Talk:True Family

Marriage of the Lamb
How do we know from that quote that the Marriage of the Lamb isn't the nuptials of Jesus Christ and his wife, as conducted by the good RM to some lady? 75.36.155.51 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we merge this into List of Unificationists? Or maybe split off the True Family section of the "list" and expand on it here? --Uncle Ed 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's let each article retain its own integrity and separate purpose, this one for the True Family, and List of Unificationists for "prominent members or ex-members," as stated at the head of that article. BTW, I was preparing a list of the True Children for this page with dates and other info (like spouse and marriage dates), but left it on the back burner. -Exucmember 03:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

H.J.Nim---Buddhism
He didn't convert to Buddhism, he just studied Eastern religions and wanted to come to a simple life, therefore wearing monk outfits. He is an active member.

TRUE FAMILY

Dis TrU Familyz Grand-Father and da Family iz bacc and betta Den eva Da Family will rise and everyone wil C the Greatness that will rise True Family Grand-Father, Brother, Popz have planz 2 do wat everyone wantz on this earth...Peace On Earth

TFGP

Yejin Moon
No evidence she left the church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.62.198 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that Dae Mo Nim be merged here, as a bare redirect. That article contains no sourced information, other than a single posthumous quote of doubtful relevance. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No opposition, so I've gone ahead and merged it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Title
The expression "True Family" seems to only be used by UC members. How about calling the article Family of Sun Myung Moon? Redddogg (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but the 'family of Sun Myung Moon', as an entity, is only really of interest to Unificationists (which may mean that the topic fails WP:NOTE). Better therefore to recommend merger of appropriate information into Sun Myung Moon (and/or possibly elsewhere) than to make a rather WP:POINT name change. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to make a "point." I guess you could make this article a section of Sun Myung Moon, but I think that would be a bit cumbersome. Redddogg (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What I was meaning is that, if the Unificationists didn't consider this family grouping to have importance as 'The True Family', then there wouldn't be an article at all, so that it makes no sense if there is an article to call it by any other name. Whether the significance to Unificationists is sufficient to meet WP:NOTE, and whether/where/how-much might be merged is a separate issue. Another option would be to merge it (trimmed for duplication) into the Unification Church article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the topic is only of interest to Unificationists then the article probably should be deleted. Redddogg (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with that, but the Unificationists on WP may object (but if they do, they'll probably have to work out where to merge it for themselves). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An alternative to deletion is using the main template within the Unification Church article. Many topics are so big (or complex) that it makes sense to use "summary style", i.e., put a short description into one article as a section, with a link to a fuller treatment elsewhere.


 * The ideal of a true family, and the question of how well Rev. & Mrs. Moon and their children have fulfilled this ideal, are of equal interest to church members and church opponents. The Shadow book seems specifically written to debunk the idea that any of the True Family are truly true. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SUMMARY explicitly states that split-off articles must meet WP:GNG, and I see no claim to notability for this family that is not either (i) on the basis that they are UC's 'True Family' or (ii) WP:INHERITED. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Weak oppose: topic as defined by new title is WP:INHERITED (a claim that the family is notable because of its relationship to Moon). If article not feasible under its existing title (which contains its only legitimate claim to notability -- its importance to the UC) then it should be merged or deleted. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is Family of Barack Obama. Redddogg (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That could be considered notable for being the current First Family of the United States. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered to be a poor reason for a decision (unless of course when such 'other stuff' is sufficiently widespread to be able to be considered to be a WP:CONSENSUS). In any case Obama has significantly larger coattails notability-wise than Moon does. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support "True Family" is very biased in what is true and selfpromotional. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support That would be a more logical name for the article if it's about Rev. Moon's family members. If it was about the UC concept of a "true family", or "original family", then the other name would be better.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per Steve.
 * We need to distinguish between several important theological ideals (in lower case) and people or institutions held to have fulfilled them. Even within the UC there has been much confusion about the degree to which "True Family" members have fulfilled the First Blessing (i.e., become fully mature in love). A substantial number of members I've met expressed the naive opinion that Rev. & Mrs. Moon's children are (by definition) "perfect". This has led to practices such as their babysitters letting them run wild (as kids) or idolizing them (when put into leadership roles).
 * Moreover, we need to be neutral and not let an article title give the impression that Rev. Moon's family are the True Family. (I'd also like to see fewer titles or nicknames: e.g., move Dae Mo Nim to Soon Ae Hong. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the trouble is that in most cases, any notability is solely due to the 'titled/nicknamed' aspect of the person(s). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: per Steve and Hrafn (by combining their views): This article should be about both the theological concept and the Unification Church's assumption that Moon's family fulfills that role (and anything else about that family that is general but noteworthy). "The family of Sun Myung Moon" is not sufficiently notable to have its own article, but "true family" is an absolutely central concept in both Unification theology and polity, arguably the central concept. I don't blame 6.66.196.229 for his ignorance, because at present the article fails to make clear that "True Family" is an ideal, and that the reality may not live up to it (we would need a source for the debate to include it), but that Moon's family are referenced in this way anyway. This phrase "True Family" is at the very core of Unificationist teachings about their ideals, and at the core of the church/movement structure! A little inadequacy in the wording of the introduction is a reason for someone to fix it, not to delete the article or move it to a name that causes it to lose more than half its meaning!


