. The Federation for World Peace (FWP) and the Inter-Religious Federation for World Peace (IRFWP) were created more or less simultaneously. The first is responsible for coordinating the activities of Unificationists attached to the political world together with the Summit Council for World Peace.]''. The source does not support this claim. Cirt (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neither of the sources state that the FFWP is "Unification Church-affiliated", just Moon-affiliated. As it happens the UC is itself Moon-affiliated, so the quotes do not contradict the assertion that FFWP=UC.
 * 2) As I stated the "citation for it [was] copied from Unification Church", where it was employed to substantiate the various official names of the church. If it is inadequate I will find a better one.
 * It is inadequate. I will change the info to "Moon-affiliated", until a reliable source is provided to back up this claim. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Cirt (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The full current official title of the church is the "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification". However its new name is not-uncommonly referred to as the "Family Federation for World Peace" (without the "and Unification"), e.g.: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs)
 * Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America By Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft p43
 * Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movement By Irving Hexham, Stanley J Grenz, D. Theol., Jay T Smith p114
 * Marcia Sladich' Arrest In $10 Million Ponzi Scheme By BackgroundNow Staff p4 (appears to be a copy of court documents)
 * Teaching New Religious Movements By David G. Bromley p68
 * Renaming: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases p447
 * Added . Cirt (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues with article
Besides being almost totally unsourced the article mainly talks about Mrs. Han from the point of view of Unification Church members. There is no real explaination of why she is notable to the world at large, not because of what church members believe about her, or the things she has done with her husband, or especially what she might do in the future. At least the article needs some better sources that discuss her in depth, as WP notability says. Redddogg (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that although the material in the article is grossly inadequate, it would almost certainly survive AfD on the basis of underlying notability of the topic. I have removed the more marginal material, and would be open to forming a WP:CONSENSUS to remove much of the remainder as being both (i) unsourced & (ii) taking a Unificationist tone. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also material that is really criticism of her husband or her chuch should be removed. Then what is left? Redddogg (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Has any source covered her in depth? If not maybe the article should be considered for deletion. Redddogg (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Reading the material, I think it should be merged into True Family. Either way, the 'Church weddings' section does not belong here; hiring one ex-President to give talks can hardly be generalized to 'Courting influential people' (perhaps 'courting influential person' :-)); and, the entire family section properly belongs in True Family anyway. The only thing that you can say about her is that she is the wife of Mr. Moon, hired George H. Bush to give a few talks in Korea, and is the designated successor to Mr. Moon. Not much of an article by itself, IMO. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article went through a process of attempting to replace a large amount of WP:OR with sourced material about a month ago, which resulted in it being reduced to less than half its size, and becoming a bit choppy as far as flow & material matching section titles. I still think there's enough material here to withstand an AfD, but would not be averse to a merger into True Family. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was invited to this discussion since I had edited some Unification Church related articles before, mainly Insight on the News. Reading over the article, yes most of the sources seem to really be about Mr. Moon, with Mrs. Han (?) only mentioned incidentally. Borock (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to merge. The article is sourced mainly by someone's interpretations of primary sources. (Nan Sook Nim's book is also a primary source BTW.) The secondary sources seem mainly to provide bits and bites of sometimes inaccurate information. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I proposed a merge to True Family. Redddogg (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for inviting me, Redddogge. I agree with the merge, and further suggest a redirect (rather than a deletion). This will keep the article history. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Redddogg, thanks for inviting me, too. Actually, I object to merge or delete. I think if this article provides more information on her early ages before her marriage and her detailed contributions as a woman leader, it could have value for an independent article.Godneck (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge, Keep article - Subject of the article has obviously received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To me the key word there is "significant." Has she received significant coverage?  Godneck seems to be saying that this article should be the place where information about her is put together for the first time.  I don't deny that she is important, but still the article has been around for years and is still not up to WP standards despite all the work that has been done with it. Redddogg (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, I have some sources about her. I think I can contribute to the page so that it can have valuable information.Godneck (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can improve the article that's a good thing, but it has been around since 2004. Redddogg (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Redddogg's sentiment. It's conventional for a merger proposal to remain open a few weeks to allow discussion. This gives Godneck sufficient time to come up with "significant coverage of a topic" in "reliable, third-party sources" (per WP:V) to convince the consensus to allow this topic to remain as an independent article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am adding sentences one by one everyday. I am so surprised because the article about her is so poor. Actually, there are so many sources about her.Godneck (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge: since I did a cleanup over a month ago, and more particularly since this merge discussion started, not a single third party source has been added. It is therefore becoming abundantly clear that insufficient third-party coverage exists for a detailed WP:NPOV treatment of this topic, and that it should be merged rather than let it be turned into a UC-sourced puff-piece. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose merge, Keep article - per Cirt, who used the word "obviously". The Unification Church members here may not like the fact that most of the positive information was deleted recently (not by me) because it was unsourced; instead they should do the work and find the sources, of which there are many. It's hard for me to understand how they can honestly say merge. (Well, in Steve's case he seems to want to get rid of all BLPs.) Hak Ja Han is more important to the Unification Church than Mary is to the Catholic Church, and the theology actually says she's greater than Jesus; she is co-messiah, an embodiment of God on earth, but in a more complete sense than Jesus. She has also been named to be the leader (though her style may be more of a guru than a general) of all of Unificationism after Sun Myung Moon's death. In less than a year he'll be 90. When he dies she'll be the single most important living Unificationist. Just because she's been criticized is no justification for pretending she hasn't had significant coverage in third party publications. (That coverage has dealt with the issues I mentioned above and many other things, including her leadership of the Women's Federation for World Peace and affiliated speaking tours, and other activities covered widely in the press and by academics.) The article has not really had that much effort put into it. People though things in hastily, largely without any sources. I'm looking forward to Godneck's contributions. Even though he's a new editor, he understands the importance of sourcing. -Exucmember (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But still Wikipedia is written for the general public, not for UC members -- of which there are only a few thousand who speak English. So how important she is to them is not what the article should be about.Redddogg (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia is written for the general public. If someone is regarded by the membership of a worldwide church as God on earth, that's noteworthy, and hundreds of news articles and dozens of academics have talked about it in published materials. Likewise for a very prominent person in a well-known international organization, who is soon to be leader of it. These are two reasons (among others) that she's obviously notable. -Exucmember (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I was marveling that there were fully 40 results for "Nansook Hong" (in quotations) in just Google books. "Hak Ja Han" (in quotations) returns 218! -Exucmember (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but how many of those 218 hits were for mere mention in passing whilst discussing her husband, as opposed to the "significant coverage" required for continued existence? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also most people seem to think the Unification Church will break up after Rev. Moon's death. Redddogg (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's WP:CRYSTAL, and thus outside our purview as Wikipedia editors. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So then are also all the assertions about Mrs. Han's future leadership. Redddogg (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. The former is unsourced hearsay. The latter is sourced material on current trends & extant UC decisions, that just happens to have implications for the "future". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Article has improved tremendously
Cirt and others have made tremendous improvements to the article. They should be highly commended. -Exucmember (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! These kind words are most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources and promo sites
- Let's please get out of using primary sources and promo websites please. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne self-published source
- Unfortunately, this should be removed, it appears to be self-published on the web site and was not published in a secondary source. The author claims it was to be published in Studies in Contemporary Religion, publisher Signature Books (2000) - did this treatise appear in this book when it came out? That could be cited instead. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently in process of (trying) to find this in a secondary source book, as opposed to the self-published version on that web site. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it and have edited the page accordingly. -Exucmember (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - can you please provide the page numbers of the book cited? Also, the quote is a bit too long, I will trim it. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not elongate this quote again. I had trimmed it to the relevant part. Her travels around the world on promo trips is already explained in much more detail above in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are still missing a page number for this source... Cirt (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't have the page number. -Exucmember (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how do you know this quote actually even appears in this book? Cirt (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The text on Introvigne's web site was published in Introvigne's "The Unification Church" by Signature Books. It's the same material. -Exucmember (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not know it is the same material without verifying it to the actual pages in the book. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I took care of this. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevancies in "Increasing influence"
Could anybody tell me what possible relevance the Moons' founding (shortly after their marriage) of the 'Little Angels', and 'Parents Day' stuff has to do with Hak Ja Han's current "Increasing influence" within the church? I'll be removing the material shortly, if a good justification for its inclusion isn't given. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The founding of the 'Little Angels' could be moved up to a new section on "Early church activities" along with other such notable actions, but I don't understand why the other sentence is in the article. -Exucmember (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved this info up higher in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Little Angels were founded in 1962 I don't think Mrs. Moon had much to do with the process. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Source for this assertion? Cirt (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no one has yet written a book about my opinions, however that one was based on the fact that she was around 18 years old at the time. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I suspect that this is WP:OR, I would also suspect that it is correct. Hak Ja Han would still have been in her teens at the time of its founding, and would have been highly unlikely to have exerted much control over the church or the process -- so her role in the founding would almost certainly have been purely nominal. Should we say any of this in the article? Certainly not. Is it a reason to de-emphasise (or maybe even omit) the founding of the 'Little Angels'? Possibly. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hrafn. In the church many times her name is mentioned just to honor her. Should every mention of the queen by British people be mentioned in her article?  For instance ships are called "Her Majesty's Ship."  Should her article contain a list of all her ships? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard on Wikipedia is verifiability. Now I ask again, do you have a source that says otherwise? Cirt (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think you would be able to find a source that says Mrs. Moon did not really co-found the Little Angels, any more than you could find one that says the queen does not really own all those ships. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's please stick to discussion of this individual, and available sources about her. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (i) Employing an analogy is hardly going off-topic. (ii) I just tried to find out what the cited source has to say on the matter, but found that it is behind a paywall. I'm placing a request quote on the statement, so that we can find out what it actually says, so as to get a tighter understanding of this. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ✅, quote added to cite. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So bare mention, giving no indication whether her involvement was substantive or merely nominal. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source which says she is a founder of the organization. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Moon's fourth wife
= St. Petersburg Times, a secondary source satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. This is also confirmed in multiple other reliable sources - I will add them soon. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that what they said here is not true. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability to reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the purpose of this article is to make Wikipedia look stupid, by all means leave the sentence in. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently backed up to four cites. Will add some more. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because an error is repeated doesn't make it accurate. Yes, the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. But that does not mean we are required to add false information to an article just because we can find a few sources for it. Interestingly, "third wife" and "Myung Hee Kim" yields 257 results in Google, while "fourth wife" and "Myung Hee Kim" yields ZERO. Apparently none of those who claimed there were four wives knew their names! Since there are sources for both claims, I suggest we consider looking at what they said in greater depth and try to assess which one is accurate, or if that's not possible, consider leaving it vague. -Exucmember (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you question the reliability of any of the sources currently cited for this information? Cirt (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says that Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair.  As we've already discussed above, we have other sources that she's not the fourth wife. Godneck (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm, it appears from the above discussion that most of those other sources are actually the ones that are unreliable, whereas the sources currently cited do meet WP:RS. It also appears that a majority of the WP:RS sources that discuss this issue acknowledge that she is Moon's fourth wife. (See the five sources currently cited for this info in the article - four at the end of the comma, and an additional one at the end of the sentence.) Cirt (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Controversial new religions" is definitely so-called reliable source. It means that there is a conflict between so-called reliable sources. I also can give you another so-called reliable sources. Godneck (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at "The Many Faces of Faith" by Richard R. Losch, "Those Curious New Cults in the 80s" by William J. Petersen, "The Asian American Encyclopedia" by Franklin Ng, "Sixteenth Street architecture" by Sue A. Kohler, "Religion and society in the American West" by Carl Guarneri and David J. Alvarez, and "Encyclopedia of cults and new religions" by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.Godneck (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look into these - it would be helpful if you could please provide full cites, with page numbers. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That kind information has no worth to mention more. The so-called reliable sources only have thresh information. I wanted to show you how unreliable the so-called reliable sources are. If they are reliable according to wiki criteria, I admit information on wikipedia is not reliable. This discussion is useless. Godneck (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ✅ = Incorporated some of these suggested sources, and other WP:RS sources, to make this change. Cirt (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This source is quite interesting, United Press International (purchased in 2000 by News World Communications, a media company owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church):

