Talk:Heung Jin Moon

message: I am reluctant to criticize User:Ed Poor in such a harsh manner, in part because I appreciate his early work on Wikipedia, but the wholesale blanking of well-sourced material on this page is inexcusable. At the same time he added unsourced commentary that was clearly false. My biggest disappointment, however, is that his actions are not atypical for Unification Church members, who often deal with difficult problems by pretending they don't exist or didn't happen, and hiding all criticism (labeled "negativity") from the public and from the "younger" members. Such methods may work in authoritarian, backward, third-world settings, but they don't measure up to modern standards of ethics, and they will not help the Unification Movement to improve.
Ed, I really think it would be best for you if you just leave this article alone. Your views on this topic are way out of the mainstream even among Unification Church members. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have some kind of inability to make constructive edits to this article in particular, and your recent actions are simply unacceptable. If you continue, I will report you. -Exucmember (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed Poor's blanking of large section of sourced material

message: As nobody objected to my proposal in the above section, and as this article contained no pre-mortem information on Heung Jin Moon, I have gone ahead and renamed this article, and am now formally proposing merging Black Heung Jin Nim here -- as both articles cover the UC's beliefs about Heung Jin Moon, post mortem. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  (old) Merger proposal 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose. Article names should be specific and short, but not ambiguous. Names of persons are normally just that, without a lengthy description in the title. It does not make any difference in naming the article what aspect of the person the article describes, or why there is an article about them. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Moved here from my talk page:
::"No discussion"? READ THE BLOODY TALK PAGE!
::Your claim of "no discussion" was WRONG. Likewise your claim that it was "ill-advised" is WRONG in that the only thing that the article actually says about Heung Jin Moon is that he died. The rest of the article is about Unification Church beliefs about Heung Jin Moon after he died. If you can't be bothered discussing the article, let alone find on-topic information on it (i.e. about Heung Jin Moon himself, not about UC beliefs about him), then you can hardly be surprised if others take things into their own hands. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant by "discussion" was two or more people talking about something. I did not consider one person proposing something (and acting on it before any response) a "discussion". -Exucmember (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: GET A CLUE Get some slight understanding of the relevant facts and policy! <Hits Exucmember with a WP:TROUT> If you wanted "two or more people talking about something" then why didn't you discuss it yourself (instead of complaining after the fact)? "One person proposing something" and waiting two weeks for a response, and when they got none, going ahead is not unreasonable. I posted the proposal to talk, I waited a reasonable amount of time for comment, then I implemented it. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THAT? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: For someone who has an incredible fondness for wikilawyering, I find your obvious violation of WP:CIVIL surprising. "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording." I suggest you remove the phrase. "Get a clue". I also find the trout reference offensive and inappropriate. It doesn't seem to contribute to the quality of the article. The opening of the move request was made after your comment on my talk page (also a borderline violation of WP:CIVIL), and after I reverted your move. You combined the two, not me. Perhaps we should separate it into two sections. -Exucmember (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Execumember your demand that there be "discussion" before the move, when you you could not be bothered discussing it yourself (in spite of more than two weeks being allowed for you to respond) renders the three word reasonable response(per WP:SPADE). As you are so thin-skinned as to object to this, then I'll comply with your demand to change them. Neither the "move request" nor my 'reverted move' are relevant to the Merger proposal in the section above, so please STOP trying to merge this material into that section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largely after-the-fact-discussion of the ''failed'' renaming proposal 

message: I moved this template (below) from the article page, as it seems to me an inappropriate objection to an article about a religious figure. The issue can be discussed here. -Exucmember (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to emphasis on significance as religious figure

message: In this edit, Exucmember asserts that it is "inappropriate for an article about a religious figure" to have information on "anything AT ALL about Heung Jin Moon BEFORE his death". I would assert to the contrary that it would be very rare (and possibly otherwise unknown) for a religious figure to be known for nothing before they died. While beliefs about their lives (and deaths) may grow after their death, it is always their actions and teachings while alive that forms the core of their notability, and of beliefs about them. Where is this "core" in the case of Heung Jin Moon? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "religious figure" with no information about activities PRIOR to death? 

message: I suggest, and I hope Hrafn will agree, that we have one united article on Heung Jin Moon including all the material from the "Black Heung Jin Nim" episode, which I've gone ahead and renamed Return of Heung Jin Moon. I see considerable overlap, and in fact little more than overlap, between the two.
HJN's claim to fame is that after his death the church made a big fuss over him. This article and the spinoff are almost entirely about that fuss. I'll wait a week or two, and if there are no strong and reasonable objections, I plan to start doing the merge. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles are really about a large number of people, Heung Jin Moon and Cleopas Kundioni being only two of them. Neither article is primarily about one or the other. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I pasted the entire other article into this one. I will get back to it to remove duplicated material.Borock (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the "Black Heung Jin Nim" incident is a part of the larger Unification Church beliefs in him. However I see that there is no consensus so if you want to go ahead and undue the merge I will not object. Borock (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: One united article

message: I just checked out this article and Black Heung Jin Nim. There is a section there that pretty much duplicates this article. Why not just merge the two together, rather than giving the same information twice? Borock (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I am going to rewrite the introduction so that it sums up all the material that is in the article, as WP policy suggests. Borock (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite intro

message: I took out the sentence about one reporter quoting one church member's opinion. I have never heard anyone else say this. Wolfview (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fringe view removed