Talk:List of Unificationists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Unificationists article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Early comments

ALthough I have no opposition to this listing, I think that it would be better to put it as a sublisting within the listing of the Unification Churh. Just as I Think it might be wise to put a list of famous canadians on the "canada" page. You know. "Canada, as a country, has produces some very famous individuals Among them:" and then a list. Perhaps this even applies to the gay famous people page; they could be placed directly on the homosexuality page. But then, there is no country of gay. ;) -EB-

Yeah, I know these "list of" pages are kinda cheesy, but user:Camembert encouraged me, so I couldn't resist!
Seriously, though, at some point in the coming months we'll have to come up with a policy on when a topic really requires a separate "list of famous" page. --Ed Poor
(I mixed up you with EB, sorry) Not sure on this. Sometimes a list that's too big is kind of detrimental to an article. Example that big List of child prodigies used to just be a section in the article Child prodigy. Separating seems to have been better for both articles as there's less arguing or distraction. Anyway on the other hand the one in Swedenborgians is moderately biggish, but I think works alright so I was never much tempted to make a list of them. (Although this is in part because half of the names are just influenced by, not members.) I created a Category:Swedenborgians, but that's all that was needed for it. Anyway I think this list is frankly in the "Swedenborgian range" rather then the "child prodigy" range. It also doesn't look like it's going to get that much bigger then it either. I made something of an error though so apologies.--T. Anthony 13:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The cheese agrees: these pages do no harm, but you're probably right in that a policy regarding them would be helpful. In the meantime: are you really suggesting that Sun Myung Moon is a "prominent member" of the Unification Church? C'mon, Ed, whatever happened to NPOV! Who says he's prominent?! Justify yourself, man! ;-) --Camembert
He's probably better known as REV. MOON -- as if "Rev" were his first name. You really never heard of him? Okay, then, feel free to take him off the list ;-) --Ed Poor

[edit] Successors

Despite rumors posted to alt.religion.unification in the late 1990s, I have NEVER heard anything official (or unofficial) from church sources designating Hyo Jin Moon as a successor to Sun Myung Moon.

He was briefly given a chance at church leadership (World CARP), business leadership (Manhattan Center), and youth leadership (UC Second Generation). None of this was related to, or contingent upon, any promise (or plan) for succession.

Only Mother Moon, Hak Ja Han, was ever officially designated a successor.

It's possible that outsiders may have misinterpreted a quotation from Rev. Moon (I'll google the exact words in a moment):

  • 1981: My successor among my sons and daughters will be determined in the same way: the one who sacrifices himself the most for the sake of God's will, the one who best exemplifies the principle of loyalty and filial piety. (note that no individual is named here, and it could even be a girl!) [1]
  • 1983: After that registration is done, True Father will appoint his successor. That successor must be known to all the Unification Church, all the blessed couples and the True Parents' family. They must all unanimously accept him. Once that successor is determined, the law or constitution of the Heavenly Kingdom shall be laid down to guide all activities. (implies that he had not yet chosen a successor then)
  • I am looking for a possible successor from among my sons . . .

That's nowhere near the same as "appointing a successor". And the whole business of a supposed "heir apparent" was sheer speculation by outsiders. (I think their intent was to argue that (1) Moon appointed his son a successor. (2) His son turned out to be woefully inadequate. (3) Such a collossal blunder on Moon's part obviously shows that he doesn't have the wisdom to be a Messiah.)