Standing 5-feet-9-inches tall, Moon lives with his third or, depending on the source, fourth, wife, Hak Ja Han, and their 13 children in suburban Tarrytown, N.Y., outside New York City.

Cirt (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt is making wikipedia unreliable and funny third-level material perverting the criteria. Do you think the sentence you inserted is appropriate for encyclopedia?Godneck (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * United Press International uses a similar model. We are simply relaying what is reported in WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * United Press International looks like a reliable source to me. I can see some argument about possible conflict of interest, but the organisation is well respected in the field of journalism. I have no issues with this one. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually that story was published long before the UPI was bought by the UC. The whole sentence really should be removed.  As it is now it is about the lack of knowledge (and one might assume interest) in the UC by the mainstream media.  Anyway this article is about Hak Ja Han not about Rev. Moon's life before he married her. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I showed you the United Press International sentence here on the talk page to show that a major international reliable source uses the format acknowledging that there are discrepancies about which number marriage it is. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think it shows lack of interest by the media, since they could have found the correct answer in a few minutes if they had wanted to. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidently not, as the "correct answer" is shown to be quite different depending on which of the (multiple) reliable sources you look at. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the kind of thing journalists get paid for. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel the implications of what I wrote above are being ignored: "Interestingly, "third wife" and "Myung Hee Kim" yields 257 results in Google, while "fourth wife" and "Myung Hee Kim" yields ZERO." NONE of those claiming four wives (that I could find) went into enough depth even to mention their names! If they don't even know their names, how can we regard the claim as reliable in the face of differing statements about the number? The sources claiming 4 wives can't say who this mysterious "fourth" wife is? I am an expert on the Unification Church, have read thousands of articles on the church continuously throughout the last 35 years, and I have never in 35 years even heard this claim of 4 wives until these recent Wikipedia conversations about her. Do you have a name? Do you have a full account of who the "fourth" one is? Which wife is she (from what year to what year, or at least what number)? Do you have some scholarly conjecture as to why this mysterious "fourth" person missing from all the accounts until very recently was hidden with truly remarkable effectiveness from the members and from the public? The confusion over whether there are 2 or 3 is very understandable. The second wife was a common-law wife. She might be counted or not. Unification Church sources in the West count her. Some other sources may not if they think that's more technically correct given their (accurate or inaccurate) assumptions about the meaning of a common law marriage at that time in Korea. All of the media and scholarly sources about early UC history are largely derivative of UC sources, so the claim of a fourth marriage when this was unheard of for 3 or 4 decades in the West is highly unusual. I do not think it's asking too much to dig a little deeper and ask these sources to say something more about this mysterious missing "fourth" wife and how they found out about her. At least they ought to be able to produce a name or some information other than only "he had 4 wives"! Just because one scholar got a single fact wrong and others repeated it doesn't mean we have to bury our head in the sand on this issue. -Exucmember (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please present reliable sources to back up your claims. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do ANY of the sources you cite for four wives even mention their names? -Exucmember (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to use CAPS. It is not conducive to a constructive and civil discussion. And yes, the reliable sources refer to "Hak Ja Han" as Moon's fourth wife. I could probably provide more than five if you like, though that is more than sufficient. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am asking whether any of the sources give the names of all of the supposed four wives, especially the mystery wife that has never been mentioned (by name or otherwise) by any source I have ever seen in 35 years. That would seem to be a minimal standard to ask for in this context. I am not trying to be rude or uncivil. I am just a bit frustrated that you don't seem to get my point. Here's my point stated flatly: If not a single source can even give the name of the mystery wife (which no one claimed even existed, for the last 3 or 4 decades as far as I know), it is highly likely the number 4 is a mistake. If it's a mistake, it doesn't need to be in the article. There is no requirement that we add false information to an article just because we found a few sources that repeated it. -Exucmember (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you have not presented reliable sources to back up your claims, and the five reliable sources currently in the article clearly identify "Hak Ja Han" as Moon's fourth wife - further discussion on this seems pointless and is starting to border on WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinions seem to be 3 to 1 against including this sentence, with another person's view not made clear. Borock (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinions seem to all be voiced by individuals previously heavily involved in the article and in disputes on its talk page from before I did a major revamping and improvement which introduced over forty new reliable sources to the article (and all of which by users with a significant focus of their edits solely on the topic of Unification Church). The opinions are indeed opinions but are not supported by site policy. The WP:V policy clearly supports inclusion of the sentence. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--) I quite agree with Cirt. In the absence of any reliable sources to back up your claims, the reliable source must be used. Doubts about its accuracy should be countered with evidence from other reliable sources. In response to your "three to one" comment, remember that verifiability outweighs consensus... Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, given that I made a very similar point to Cirt some time ago (and simply wasn't interested in re-hashing the point again), the existence of a consensus against inclusion is also questionable. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Hrafn - I don't recall your specific comment but agreed that consensus is questionable - though I also agree with admin that in this case WP:V is key here. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Spaces and line breaks after ref formatting?
Why are spaces and line breaks being inserted after formatting? Please do not do this. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some editors do this deliberately and routinely. It doesn't affect the way the article is displayed, but makes the editing page much easier to read, which is extremely difficult otherwise. What's your solution? -Exucmember (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It creates unneeded space, which makes the page slower to load and more cumbersome to edit. I recommend not doing it please. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to follow your lead on this, but personally I think it's much "more cumbersome to edit" when it's all crowded together and it's hard to find the article text in the midst of a sea of reference text. Perhaps we should recommend the development of color coding like browsers use for displaying source documents. -Exucmember (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an interesting idea to suggest to the developers. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Great idea Exuc. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cacycle/wikEd help in your preferences/gadgets can color code the refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