 * Ed, [1] You don't seem to know that theological concepts are sometimes written in upper case, and [2] You've never given a reason for why you reversed your position on the Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens issue. Wikipedia says the most commonly used reference - e.g., Mark Twain - (and most commonly used spellings) should apply. -Exucmember (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote for the change you suggested. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Regardless of whether the article is renamed or not, it needs a far greater proportion of third party sourcing. What that third-party material will be will partially depend on what the article title is:
 * True Family: will be largely what third-party academics in religious studies (and maybe theology) say about this concept (do they say anything?).
 * Family of Sun Myung Moon: will be largely news coverage of the family members.
 * This may influence your opinions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No. "True Family" has a much broader meaning than just a title for Moon's family, but even if it didn't, it functions as a title in the Unification Church, as "Holy Father" is in the Catholic Church. The underlying theological meaning of "Holy Father" - or just "Father" (Pope) - is something that is mainly of interest to Catholics. It is not required that there be cited discussion of this underlying theological meaning in non-catholic sources in order to use the title. The title "Pope" is even used in the biographical article titles of Popes on Wikipedia. This is the terminology that Catholics use to refer to their own, and Wikipedia accepts use of the terminology because it is common (and could be cited from news reports if necessary), not because Wikipedia is endorsing Catholic doctrine. And it's not necessary that non-Christian (i.e., Budddhist or Hindu) theologians or religious studies scholars discuss Concupiscence, for example, for that concept to have its own Wikipedia article.

There is other terminology that gets folded in here such as the "True Family Festival Marriage Blessing," "True Family Values," "The True Family Values Ministry," etc. (mention should be in the article of at least some of these), which refers to the central theological concept, but is appropriate to mention in a Wikipedia article because that's the name the Unification Church gives it. There is no implied endorsement of the idea that the Blessing puts one on the road to establishing one's own True Family, just as there is none that the Pope really is holy or that Father Divine really is in the position of father to humanity or that he is divine. "True Family" should be an article that merges the several meanings, each one of which may or may not reach the bar of notability by itself. It seems like a much more efficient way of doing it. -Exucmember (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that this topic is more complex than I understood. However, I still think "Family of Sun Myung Moon" is a more neutral and natural title than "True Family." Redddogg (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy Father does not get an article, only a dab between the RC & Coptic use of the term. On that basis all that is needed is redirects of True Father → Sun Myung Moon, True Family → Family of Sun Myung Moon, etc.
 * 'True Family' as an article topic stands or falls on this requirement in WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Is there "significant coverage" in "reliable, third-party sources" on the topic of the UC concept of the 'True Family'? If so, then the existence of an article on this topic is compliant with WP:V, and the article must give WP:DUE weight to those sources. If not, then the article must be renamed to a slightly different topic (which does meet this requirement) or deleted (if no compliant topic can be found).
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy Father does not have its own article because Pope, a much more common expression for the same thing, has its own article.
 * "True Family" is mentioned in hundreds of news articles about the Unification Church.
 * -Exucmember (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The UC has bestowed the title 'True Father' onto only one individual, Sun Myung Moon. Until such time as it decides to bestow it on his successors, I see no reason to separate out the title from the individual.
 * Your claims that "'True Family' is mentioned in hundreds of news articles about the Unification Church" would be considerably more compelling if UC articles weren't so pervasively lacking in third-party sourcing.
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anything been decided? Should we keep "True Family" since that is what it has been? Redddogg (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On WP when no consensus is reached the usual thing is to keep things as they are. Although I voiced my support for a move I see that no consesus was reached so we should keep the title as it is. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One way forward is to document (and where appropriate, build into the article) reliable third party discussion of the UC religious doctrine of 'True Family'. If such discussion is extensive, it supports retention of the current title, if it is vestigial, this supports a name change. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