Anyway, the only sources I've ever seen on successorship point to one person, and one person only: Hak Ja Han Moon. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Ed Poor makes a good point here, and after checking the definition of "heir apparent" on dictionary.com, I've changed my mind on this issue. I always assumed "heir apparent" meant apparent successor, but the more commonly worded definition there reads "an heir whose right to an inheritance cannot be defeated if that person outlives the ancestor." So this may be yet another example of clever writers in popular media using suggestive terminology to magnify their criticisms through innuendo (i.e., "Moonies," "mass" marriage, "Moon's lieutenants," "recruitment," etc.).
On the other hand, honest members can't deny that church members commonly assumed (and had good reason to believe Rev. Moon would decide - barring unusual circumstances) that the oldest son would have the leading role after the parents died. Rev. Moon actually deciding on the first son became more and more in doubt as Hyo Jin continued to exhibit problems. There should be some way to refer to this original, quite logical (from the standpoint of following traditional Korean cultural patterns, exemplified even late in the game by the 3 generations ceremony) expectation without implying that Rev. Moon had already decided. (And of course we're talking about after the both parents die, not just one; Rev. Moon could leave that entirely up to Mrs. Moon and say nothing on the matter, but that does not seem consistent with his usual style.) Perhaps "apparent successor" is better. -Exucmember 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We should perhaps make a distinction between what "church members commonly believe" and what church leaders officially announce. In Roman Catholicism, for example, there is considerable resistance and opposition to official church teachings.

In the UC, despite attempts to prevent them, faction have arisen from time to time. And individual members often disagree on such basic concepts as "Subject and Object" and "Cain and Abel".

What I've observed in nearly years of UC membership (and you can decide for yourself if I'm 'honest' or not ;-) is that Rev. Moon tries out lots of different people for various leadership roles. If they succeed, great. If not, he gives them more time to grow into the task but if they can't hack it he eventually replaces them. Sometimes he'll replace (or recall) a whole echelon of leaders at once. This summer, he told the Korean Regional Leaders in the U.S. to return to Korea. Several times before this, he's changed them around (e.g., sent Chicago leader to L.A., Atlanta leader to Denver, New Jersey leader to Washington, D.C., etc.)

The point for the article, though, is twofold:

  1. Curious readers want to know who will lead the church after the founder dies. We should try to give them a name.
  2. Hostile readers may be looking for ammunition to fuel arguments that "he's not the Messiah", and a clear statement that "HJN is my successor; oops my bad" will help them. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True Family members

Hi Ed. Do you think this list should be moved to the True Family article? How about copying it and having it in both places? Steve Dufour 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this list to "prominent members or ex-members," as stated at the head of the article. -Exucmember 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. Steve Dufour 03:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it, the original "'True Family' ex-members" is more accurate in the context of the statement at the head of the page that this page is for "members or ex-members of the Unification Church." If there is a slight implication that they are outcasts from the family now, that is not innaccurate, actually. They are "out." That meaning is not conveyed by "ex-church-member," which is too delicate. -Exucmember 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you find documentation that they are not considered family members by Rev. and Mrs. Moon? (Who else would decide that?) Steve Dufour 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Steve, read my comment above again. The first sentence stands on its own. The second, "If there is a slight implication" supplements it. I never said they are not considered family members, and the heading doesn't imply that. But there is a degree of separation (and if church members want to assume that it's coming only from the ex-members, they can do so). There is, however, a paralellism in the organization of the page which also makes clear what is being talked about: leaving the church, with perhaps an implication of a rift. I think it's important to convey the reality of their situation instead of a pretense that they are all still "in the fold" by listing them all together, in contrast to the "member" and "ex-member" sections immediately below. -Exucmember 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Are Rev. Moon's children really notable?

Of course to us church members they are but I wonder if they are to the public. Just being the child of someone famous or having a leadership postition in an organization are probably not enough to be notable. I would like to see them taken off this page and just a link to the True Family page. BTW the person on the list who is really publicly notable, Mrs. Hyo Nam Kim the builder of the Cheong Pyeong complex, doesn't even have her own article. Steve Dufour 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Speculations about what a person might do in the future, for example being the leader of the UC, probably do not belong in an encyclopedia. IMO.