List of sources - second, third, or fourth wife
Multiple sources report that Hak Ja Han is Moon's second, third,  or fourth wife;   according to the St. Petersburg Times Moon had three prior marriages which ended in divorce.
 * Sentence in article


 * Second wife


 * Third wife


 * Fourth wife

This subsection is not for discussion but simply to list the relevant sources with excerpted quotes. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note

New section for discussion of sources of this sentence
Thank you Cirt for illustrating the irresponsible attitude of the mainstream media. It could also be pointed out that none of this is about Mrs. Moon, the subject of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time - with other parties in this discussion failing to present any reliable sources to back up their claims, it is pointless to speculate as to the cause of these discrepancies in sources. I would point out that there is a mix of both books by academics, and mainstream media, in the above list. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am just recommending that the whole sentence be taken out. It is not really about Mrs. Moon but about Rev. Moon's life before he married her. Also the suggested "controversy" between the sources is really WP:Original research, or so it seems to me.  These are mostly casual statements in news stories, some are more correct and some less correct. It is only by gathering them together that the image of a "controversy" or even "disagreement" is created. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please note that the subject of the sentence is not Mrs. Moon but "multiple sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All the secondary sources directly indicate "Hak Ja Han". And I agree with the opinion above of admin . Cirt (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But still what all the secondary sources were talking about was Sun Myung Moon's life history, not Hak Ja Han's. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well naturally her husband would be discussed in the context of her life. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True. In the case of almost all these sources it is she who is being mentioned in the context of his life. (p.s. You have improved the article, but it could still use a few more touches.)Steve Dufour (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting that I have improved the article, the acknowledgment is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I had even higher praise (see above) for Cirt's taking this article from very low quality to a pretty good one that's more than adequately sourced. Having put so much work into it, he deserves our thanks. It's especially impressive given that he's not very familiar with the material. A risk to some authors in this situation is that they may begin to feel a sense of ownership, even at times without realizing. Hopefully that's not an issue in Cirt's case. In other articles where a good editor made some poor choices because of not being well-versed in the subject matter would be immediately reverted by those with expertise, but Steve and I have been quite tolerant; for my part it's because I appreciate all the work Cirt has done on the article while others neglected it.

WP:RS says "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (emphasis in original). Regarding the "four wives" assertion: Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality is a joke on this topic, and 3 of the others are news articles in the popular press. Yes, Melton is respected, but is a cataloguer, not a historian, and he has a bit of a reputation for not being careful, as when he defended Aum Shinri Kyo after the gas attacks.

It's pretty easy to verify what I said above (re Myung Hee Kim), but Cirt has not taken the time to do so. But it doesn't really matter, because Steve is absolutely correct: it makes no sense to include details about a disagreement over how many wives Sun Myung Moon had when the article isn't even about him. "Previously married and divorced" is supported by all the sources, and a discussion of differences in the sources on this peripheral point is well beyond the scope of this article. -Exucmember (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I have to agree with admin . Cirt (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit by  removed detailed sourced information from the article. Please do not remove this information which is supported by multiple WP:RS/WP:V sources. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse. The information is not irrelevant, and I'm not swayed by the argument. Please do not do so again without consensus. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 21:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict, twice] This is not a debate between sources on the one hand and consensus on the other, as you erroneously led PeterSymonds to believe. It is a disagreement among the sources themselves. In fact the sources that say "three wives" are more reliable. But let's not spend time arguing about something so unimportant. A discussion of that disagreement (2, 3, or 4) in the article in inappropriate. -Exucmember (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not unimportant; this article is a BLP, and thus commands our respect. The reliable sources in this instance need precedence. I have not seen necessary evidence in other sources that suggest that source should be disregarded. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How is a discussion within this article of a disagreement among sources about how many times Hak Ja Han's husband (not herself) was married relevant to this article? -Exucmember (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is included in this article, it is relevant. If it is not relevant, establish consensus for its removal. Until then, the content follows BLP just as closely as the rest. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two experts calling it irrelevant and one editor who is obviously not very familiar with the subject matter who apparently doesn't agree, but he has not given a rationale for why he thinks it is relevant. I'm sure you're not saying that I can go to some article where I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, add an irrelevant sourced debate, and then say it's relevant because it's in the article, and that I shouldn't be overruled by two experts. -Exucmember (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exucmember fails to present reliable sources to back up his point of view. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, if you continue to ignore the issues I've raised, and if you continue to refuse to defend the relevance of including a discussion within this article of a disagreement among sources about how many times Hak Ja Han's husband (not herself) was married, then you have no right to revert my modifications of the passage. And please stop repeating the red herring that I have not provided reliable sources. We have sources that say contradictory things. But the discussion in the article of their conflict is not appropriate for this article about a different person. Why have you repeatedly refused to make an argument for why a of lack of agreement among sources on something in Sun Myung Moon's life is important to include in this article? -Exucmember (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well sure it is obviously relevant because her marriage is a key part of her life. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about her marriage at all. We are talking about Sun Myung Moon's previous marriages. Please put yourself in my position and imagine that I am wondering what kind of discussion this is that I have to make such an extremely obvious point. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I have to admit I'm having a really hard time understanding your point of view on this. -Exucmember (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not my point of view - the current presentation in the article simply follows that used by multiple sources to address the source discrepancy - for example  The Church speaks and United Press International, above. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case "your point of view" refers to the basis for your inexplicable assertion "it is obviously relevant because her marriage is a key part of her life" when we are not talking about her marriage at all. You did not respond to my pointing this out. -Exucmember (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. See my last reply about following the model to address this source discrepancy, as used in reliable sources. Also, check out the Featured Article on Mary Shelley, which details Percy Shelley's married life. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have adopted a strategy of being completely unresponsive to all of my main points on this issue. In this case I pointed out something extremely obvious: "We are not talking about her marriage at all. We are talking about Sun Myung Moon's previous marriages." You were completely unresponsive to this point. You have still failed to provide a reason that your addition is relevant to this article. -Exucmember (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now given you two different reasons: 1) The current presentation in the article follows a model used by other reliable sources to address the discrepancy. 2) The Featured Article on Mary Shelley goes into detail on the married life of Percy Shelley. Cirt (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) is not a reason at all (How can you possibly assert that it is?) 2) is not a reason; it is an example from another article (a weak analogy to a slight mention of a single previous marriage in an extensive article). -Exucmember (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the quoted text of the sources cited, and the Featured Article I cited above. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, completely unresponsive. Did you even read what I wrote? (Obviously I read the relevant portions of the article you cited.)
 * So you are flatly refusing to provide a reason for why you think a discussion of how many previous marriages Sun Myung Moon had (and one step even deeper into irrelevance, a discussion of differences of opinion on the subject) is relevant to this article on Hak Ja Han. -Exucmember (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have given two good reasons for why inclusion of the material is wholly appropriate. You have misrepresented my comments, and as you are unwilling to assume good faith in this discussion, it unfortunately seems that your continued postings to this talk page are not productive but in fact disruptive in nature. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

← Does anyone have a substantial reason why this should not be included? Cirt's argument is valid, based on my outside interpretation. I'm seeing a lot of talk about experts and accusations of misunderstandings and misrepresentations but little real counter discussion. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try. There is no real reason to include mistaken information when accurate information is easily available. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the source for the words "Multiple sources report"? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are cited in the sentence itself. Cirt (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But the fact that "multiple sources" "reported" different things did not seem to be mentioned by any of them. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Already asked and answered, above: . Cirt (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's WP:Original research to put a number of sources together and call them "multiple sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. See my prior response. We are following the model used in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no secondary sources have said anything about a difference of opinion here.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. See above. Already discussed. Cirt (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