5 months on, and still nothing on "a concept in the theology of the Unification Church"
…in spite of the fact that we have a template at the top of the article stating that said "concept in the theology" is the topic of the article. Can we therefore remove this claim unless/until material on the theological aspect is introduced? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the True Family
This article would be better titled 'List of members of the True Family', as it currently gives no explication of the term 'True Family' (beyond a brief, unsourced mention in the lead), or its theological meaning, just a list of its members. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

'Too Family'/WP:OR
As a mental exercise, suppose a vandal: What sources currently in the article would support the change back to 'True Family', 'True Parents', 'True Father', 'True Mother', 'True Children'? As far as I can see, the only support would probably be "the True Parent providence" in the 'Marriage of the Lamb' quote.
 * 1) renamed the article 'Too Family' and
 * 2) changed each capitalised 'True' to a 'Too'

Really, an article on 'True Family'/'True XXXX' needs sources that talk explicitly about 'True Family'/'True XXXX'. Otherwise the whole concept of the article is simply WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion above seems to have more "votes" (I know we are not supposed to "vote") for renaming the article "Family of Sun Myung Moon". Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And I have already opposed that topic-title as WP:INHERITED. If you're going down that road, it should be merged (with suitable pruning for unsourced material and excessive detail about the death of Young Jin Moon) into Sun Myung Moon. I would note that (other than the final, short 'Family environment and child raising' section) little in the article discusses the family as a unit, it merely lists the members. Members that are notable in their own right can be covered in their own articles quite comfortably, those that are not can have their brief mentions in Sun Myung Moon's article as easily as here. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We need a standard for choosing when to prefer in-house church terminology over regular naming conventions, and vice versa. I personally would like to see fewer titles like Dae Mo Nim & Black Heung Jin Nim, in preference to using real names like Soon Ae Hong & either Heung Jin Moon or Cleophas (not sure of his last name at the moment). This is especially important in cases where someone has died and another person is channeling for them: I'd like to see an article on channeler Hyo Nam Kim.


 * While it is the church viewpoint that one person can stand in for another, it only causes confusion of Wikipedia fails to make the distinction.


 * Here is a little table that might help

Note that at certain times and places an earthly channel might be addressed by the name of the person who died. However, according to church theology there is no such thing as reincarnation, so we're all supposed to know that the two people are distinct. Furthermore, there are questions (and even some disputes) about how accurately the living person is channeling the dead person at any moment in time.

As has been brought up several times before, there have been disputes both (a) within the church, among members and (b) between the official church leadership (or public statements) and church opponents about these matters, especially about the channeling for Heung Jin Moon. In the latter case, the "fact" that Cleophas was a "perfect channel" was used to argue that Rev. Moon condones violence, even to the point of injury and hospitalization, in disciplining members or making them pay indemnity. This is significant, because the church's teaching about indemnity is not well understood. Moon's statement that the Holocaust was indemnity is particularly problematic if "indemnity" is taken as punishment given by God.

I think that if we make clear distinctions about the names of people and their (supposed) channelers, it will help us clarify other things as well. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Death of Young Jin Moon
Hrafn, thanks for removing a very unusual action for a member of the "[[True Family]"] from the article. I was thinking of making the very same deletion myself, since it looks like sheer speculation to me.