I agree that Hyo Nam Kim should have her own page, but her significance is in part as described below.
The requirements for who gets their own page on Wikipedia have been discussed at length and are pretty clear, and "notability" is the watchword. I've always assumed that the requirements for lists are a bit different. On other such lists, the standard of independent notability is combined with the person's importance to the group in question. So a non-notable president of a small college still gets a place at the bottom of the page listing all the past presidents; a major university will mention an olympic athlete who may not deserve (and doesn't have) his own page; etc. An implicit assertion can be made: "If you want to understand the Unification Church, you should understand x, y, z." Here are some pages in the category Unification Church:
Ancestor liberation, Ancestor liberation ceremony, Common base (Unification Thought), Dual characteristics of God, God's Message to the United Nations, Michael Jenkins (Unification Church), Jerusalem Declaration, Joon Ho Seuk, Won Pil Kim, Hyung Jin Moon, Nine Nines Day, Responsibility (Unification Church theology), Spirit man, Subject and object, Whole purpose.
Leaving aside the issue that an argument can be made that some of these are indeed too insignificant to have their own article page and should be merged or deleted, I think it's clear that their inclusion is not because the philosophical concepts are notable or historically influential in the pantheon of philosophical ideas generally, or that the people are sufficiently notable independent of the church. Part of their significance comes from their importance in understanding the Unification Church because of their role in relation to the church. To get a good picture of the Unification Church, one should know about the Dual characteristics of God and Won Pil Kim.
You'll notice that most of the members listed on the List of Unificationists page also don't have their own article pages; they are important in part because of their relation to the Unification Church. Certainly the members of the True Family on this page (the ones that have been more prominent) fit this category. -Exucmember 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Steve, while the True Children may be theologically important or "cherished" by church members, the question is whether the meet encyclopedia standards of notability. Sun Jin Moon, for example, is a lovely young lady, but hardly a public figure. Should we list all 40-odd children grandchildren at Wikipedia? Better to link to a church website for a compendium like that.
We don't even have a clear article on the fall of man or the principles of restoration. First things first, eh? --Uncle Ed 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One problem with the list

The ex-members listed are not at all typical of most, who number in the hundreds of thousands. I know of quite a few who have gone on and been notable enough in other fields to merit a Wikipedia article. However I don't want to put them on the list because of privacy concerns. I don't see how this problem can be corrected. Steve Dufour 10:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had exactly the same concerns since encountering this list. Perhaps some statement in a footnote like "This ex-member list consists only of those people who have publicly and continuously identified themselves as ex-members, and that often means harsh critics, who are not necessarily representative of ex-members generally." -Exucmember 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky

Did you revert all my edits, or just the ridiculous and sneaky ones? Turning Kook Jin Moon into a link to Kook Jin Moon - was that sneaky, or just ridiculous? --Uncle Ed 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the characterization, Ed; I probably went overboard. I don't mean to be unkind. (I guess I was annoyed that you weren't more careful since you're on probation.) But most of the edits you just made to this page, where you are citing NPOV, making moves, and changing headings, were, it seemed to me, nothing more than to promote your POV and, I felt, make the truth a little less visible. I put back the edits you made that were helpful, notably the quotation marks. The redlinking of Kook Jin Moon and Kahr arms was not was I was referring to. That one was borderline, and I almost put it back, but decided not to based on the views I expressed above in Are_Rev._Moon.27s_children_really_notable?. It seems to me that if there's no article on Wikipedia on Kahr Arms, then it's pretty clear that Kook Jin Moon is not notable enough to have his own article. This list has a different threshold, however, and includes those who are only sufficiently notable in relation to the Unification Church. Other lists (i.e., List of _____ University people) follow the same principle. -Exucmember 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just restored some edits (by User:Ed Poor) that weren't bad (actually the dates were good; I simply missed them). That includes the redlinks to Kook Jin Moon and Kahr Arms, though my preference would be to wait until those articles are written. -Exucmember 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which members belong on this list?

In an edit summary, 152.163.100.137 says "[I] don't know what Ace Class Shadow's problem is but these people ARE memebers of the church." 152.163.100.137 doesn't acknowledge that there might be a legitimate reason not to include these members on this list. I'm sure he would agree that not every member should go on the list. So he would have to recognize the principle that only prominent members should be listed. Then the question becomes: "What should the threshold be?" Obviously, the threshold is lower than that of who gets a page on Wikipedia. That precedent is well established on other lists such as those of university alumni.