- It is grammatically proper to use present tense when discussing what is stated in sources. Cirt (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you say that the New York Times reports that Stalin had a positive impact on the Ukraine, since that is what they said at the time? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Different subject. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make is that a newspaper story exists in a certain time and context. They are not trying to make a record for the ages. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Present tense is the appropriate form of phrasing, we use it later in the article in the subsection Hak_Ja_Han. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In that section the sources are mostly books and scholarly articles, not newspaper stories writen in a day and meant to be consumed in a day. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources cited above are books. Cirt (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I count 8 news stories and 6 books. None of the books are about the Unification Church. They mostly seem to be encyclopedia-like works that have short sections on different groups. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. A wide variety of secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks for noting their reliability by acknowledging the sources' "encyclopedia-like" nature. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or else, minor sources written by people with little interest in the Unification Church give slightly different versions of a fact. No book or scholarly article on the Unification Church takes notice of this. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a narrow view of which sources you would prefer to use in exclusion to describe this subject on Wikipedia, but the fact remains that the policies and guidelines that we refer to, on this project, with regard to sourcing, are WP:V and WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I count 3 editors who recommend removing the sentence, 1 who says keep it, and 1 other person who supports keeping it but has not made any contribution to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately those editors that wish to remove the sentence are SPAs with a focus of promoting the topic of the Sun Myung Moon organization/movement Unification Church. Not the best NPOV sample. And all were previously heavily involved in debate about the article from before I worked on the article, expanding it with over forty sources. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor are you NPOV. However consensus seems to say remove this sentence.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the appropriate way to determine consensus. Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I will remove the sentence until a consensus is determined to include it. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreement among three Unification Church SPAs is not "consensus". Please do not remove material from the article that is backed up to over 10 sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But still the sentence is the WP:Original research of one person, I will not call you a "SPA". Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

has twice now removed heavily sourced material from the article:,. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to lede
- Recent edits to lede by changed the meaning of the lede, and are not supported by sources. The sources do not say she traveled the world speaking on behalf of the Unification Church but on behalf of the organization "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification". Now they may be the same, or similar, or the name of a front organization, but the prior version of the lede already acknowledges this is the current name used by the greater Unification Church organization itself. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unification Church" is the name most commonally used for: 1. The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity founded in South Korea in 1954, 2. The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, founded in the 1990s and considered to be the successor to the HSA-UWC, 3. The whole group of organizations associated with believers in Sun Myung Moon, 4. The believers themselves as a group. With this in mind I tweeked the wording of the article, without changing its meaning, to make "Unification Church" the main identifier of these things, also being aware that it is the title of the main WP article about these topics -- as well as, by far, the best-known among them by the general public. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Best to go by what the sources in this article say, the current wording is also needed for the context that Hak Ja Han was promoted by the organization as being a speaker for "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification", and the link to "Unification Church", was not made readily apparent - this caused a bit of controversy which was itself covered significantly in the sources I came across. (And I think I have exhausted most of the source coverage on this.) Cirt (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some people might still be confused by the expression "Unification movement." There are other unification movements that have nothing to do with the Unification Church. I'm going to see if I can add some info for more clairity. Redddogg (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Current wording looks okay. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hak Ja Han quote eulogising Sun Myung Moon
Can anybody tell me what relevant information about Hak Ja Han the following, lengthy, quote offers:

I'm tagging it as potentially irrelevant. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me if it was taken out. The article can't include everything she says.Redddogg (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. . Cirt (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more relevant than the number of marriage of her husband.Godneck (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See above for that discussion in another subsection please. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added some of the sense, but without a direct quote. The fact is, the whole article is made up of bits and pieces gleaned from different sources.  It's hard to pick what is worth mentioning and what's not. Borock (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I meant is what she said is much more relevant with this article than how many times her husband married Godneck (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, different subsection. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but in the same article.Godneck (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Divinity School of SunMoon University"
Regarding edit by



"Divinity School of SunMoon University" doesn't seem like a WP:RS source - and as we already have a secondary source for this sentence, best to avoid primary sources affiliated with the article's subject. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why you think that the source is not a WP:RS source?Godneck (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BURDEN. Could you please explain why you think it is? Cirt (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is of questionable reliability because (i) it is a thesis (which, according to extensive discussion on WP:RS/N, have varying degrees of reliability) & (ii) because the thesis was researched at an institution with strong links to the Moons, meaning that there is a strong question of bias. WP:RS therefore applies. Further, WP:NONENG may also be an issue. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what material this was used as a source for. If it was about how Unification Church members feel or believe about Hak Ja Han then it could be used, IMO. It has to be labeled as such however.  For instance: "A thesis by (whoever) at UC affiliated SunMoon University said..." Borock (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[continues below]

RfC: Sentence about marriage to Sun Myung Moon
Dispute about a sentence in the subsection Hak_Ja_Han. 17:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt
Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sentence in question:
 * Multiple sources report that Hak Ja Han is Moon's second, third,  or fourth wife;   according to the St. Petersburg Times, of St. Petersburg, Florida, Moon had three prior marriages which ended in divorce.
 * Sources backing up sentence: Please see Talk:Hak_Ja_Han, above.
 * This sourced material has been removed from the article by,  ,
 * Rationale
 * 1) There is a discrepancy among reliable sources as to whether Hak Ja Han is Sun Myung Moon's 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wife. The best way we can represent this in the article is to simply state what the sources say. The above sentence is the best way to do this, and the above sentence is backed up to multiple sources which satisfy WP:RS and WP:V.
 * 2) Reliable sources themselves acknowledge the discrepancy and use similar wording acknowledging it in articles discussing Hak Ja Han, see for example The Church speaks by James I. Cook, and United Press International:
 * 3) We should follow the example as given by an article of Featured Article quality, Mary Shelley, which goes into some detail on the married life of Percy Shelley.
 * 1) We should follow the example as given by an article of Featured Article quality, Mary Shelley, which goes into some detail on the married life of Percy Shelley.
 * 1) We should follow the example as given by an article of Featured Article quality, Mary Shelley, which goes into some detail on the married life of Percy Shelley.

@ - Please present reliable sources here on this talk page to back up your claims. The article Sun Myung Moon is unfortunately not a good example as it is not of that great a quality and uses poor sources and is loaded with primary sources directly affiliated with the article's subject. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Steve Dufour

 * The actual facts about Rev. Moon's previous marriage and previous engagment/common-law marriage are well-known to anyone who knows something of the history of the Unification Church (of which I am a member BTW). These facts are presented soberly and neutrally in Sun Myung Moon. The fact that various news media and some reference books on religions have gotten this wrong or reported it in different ways is not remarkable and has little to do with the subject of this article, Hak Ja Han, who has been married to Rev. Moon for almost 50 years. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by PeterSymonds
As someone who has reverted a few edits to the page regarding the wife issue per WP:RS, I can only echo what Lara has said. The reliability of the sourcing for this article is crucial, and if no compromise can be reached, we should make a passing reference to all reliable sources that exist for the article. If they differ, we should mention that the sources differ (a perfectly acceptable practice), or just note that she was married before. However, unsourced claims, unreliable sources and original research are not permitted, and any evidence of those should be removed (as they should with all BLPs). Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Borock
This whole thing looks more like a power struggle between Cirt and Steve Dufour than an effort to produce a quality article. Just write a sentence that gives the basic facts with some good sources and then get on with life. Borock (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that the sentence chosen should take the form a sentence about the article's subject, something like: "Hak Ja Han is Sun Myung Moon's second, third, or fourth wife (sources differ)." not: "Different sources say..." Borock (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Exucmember
1. The number of wives, mistresses, and/or affairs that Hak Ja Han's husband had previous to marrying her is of very marginal relevance to this article. I have asked repeatedly for the relevance to be explained and have gotten a very poor response.

2. Some of the comments by editors seem to be assuming that the sentence is about Hak Ja Han's previous marriages, or that the article is about Sun Myung Moon. I'm sure that's not actually true, but it's worth reminding people who this article is about.

3. If something is going to be said on the topic of Sun Myung Moon's previous marriages, it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. We have a reliable academic source for at least the assertion of 1 or 2 previous "wives" of Sun Myung Moon. I can't see any purpose at all in listing a lot of newspaper articles as references, especially since these news articles just mention the fact (i.e., "third wife") in passing and don't even give the names of the past wives. "Reference-bombing", as uninvolved editor "Looie496" points out below, is always a bad idea.

