Talk:Kook-jin Moon

message: "It was not easy to find out what the relationship was between Kahr Arms and the Unification Church. After almost two decades of looking into the Unification Church's business connections, private investigator Larry Zilliox "traced Kahr, one of more than a dozen Moon family companies in the U.S., through an intricate chain of firms to a mothership holding company called 'Unification Church International'."[11] Moon reports that he borrowed money from his father to found the company"
The fact that something isn't easy doesn't make it noteworthy.  It took a long time for Larry Zilliox to determine a handful of companies owned by the UC doesn't have anything to do with the UC or Kook Jin Moon.  But the article reads as if there is something sinister going on when in fact Larry might simply be a crappy "investigator".  Seriously, what does the length of time or difficulty determining who owns what have to do with the article?  
Furthermore I bet we might be surprised what the Catholic church owns and finding out what they own would be a daunting task in itself.  Sure a church owning a piece or or funding a gun making company is noteworthy, if nothing else the irony is delicious. But the amount of time some "investigator" took to figure that out is not.  And most all large religions have significant investments that are not easy to identify.  I wonder how much Nazi booty the Catholic church managed to snake!  
Finally, gun ownership and gun manufacturing are legal pursuits in the United States, nothing sinsister about that either.  Disclosure - I could care less about the UC, Kook Moon or the firearm company he owns.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Angry Christian. Good catch. I was working quickly that day. I have just made more edits. Hopefully the article is better now. -Exucmember (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this doesn't sound very neutral 

message: I made several rounds of edits several months ago to attempt to address Steve Dufour's concerns about this Kook Jin Moon article. Steve, could you take a look at it and tell me whether you'd agree with taking off the template. If not, please make your objections specific. I think we'll probably always have a different opinion on the situation of the True Children and the public. From my point of view, they are not entitled to the kind of immunity you might wish for them from criticism which gets extra energy from the negative press story about Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. This is particularly true for Kook Jin Moon: he owns a company which is a subsidiary of Saeilo, which is under the Unification Church International. He's a 38-year-old (next month) man - not an adolescent - who has chosen to remain closely associated with the Unification Church in a key business leadership position. But anyway, the reason I'm writing this is to ask you if you have any objections remaining that can be well-supported by Wikipeida guidelines, and if so, to make them clear and specific on the Kook Jin Moon talk page. -Exucmember (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification of objections 

message: Who is Christopher Miner Spencer, and why is his name in the infobox? Did the contributor simply forget to finish setting up the template?  --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fising that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox problems 

message: *  Saeilo, a company controlled by his father, Sun Myung Moon
Who says Saeilo is controlled by Sun Myung Moon? Without a source for that, I would tend to think that Kook Jin Moon controls just about all the church's business interests, as the head of Tongil Group. 
Or do we have a page listing all the businesses Sun Myung Moon controls? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a source 

message: The label for the picture in the infobox identifies the location of the picture as the "Parliament of Great Britain". That seems somewhat unlikely given the Parliament of Great Britain hasn't existed since 1800 (according to our own article). I suspect, given the setting, that the location is possibly a room somewhere in the Palace of Westminster. It is clearly not the Chamber of either House. I've therefore relabelled it accordingly. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in the Infobox