Some of the University of Bridgeport members recently added are pretty clearly second-tier in prominence compared to those already on the list. One problem with expanding the list to include a second tier is that it becomes even harder to draw the line between the second and third tier. Also, in some areas of the U.S. at least, it's not entirely clear who is a member. I know quite a few people who some members assume are still members, but who do not consider themselves members and never participate in any activities. Some of the second-tier "members" in my area are not actually members anymore (or are very marginal). Recently someone added to the list a past president of the Unification Church who is clearly no longer a member. Other people in question might themselves members (and I guess that's what counts), but they are not in the sense that they once were. I heard that a few years ago Dr. Durst resigned from all the Unificationism organizations' boards that he had been on and now participates only in the local church school. Well, that probably doesn't matter, except that perhaps such people should be asked whether they consider themselves members (or members enough) to be listed.

In any case, we might want to discuss a threshold of prominence or notability that we think is appropriate for this list, and then use it to screen new additions. -Exucmember 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Durst is certainly a church member. I just attended a church meeting at his house last week. Steve Dufour 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Burton is certainly a Unificationist, but just an academic. He's not a church leader. He is Life and Physical sciences editor for the New World encyclopedia project. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I divided the list into leaders and "ordinary". Is that good, you guys? --Uncle Ed 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder whether it's a good idea. I think it might be difficult to identify the threshold of who is a "key official/leader." For example, why is Michael Mickler not? His position at the seminary is actually slightly higher than Andrew Wilson's. One might ask whether the American leaders have real power. Being editor in chief of UPI is not a church leadership post, but it may be considered a significant leadership role within the larger "Unification movement." I mention these things not to make specific arguments, but to show that where and how to draw such a line is problematic. -Exucmember 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gossip and predictions

I took out the opinions about two of Rev. Moon's sons. For one thing what was said was not facts but just opinions about other people's opinions. For another thing we are generally not supposed to predict the future here. Another problem is that most people outside the church, who have any interest that is, probably imagine that the church is a monolithic organization with Rev. Moon controlling everything that is going on. So to say that someone might be his successor gives them a completely wrong picture of that person's importance. Steve Dufour 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates for U.S. Unification Church presidents

Hendricks was certainly not the church president until 2000, but I just guessed on the dates (for him and for Jenkins), and now I'm more unsure than a few minutes ago about when he became the U.S. church president. Does anyone know for sure? -Exucmember 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike became president in 2000. The source is cited in his article. Unless someone else was inbetween them then Tylor was until then. Steve Dufour 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage of former members

Tyler Hendricks gave me his US church database a few years ago. It had 5,800 entries. He also estimated that just over 100,000 people joined the US church as "center members".

Subtracted 6 thousand from 100 thousand, leaves 94 thousand (94% left). I rounded this to 95. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd wording

This phrase is in the first paragraph "...engraft everyone in the world (physical world and spiritual world) into that family to restore their lineage from satanic to Godly." It doesn't mean anything to me. Or is that because I am not religious? I don't want to delete it, but perhaps someone could suggest another way of wording this so that the meaning is clear?--Conjoiner 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the potential for that not being understood may be because of biblical references inherent in it. Unificationists believe that because of the original sin God's children became a part of Satan's family. Jesus said "I am the vine; you are the branches." The analogy of tree branches to lineage is common. The analogy is extended to people "engrafting" into the "true vine" (true lineage) by uniting with the messiah. Unificationists see the messiah as someone who can restore the lost lineage. The language in the first paragraph is language they would use, but if it is opaque to outsiders, perhaps it can be modified for greater clarification. What would you suggest, based on the explanation I just gave? -Exucmember 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is a list of Unificationists, not a discussion of theology. Steve Dufour 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP and references

Under WP:BLP, shouldn't this list of people have references for each one, and their current membership status? AndroidCat (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)