4. Uninvolved editor "Drawn Some" made a very thoughtful and thorough response (below). None of the sources listed here actually name all four wives. In fact, as I pointed out above, we don't even have an unrelable source that names all four wives. We can't even find a single page on the web that names all four wives! (A Google search for "Myung Hee Kim" and "fourth wife" yields ZERO results. By contrast, a Google search for "Myung Hee Kim" and "third wife" yields 293 results. One would expect that church critics would certainly post this information, if it existed. I mention this as an aid to evaluating which sources are reliable.) "Drawn Some" implies he thinks the disagreement among sources is relevant to this article (rather than to the Sun Myung Moon article), with which I disagree. On the other hand, "Drawn Some" makes the important point: "I would be very hesitant to rely on any source no matter how reliable it appears to be in other aspects if it doesn't even name the wives it is counting." He also points out that none of the sources disagree that Hak Ja Han is Sun Myung Moon's second legal wife. This can be stated, backed up by several academic references. Anyone who thinks we need more than this for an article about Hak Ja Han needs to make the case for why it is relevant for this article.

5. Introvigne is certainly one of the top few leading authorities on the Unification Church. The same goes for Sontag, who made an 11-month worldwide study of the Unification Church. Sontag's reference was mistakenly deleted by "Cirt" in his haste to reject a previous compromise proposal I made. I didn't include a quotation at that time, but here is the very reasonable summary Sontag made: "Moon married for the second time in 1960 and began his promised family. There are unconfirmed reports of other marriages, but at least it is clear that his first wife could not accept the religious role thrust on her. She opposed Moon for a long time before that marriage was dissolved." (p. 80). For those not familiar, Introvigne and Sontag are academics, and not members of the Unification Church.

6. Early on there were 3 editors who felt this whole sentence about the husband's previous number of wives, mistresses, and/or affairs was irrelevant and only one editor who explicitly asserted it was relevant. Nevertheless, I propose a compromise: integrate the phrase "second legal wife" into the sentence about marrying Moon (or follow with a short sentence "She is Moon's second legal wife."), give several academic sources (certainly Sontag and Introvigne must be included), and leave it at that for this article. It might be relevant to discuss other relationships Sun Myung Moon had in his article. -Exucmember (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Hrafn
Although I was the one who originally raised this point, I've largely dropped out of the conversation, as I found this being blown way out of proportion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm against ref-bombing. It should be decided what the most reliable source is with respect to biographical information about the Moons (ideally an independent scholarly biography specifically on one or other of the Moons), and that source (and only that source) should be cited for the marital ordinality of Hak Ja Han. In this instance, newspapers (as they might tend to rely upon hearsay for such minor details) and UC-affiliated sources (as they would tend to repeat the 'party line') may not be sufficiently reliable.
 * 2) As both the Moons, and their church, make a big deal about the sanctity of marriages & family, and about this marriage in particular, I think how many (de facto and de jure) marriages Moon had previously is a legitimate issue. It provides important factual context for judging their theological and moral statements on the subject.


 * Thank you! Finally, the first actual reason presented for why this information might be relevant, and well-argued at that. Unification Church members may disagree or provide arguments defending the past behavior, but those who are fair-minded should be able to see why this context might be an issue for some readers.


 * The fact remains, however, that we do not have a single source - reliable or unreliable - that names four wives. -Exucmember (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Exucmember: I would point out that it's fairly common practice for the latter wives of more prominent husbands to have their ordinality listed in their articles, even without any specific relevance. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also a good argument, which no one has made. I wouldn't have any problem at all with mentioning the marriage number in passing (e.g., "third wife" or even "second legal wife") if it were that simple. I object to making a mountain out of a molehill within the text (as opposed to a brief explanatory comment in a footnote) in the article about the wife. This is particularly true for a comment in the text (or in a footnote) that would look silly to anyone familiar with the subject matter. -Exucmember (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually making the article look silly might be a good thing. That could alert someone that the Moons and the UC are a topic that has been sorely under reported and he or she might decide to do some research for the purpose of writing a book which would provide more accurate information to the public than has been available so far. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Looie496

 * Comment "Reference-bombing" is always a bad idea. Say it like the sources do (i.e., "third or fourth wife, according to various sources"), and pick the two best refs to back that up. 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looie496 (talk • contribs)
 * Elaborating per request on my talk page: I feel that the basic information belongs, but is given a great deal too much weight.  This is partly because it is stated at greater length than necessary, and partly because too many references are given:  giving a whole bunch of references has the effect of emphasizing the perceived importance of a statement. Looie496 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually an article could be written on "American news media coverage of the Unification Church", in which this sentence would be relevant. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by ImperfectlyInformed

 * Comment Agree on the ref bombing although since it's not the article I can maybe understand. Steve hasn't stated what his position of the facts are or what his sources are, so he's got no case. I guess his argument is that they married common law so Hak Ja Han is the first or second wife? II  | (t - c) 08:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A while ago the article just said that Rev. Moon had been married before and was divorced. He also was involved with another woman after that who could be called a common-law wife.  So Hak Ja Han could be, and sometimes is, called his second or third wife properly.  The whole thing about a "fourth wife" is just a mistake by some source which was carelessly repeated by others, that fact not being relevant to Hak Ja Han at all.  Merely saying that he was married and divorced is enough for the this article and is not controversial. This is documented in Massimo Introvigne's book, The Unification Church (Signature Books 2000 ISBN 1560851457, pp10-11) as well as in other scholarly books which attempt to understand and explain the UC to interested people.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not raised the issue yet on the talk page but that book really isn't the best source, especially if you check out the publisher, not sure what sort of editorial review process they have. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No source is perfect and most have some kind of agenda they are promoting. Dr. Introvigne's book is actually very critical of the UC and its publisher, which specializes in books on Mormonism and Western American history also doesn't seem to to have any reason to be biased in favor of the UC.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not answer the question of what sort of editorial review or acquisitions process the publisher has. Also, I note that added back his preferred version of events into the article  during an ongoing Request for Comment on the material. Cirt (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems or controversies mentioned in its WP article: Signature Books. (My bad. Some conservative Mormons think they are too honest about early Mormon history, but no one seems to question their editorial review or acquisitions process.) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you have no information about the publisher's editorial review or acquisitions process. Seems to be a small, agenda publisher to me, not the most reliable source to use in a BLP. It should be removed. Cirt (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any information that says their editorial review and acquisitions process is bad? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My "prefered version" was an attempt at compromise that gave the basic information about Rev. Moon being previously married and divorced but not the extra material about the American news media and some reference books on religion giving different numbers of marriages. Before I did this the article had no information on this topic at all.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears like this is an attempt by an involved party to an ongoing Request for Comment on the article to add in that user's preferred version of the material during that RfC, against consensus of comments made so far by previously uninvolved editors. Please undo this edit. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you like. I still think that honesty demands that the article end up mentioning Rev. Moon's previous marriage, or marriages, in some way.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As do I, but consensus so far from comments by previously uninvolved editors in this RfC is leaning towards a more detailed account of what is stated in WP:RS sources, as opposed to simply this . Cirt (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They both seem to lean towards something in between the long and short versions. Anyway very few people will ever read this article since the name "Hak Ja Han" would only be recognized by about one person out of a million except for UC members. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) First previously uninvolved commenter: Say it like the sources do. Second: Steve hasn't stated what his position of the facts are or what his sources are, so he's got no case. Seems pretty clear to me that they both agree with the sentence example given above that  had removed, twice,, , just with a bit less actual refs used. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did state my position on the facts and cited a source in response to the second person. As I mentioned before there are very few sources on Mrs. Moon that discuss her in any depth, rather than just mentioning her incidentally. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you cited a poor source from a small publisher with an agenda and narrow focus on its publishing. Doesn't really refute any of the other sources I had cited, above. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never intended to refute your sources. The fact that different news media and popular reference books on new religions have given different numbers, including 2, 3, and 4, is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the relevance of this information in this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - and the first commenter supports including what the sources say, and the second commented that your argument does not have merit. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the second commenter said he didn't understand my argument so I gave him more information. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say give the positions of all the sources, including the book which Steve wants to use. It doesn't have to take up a lot of space. II | (t - c) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - That is the presentation given here already: Talk:Hak_Ja_Han. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not using the Massimo Introvigne that Darfour wants to use, but as long as you use another source which states the same thing, I guess it doesn't matter. My thoughts are that all source's positions should be reflected, but if one criticizes another source's claim cogently, then that criticism should be stated. I do think that there should be an attempt at accuracy as well as "verifiability". Which of the positions seems the most well-supported? II  | (t - c) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said on this page, the Massimo Introvigne book isn't really from the best publisher. Feel free to check through the other above sources (quoted portions included above) to see what they say. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not answer the question instead of pointing me to 10 different sources? II  | (t - c) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but that source list does include over 10 sources from both books and news articles that state Hak Ja Han is either Moon's third or fourth wife (with quoted portions from those sources included). As far as how to present this in this article, I think this version is the best way to go about that. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is the St. Petersburg's Times particularly emphasized? II  | (t - c) 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is worded such to give attribution to which source states all three prior marriages of Sun Myung Moon ended in divorce. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean why it was attributed; I was wondering why the other sources which state that she is his second or fourth wife aren't given similar treatment. II  | (t - c) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. I suppose if we pick two sources for each part of the sentence (second, third, or fourth wife...) then we could provide attribution in the sentence itself in addition to the inline cites, without being too wordy. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ultimately your sentence seems the best. I'll let you work on the attribution; taking this off my watchlist. I really don't have time to work on an article like this, and I think this is basically a nonissue -- tell Steve he can't just delete sources willy-nilly and if he keeps doing it, report him. You could probably remove the Florida bit since the newspaper is wikilinked, by the way. II  | (t - c) 00:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by . Cirt (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by 131.158.237.205
I came across this kind of by accident, I don't usually look much at talk pages. But this seems like much ado about nothing. Would anyone like to tell me why I should care at all how many x-wives somebody's husband has?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.158.237.205 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he is a religious leader. لenna  vecia  04:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that people care how many wives and mistresses Moon has had and that it should be included in his article. However, in his wife's article I don't see the relevance of details of his other relationships.  Even IRL it is rare to ask about someone's spouse's prior relationships because it isn't important. Drawn Some (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Carolmooredc
I'd agree say it like the sources do (i.e., "third or fourth wife, according to various sources"), and pick the two best refs to back that up. but allow a little more leeway, i.e. maybe two sentences for any necessary explanation and 3 best sources. And just discuss those :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jennavecia
I would look into the sources to attempt to see how they reached their conclusion. For those who go into detail about the various marriages, I would assign them greater weight. If there is no explanation as to how they reached their conclusion for "third or fourth", giving the impression that they may have merely copied another source, the little to no weight. Then state it as written above, "third or fourth wife, according to various sources", or whatever the case may be. If this is not possible, I think the best compromise would be to not specify which number she was, rather simply note that he had been married before. لenna vecia  04:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Drawn Some
Looking at the sources, it is readily apparent that Moon has had two legal wives and also freely acknowledges having had a child with another woman to whom he could not be legally married even by common law because he was not divorced from his first wife at the time. If I were writing an article on Moon himself that is what I would say and I would give references for these three relationships.