But he insisted on traveling to Las Vegas alone when she asked to accompany him looks like a fact, and it supports the hypothesis of "depression causing suicide". Despite my church's official denial of that theory, I think that NPOV merits including the traveling alone bit and maybe some others. Is it okay to mention the exhumation? I myself would like to know why the body was buried twice. Do you have any idea?

We are not trying to create an objective article which reaches a conclusion for the reader (and, worse, defends it). We are just trying to shed let on the incident by providing as much relevant information as possible. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * His actions may be factual, "how she felt" (which was the main subject of the removed sentence) is not. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with references and sources
Although some contributors prefer to delete first (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), this is (1) a wiki and (2) an online encyclopedia. It's easy for us to help each other find references.

If we delete information, then no one sees it, and no one will go find the references. Now, I have seen {fact} tags that are over one year old - on topics far more obscure than the Unification Church, its personnel, and its associated organizations. Surely we can wait a few weeks on someone like In Jin Moon, newly appointed national leader of the American church. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, read WP:NOR & WP:V (and particularly WP:BURDEN) and stop whining. You were the one who violated these policies by creating In Jin Moon without a shred of sourcing, let alone third-party sourcing. Reliable, third-party sources come first, then the article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is Ed that Rev. Moon's family is much more interesting to us church members (and former members) than to the general public. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, if no-one else can be bothered, why don't you find the refs yourself? You're such a Moon apologist that you must should have a wealth of information at your fingertips. If you ask why the 'facts' well-known to members of the 'church' aren't acceptable without third party references then I suggest that you examine this and its predecessors. Regards TheresaWilson (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Darn good point. Steve, I think we better listen to Theresa and her sloth entreaties. It's a sign from God. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you're actually going to turn over a new leaf and look for sources/evidence to back up your own claims, rather than keep on expecting that others do your work for you?

I'm inviting you to be on the team. I have no work here, I make no claims: we have work, and we all do our best to express the truth about subjects that we think will interest readers. Please do your part, and if finding good sources is something you can help with we'll all benefit, contributors and readers alike.

We are peers; no one is the boss; so I cannot assign work to you, any more than you can assign it to me. But as a member of the team, I hope you will volunteer to pick up the slack when you find that you are better at one aspect of the work than another is.

If you disagree with me about something, feel free to mention your personal opinions to me (as long as doing so does not violate any WP guidelines). If you have references which match up with your opinions or viewpoints, I hope you will do us all the favor of supplying those references. The last thing anyone around here wants is a debate between contributors, because your opinion and my opinion aren't worth much in a dispute or a controversy. Rather we should each try to describe that controversy fairly. Have you read Writing for the opponent? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice sidestepping Ed. Now answer the question. Unless and until you're willing to pull your own weight within "the team" by finding RSes to back up your own claims, you will remain a liability rather than an asset to "the team". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"unduly self-serving"
WP:SELFPUB sources may not be used when they are "unduly self-serving". I think that description covers Moon's claim that "his mission to save the world came first", especially given the theological importance he's placed upon the family and his 'True Family'. The title of the TIME piece, "Do As I Preach, and Not As I Do" sums this up. I am therefore removing this material. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hakja Han Moon
Ed, did you go to any of Mother Moon's speeches at WFWP events? All of the published speeches I saw listed her name as "Hakja Han Moon," a Western-style way of writing it that I assumed was chosen because it would be more familiar to Americans. Injin Moon has been published using the same style for her name. -Exucmember (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen Koreans, in and out of the church, spell their given name with no space, or with a hyphen, or with a space. Do you have any source other than a vivid memory for how the Unification Church (or Mother Moon herself) would like her name to be spelled in English? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The three word format with the family name last seems to be most common in the American UC. I think that is what should be used with the others (Han Hak-ja, Hakja Han Moon, and Mrs. Moon) also mentioned. It looks odd if we skip from one to the other, although I did use Rev. and Mrs. Moon in Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church Steve Dufour (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. There is nothing wrong with any of them. If you can show that Hakja Han Moon is better to use here I would have no objection, but I just don't see it as more established. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)