I don't see any sources listed here that actually name all four wives, they just give the number. I would be very hesitant to rely on any source no matter how reliable it appears to be in other aspects if it doesn't even name the wives it is counting. So to deal with this I would also state that various resources give the number of wives as 2, 3, or 4. This is not reporting on the number of wives but on what sources say is the number of wives. Important difference. A number of wives unsupported with underlying information about the names of those wives and the circumstances of the marriages is more of a factoid than a fact.

So in the end it would stick to what is verifiable say something like:

"Moon has had two legal wives, xxxx and zzzz and also lived with and had a child with yyyyy. Various references state the number of his wives to be 2, 3, or 4."

Definite dates of the marriages and divorce can also be included if verifiable. One or two of the most reliable resources should be given for each "fact" including each number 2, 3, 4.

If the name and circumstances of the supposed fourth marriage or relationship are verifiable that should be included as well, but I don't see sources here for that, or even a source describing an actual marriage to his mistress/supposed common-law second wife, or one giving details regarding bigamy, etc.

However, for this particular article, on his second legal wife, it is only important to say that she is his second legal wife. Prior (or even current) mistresses and even naming prior wives are irrelevant for the purposes of this particular article. It is enough to say she is his second legal wife.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that even reliable sources have errors--they are reliable, not infallible. It is wrong to perpetuate a known facutal error no matter how reliable the source. It is also better to acknowledge that there is disagreement among sources than to pretend it doesn't exist. Drawn Some (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate

 * To Borock//Thanks for your comment. The information what I added was that her birthday is counted on a lunar calendar. In Korean, many people count their birthday with lunar calendar. I added the fact because it seems that the information is not shown in the current sources.Godneck (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To Hrafn//Many scientific journals are evaluated according to SCI-like measures, actually which is not so rigid criteria because it changes with time. However, as I know, there is no academic criteria for thesis. SunMoon University is one of the highly ranked universities according to Korean mainstream newspaper's ranking data. It is an appropriate and reliable source because I referred it into the article of Hak Ja Han, who is the leader of UC, especially on the paragraph for her life. For example, the thesis of a Christian divinity school can be a good source for some article of Christian concept or the life of Christian figure. Because she is the leader of UC, we can conclude that thesis of divinity school founded by unification church can be a good source for discussing on her life. FYI. You can find the thesis on the google scholar with typing the Korean title.Godneck (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To Cirt//It is a reliable source because it is a academic and peer-reviewed publication, which is the most reliable source according to WP:RS.Godneck (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you back up these above assertions please? Cirt (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I's like to second Cirt's query. do we even know if this was a masters or a PhD thesis? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that any Korean would know about the lunar calendar. You don't need a PhD. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's something "that any Korean would know about", then it doesn't really require a citation. For that matter, it's not really clear what the citation is for -- "in a lunar year" would appear to be redundant -- as all dates are "in a lunar year". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you make your question in more detail?168.188.58.32 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Chinese calendar. This is the "lunar calendar" which is being talked about. It is used in Korea along with the Western calendar that we use. January 6 is Mrs. Moon's birthday in the Western calendar, so no problem there. In the church her birthday is celebrated on its Chinese calendar day so it is a different day each year. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And this is relevant to mention of her DOB in the lead, how? It might be relevant to discussion of a specific 'birthday' thereafter, in the later text of the article that did not fall upon 6 January, but even that would only require an explanatory wikilink, not a citation. "January 6" is a date in the solar Gregorian calendar, not the lunar Chinese one - so stating "born on January 6, 1943(in a lunar year)" is simply meaningless. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad. We use the Japanese lunar calendar. [ [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone's personal website at home.att.net = poor source. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was used as a source for the fact that the Unification Church uses the Japanese lunar calendar rather than the Chinese lunar calendar to schedule its holidays it would be a good source. However that fact is so minor that it probably will not be mentioned in any WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think that this link you provided above is an acceptable source on this project. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it will be almost impossible for WP to have an article on "Scheduling of Unification Church holidays." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire issue, and the unreliable sources suggested for it, appears to be moot: Now can we quit this discussion on the reliability of wholly superfluous sources? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Her DOB in the lead is given in the Gregorian calendar, so no lunar-calendar source is necessary.
 * 2) Where she is mentioned in the article as celebrating her birthday on some day other than January 6, this will be noted in the relevant reliable source. If explanation of this minor anomaly is felt to be needed, it can be done by a simple wiki-link to lunisolar calendar.
 * 3) It really doesn't matter, in the context of this article, which lunar calendar is used to generate her birthdays.
 * That was the intention of my last two comments. :-) BTW I was impressed that WP has an article on the Japanese calendar.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the most evident is that her birthday is January 6th in a lunar year(not in the Gregorian calendar). Simply speaking, she was not born in January 6th in a solar calendar and she has never met her birthday on January 6th in a solar calendar. It is because the calendar she uses as her birthday is a lunar calendar. Nowadays, many Koreans, especially young people, count their birthday with Gregorian calendar. However, many people also count their birthday with traditional lunar calendar. Usually, it depends on the family tradition. We should add the fact that her birthday is in a lunar calendar also in the first sentence. If we don't do that, we are using wrong information.Godneck (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * About the reliability of the source, it is the master degree thesis published by SunMoon University. You can also find the thesis in the google scholar if you search with the Korean title. As I said earlier, we are discussing on Unification Church learder's life. Therefore, thesis from divinity school researching on Unification Church can be the best source compared with other books on religion just shortly mentioning on unification church. I don't understand why some people think that it is unreliable source. Godneck (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Godneck. I just assumed that Jan. 6 was her Gregorian calendar birthday. What do people think about the article saying something like, "According to Unification Church sources her birthday is celebrated according to the Japanese calendar so is celebrated on a different date each year."? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS source for that info? Cirt (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If a source was wanted for information about the Unification Church's application of the Japanese lunar calendar this would be a relible source since Kathryn Coman is recognized within the church as a leading expert on the topic: [ There is no reason why a member of an organization can not also be an expert on some aspect of that organization is there? [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe on some internal Unification Church website, but here this is not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "What is the most evident is that her birthday is January 6th in a lunar year(not in the Gregorian calendar)." Rubbish! The date "January 6th" only exists in the Gregorian calendar (and its predecessor the Julian calendar). If you want to argue for "January 6th in a lunar year", please present WP:RS evidence of a lunar calendar that has "January 6th" as a date within it.
 * 2) en.wikipedfia.org is an English language wikipedia. As such, its default calendar is the calendar prevalent among English speakers, the Gregorian calendar. This can be seen by the fact that WP:DATED deals entirely with Gregorian calendar dates. It is therefore the calendar that all DOBs should be presented in.

Birthdate - secondary sources


Cited to two WP:RS sources. Please do not remove this information. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There could be a problem if someone wanted to send her a birthday card and did so on the wrong day. I would vote to not mention the day at all, just the year. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:V. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would a person want to know Mrs. Moon's exact birthday anyway? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Cirt insisting yet again (I think this is the third time) on putting information that's pretty unimportant but well-known to be misleading in the article, just because he's found a couple sources, and then arguing contentiously with apparently unlimited time on his hands? Does he ever stop to consider what's best for the article? When experts from both sides of a potential support/criticism divide patiently explain the little-known background details, he arrogantly brushes it aside in favor of his own conclusions, even though they look perfectly foolish to anyone with a cursory familiarity with the subject matter. I know quite a few Wikipedia articles where this kind of peevish bull-in-a-china-shop nonsense would not be tolerated for a moment. I have to commend the others here on their almost unbelievable patience. -Exucmember (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Giving the DOB of a biographee is hardly non-standard (we after all have guidelines covering how to do it: WP:MOSBD). As to "bull-in-a-china-shop nonsense" -- if the so-called "experts" cannot be bothered writing well-sourced material, then they have no cause for complaint. Either write your own solid, well-sourced material, or quit complaining about the material that others write to replace the pre-existing house-of-cards. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I have already explained in a couple of places why I don't care to get involved in editing articles on Rev. Moon's family. I have made an effort to improve the sources on some of the other UC articles.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * , from your comment you seem to be unfamiliar with our policy called Verifiability - specifically, the first sentence of the policy. Might be worthwhile to read it. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually had thought that Jan. 6 is correct since I have been told this by at least one early church member. However Godneck seems to have a better understanding of the topic so as it stands now I would vote to not mention her date of birth at all. There is no requirement to do so.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard on Wikipedia is WP:V, not what an individual Wikipedian thinks is so. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unification Movement?
The article says: "Unification Movement, which consists of the Unification Church and organizations affiliated with it,..." Is there a source that says this is what the Unification Movement is? I would also include the many people who believe in Rev. and Mrs. Moon but are not active in the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * . Cirt (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That seems to support my view. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Best to cite a specific source. I was merely pointing out the term is used often to refer to Moon organization and affiliated companies/organizations. Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't objecting to the term. I just think its meaning is a little broader than what is used in this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, well it would be helpful if you could suggest to us a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source to use that supports this. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the books you provided the link to seem to support the view that the movement includes individual people, not just organizations. I'm not sure which to pick out as a source. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Best to cite specific WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source for the article’s present wording? It says that Mrs. Moon is the co-leader of the Unification Movement.  Here are some examples: Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) is a church member but what he is doing (IMO) in promoting an extreme creationist view is not in line with church teachings. So is his work part of the Unification Movement?  Josette Sheeran was a church member. She left the church but continued her same career path. Is she still part of the movement?  David Brooks (journalist) worked for the Washington Times,  but not a UC member. He now writes for the New York Times, saying the same things as he did for the WT. Is he still a part of the movement? Was he ever? Is Mrs. Moon the “co-leader” of any of these people? Was she ever? Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the discussion at hand please. The WP:RS sources support the current wording. Please present specific WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources for your assertions. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no source for the assertion the article now makes.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See the sources cited at the end of the relevant sentences. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one that says she is the co-founder of the Little Angels. I don't see one that says she is the co-leader of the entire movement. I am not offended that that is said, it's just that I don't see a source for it, nor would I think that an objective observer would think that based on the evidence.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Added sources to the lede sentence for the various parts of the sentence. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If at least one of the sources says she is the co-leader of the movement I have no objection.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-leader revisited
I really think Mrs. Moon is noted as the wife of Rev. Moon, not as the "co-leader of the Unification Movement." I suggest that the opening sentence be changed accordingly. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple secondary sources clearly state otherwise. Cirt (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect that every source says she is Rev. Moon's wife. Only a couple say she is the "co-leader" of the Unification Movement. The article on the Unification Church only mentions her once. The article List of Unification Church affiliated organizations to which "Unification Movement" redirects does not mention her at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is one of the attributes that makes her noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. Outside sources have often failed to note that Father Moon appointed Mrs. Moon as his successor. Frequently Father Moon says something once (and only once), apparently in an off-hand way, leaving it to church members to realize the importance of the remark.

If you study his sermons and talks, you will find several mentions of the successorship question:
 * 1) Mother Moon is his successor
 * 2) He is looking for a successor among his sons.
 * 3) He appointed Hyo Jin Moon as leader of World CARP (not the entire movement)
 * 4) He appointed Hyung Jin Moon as leader of the worldwide movement (but still subordinate to SMM)

But I need help digging up these references again. I remember reading them, but I neglected to jot down the place and date of the talks - and I need web links, too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any independent reliable secondary sources to back up above claims? And referring to this individual as "Father Moon..." seems to come from a severe lack of NPOV about the approach to this article and this entire topic... Cirt (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm just trying to be open about my membership in the church, partly as a reminder to myself avoid any conflict of interest. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you have a conflict of interest,, you should not edit the article directly. Instead, suggest changes on the talk page. Especially so, when you seem unaware of Wikipedia site policies. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Tweaked lede, per talk page:. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is a bit better than "co-leader." Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Number wife
= this edit by is against consensus from the WP:RFC, which did not support wholesale removal of this highly sourced material. I have already moved the multiple cites to combine them together, this is a good compromise instead of having lots of individual inline cites after each part of the sentence. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cirt is correct that there was no consensus at the RfC for outright removal. I must admit however that I still have a strong preference for only including the ordinality from most reliable source (with the conflicting ordinalities being perhaps moved wholly into the footnote, as a caveat on the statement). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hrafn. There were several objections mentioned in the earlier discussion. For one thing the sentence is off-topic. It is about media coverage of Rev. Moon's previous marriages, not about Hak Ja Han at all. For another it implies that there is some controversy about this information, when there really is not. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence is not about "media" coverage. The sentence does not mention "media". It is about WP:RS coverage. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of the sentence is "multiple sources." Six of the sources are news articles, six are mentions in books. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And all are WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the sentence is still off-topic in this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. I suggest you read the first sentence of Anne Boleyn. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Anne Boleyn (pronounced /ˈbʊlɪn/ or /bʊˈlɪn/[2]; 1501 or 1507 – 19 May 1536) was Queen of England as the second wife of King Henry VIII, the mother of Queen Elizabeth I, and Marquess of Pembroke in her own right.[3]" The subject of that sentence is "Anne Boleyn." Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Changed subject of sentence . And as for examples, see also the example as given by an article of Featured Article quality, Mary Shelley, which goes into some detail on the married life of Percy Shelley. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I don't object to his previous marriage and divorce, and his common-law marriage and seperation, mentioned. In fact I think they should be mentioned in this article. What is confusing is the impression that there is some mystery about this. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully with the change of subject of the sentence, and the moving of the cites so that the multiple cites are now seen in each singular cite, we can keep this compromised version. :) Cirt (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is better than previously, but it is still confusing. Apparently equal status is given to the variety of sources that give different numbers in the first half of the sentence with a contradictory, definitive statement of how many divorces there were in the second half of the sentence. The sentence is poorly written. Also, the St. Petersburg Times, of St. Petersburg, Florida is not a reliable source for making a conclusive statement resulting from digging up what really happened decades ago in Korea, especially in light of the fact that scholars are not in agreement on the number. (The vast majority, however, disagree with 3 divorces.) The second half of the sentence adds nothing but confusion; I recommend deleting it. -Exucmember (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The multiple Pulitzer Prize-award winning St. Petersburg Times is a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Reliable sources "Reliable sources are...generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (emphasis in original) I stand behind my judgement that it "is not a reliable source for making a conclusive statement resulting from digging up what really happened decades ago in Korea, especially in light of the fact that scholars are not in agreement on the number." The extreme view expressed amounts to a WP:FRINGE view when we look at what scholars have to say.
 * Also, the easier issue to agree upon in the fact that the sentence is confusing because "apparently equal status is given to the variety of sources that give different numbers in the first half of the sentence with a contradictory, definitive statement of how many divorces there were in the second half of the sentence." -Exucmember (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You fail to provide any independent reliable secondary sources to back up your claims in this above post. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go again with what sounds like a good sentiment, but which [1] fails to specify what statement of mine you think needs WP:RS, and [2] ignores my main point (second paragraph), which clearly makes no assertion that could possibly call for WP:RS: "The sentence is confusing because apparently equal status is given to the variety of sources that give different numbers in the first half of the sentence with a contradictory, definitive statement of how many divorces there were in the second half of the sentence." Retaining the second half of the sentence introduces contradiction and confusion. You have not addressed this problem. -Exucmember (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Retaining the second half of the sentence provides clarity from a Pulitzer Prize-award winning reliable source. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to respond to a flat denial of reality. I've made clear what seems like an obvious problem. Are you unwilling to discuss the problem? -Exucmember (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I split it into two sentences. Hopefully this is less confusing for you now. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to respond. I simply can't understand how you can fail to see the obvious problem, which I think I've explained quite clearly. Which is it, different reports from different sources (as in the first half), or a definite number (as in the second half)? The style of the first half fits Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you want to retain the fringe view at all costs because that's the information you'd like to see retained in the article no matter how far outside the mainstream view of scholars as expressed even if we only look at the references in the article. I'm really at a loss to comprehend your responses. -Exucmember (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why at the start of the sentence, attribution is given to the Pulitzer Prize-award winning reliable source. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask Steve or Hrafn or others who are willing to respond to the issue I raised to comment. -Exucmember (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They already have. apparently wants to just wholesale remove the material against consensus of the WP:RFC, and  said there was no consensus at the RfC for outright removal. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to say that Rev. Moon had been married and divorced before, without mentioning any alleged dispute about the number of times. It would also be possible to add a mention from one of the several books written on him and the church, like for instance Dr. Sontag's. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It also would be possible to take out the second sentence about the St. Petersburg Times and leave the first one as it is. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is both relevant info, and from a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware that a newspaper story, written in one day, is considered a "reliable source" here. However why is the statement relevant to this article? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See above regarding much more detail of these sorts of aspects given in WP:FA articles. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But why is a statement made by one newspaper about the subject's husband, not herself, important in this article? Steve Dufour (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Percy Bysshe Shelley. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support removing the second sentence about the Saint Petersburg Times. No reason to give undue attention to their statement as if it was the official word. Their article could be included in the previous footnote. Redddogg (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay fine I have given it some more thought, and removed that 2nd sentence. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Off topic material
A lot of the article is not really about Mrs. Moon, but about people's opinions of her church. Should some of it be taken out?Wolfview (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What in particular? Could you be more specific? -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The last three paragraphs of the section "Women's Federation for World Peace" are not really about her but about other people's opinions about the events. If this is important maybe someone should start an article on that organization, rather than piggy backing it here. Wolfview (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, it was discussed in reliable secondary sources, within the context of this particular individual and subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes by User:Wolfview
Changes to the article by seems to have removed sourced info without discussion whatsoever, and simultaneously added info that is relatively non-noteworthy and seems to be POV-pushing on behalf of promotion of organization, Unification Church. Let's avoid that type of behavior, and discuss here on the talk page before removing tens of sources, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think my changes were so major, and I wasn't pushing any particular point of view. I have been editing on articles on lots of topics. Wolfview (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the talk page, especially before making such POV changes. -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Follower or member?
Han's mother is called a follower of Moon and then she (Han) is called a member of the Unification Church. Is there a distinction between the two things? Wolfview (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where that is coming from is probably that the church was officially founded in 1954, so people could not be members before that even if they were followers of Rev. Moon. Since then "followers of Rev. Moon" and "members of the Unification Church" are mostly the same people. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I could put a note in the article about the date of the founding of the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Combine two sentences?
These two sentences near the end seem to be saying the same thing:
 * George D. Chryssides writes in Exploring New Religions (2001) that Han's importance with the church continues to grow.[64] Authors James R. Lewis and Jesper Aagaard Petersen write in Controversial New Religions (2005) that she "has exercised increasing influence in the Unification Church".[1]

Could they be combined into something like: "Other scholars of religion have also said that her influence and importance within the church continues to grow."? Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. With such a controversial topic, and within that, such a controversial article, best to attribute commentary directly to the individual authors. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But these sentences are not controversial, they could be reported as fact not opinion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes, they have been very controversial in past talk page discussion - this specific part of the article, this specific article, this specific "new religious movement". -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's just as well to leave the two sentences, to show that these are opinions (or predictions) not statements of fact. Really, although her importance as a religious icon is unchanged, her leadership role within the church does not seem to have increased as these people predicted. There is a large group of people in the church (the Global Peace Festival people) who do not recognize her leadership at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sentence
This was supported by United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said: "Replacing Mother's Day and Father's Day with a Parents' Day should be considered, as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles." cite web |publisher=Ethics and Public Policy Center |title=Pages from Ginsburg #133 |url=http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20050608_PagesfromGinsburg133.pdf |format=PDF

The source does not seem to be very reliable, and also no connection was made, by the source-- even indirectly, to the topic of this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed it. Also removed some other primary-sourced info. -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Coronation ceremony
I added back the sourced info. I removed the disputed parts. I will do more research into this. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The info about 12 lawmakers attending was indeed cited, to the WP:RS secondary source The Washington Post. Please be more careful about summarily removing sourced info, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A perfectly foreseeable consequence of excessive ref-bombing -- the inability to tell what statements are referenced to what source, and ease of overlooking a source that does verify it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Overaggressive ref tagging, by yourself, actually. Please do not do it again, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. 5/6 tags correct ≠ "Overaggressive ref tagging" actually. I will do it again as often as is necessary, "thanks." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP piece states that "'primary program sponsor' would be the "Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace" & that "The event's co-sponsors were the Washington Times Foundation, the United Press International Foundation, the American Family Coalition, the American Clergy Leadership Conference and the Women's Federation for World Peace, according to the invitation." All of these are UC-affiliated organisations, as far as I can ascertain. As the article simply states that the Moons were "honored in a ceremony", it gives the impression that they were honored by a third party. Is there any way to disabuse this false impression without falling into WP:SYNTH. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to consult the cited sources, including The Washington Post, and to add to this article from those secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable sentence?
I don't quite understand the importance of this sentence in the article: Tokyo lawyer Hiroshi Yamaguchi sent a letter to Bush criticizing his decision to speak at the event, and wrote: "The Women's Federation for World Peace is a widely known front organization of the Unification Church."[43] The source, a NYT story, does not say Bush even read the letter. Borock (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes if you read the source it seems like he wrote the letter then gave a copy of it to the New York Times.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
The statement in the article that Mrs. Moon helps Rev. Moon to match couples for marriage is only sourced to a newspaper story from New Zealand. I've been a UC member for over 30 years, my wife and I matched by Rev. Moon in fact, and I have never heard that she has done this, or if she has that this is a major role for her. If it was it probably would have been mentioned in at least one of the other sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Still her role in UC wedding ceremonies should be discussed in the article. This seems to be one of her most important roles.Borock (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unclear point
Is the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification the same thing as the Unification Church, or is it a separate organization? The article does not make this clear? Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Back in the 90s Rev. Moon proposed that as the official name of the church but it has never really caught on. Most people are still using Unification Church and it looks like that's going stay. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I could make a small correction to say it is an alternative name. That seems to be the case from what you are saying, and is not incorrect by the sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a a link that addresses the name change pretty clearly. What is less clear is why there has been a push to go back to using "Unification Church". http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/SunMyungMoon-CSG/CSG-10-04-04.htm (Christopher D. Osborn, April 5th 2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.197.191 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Brevity and clarity would appear to be two obvious reasons. The new name is overly-longwinded and makes it sound like an NGO not a religious denomination. Also, given its apparently despotic and arbitrary leadership style, calling it a "federation" would appear ludicrously inaccurate. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)