Talk:True Family

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Marriage of the Lamb

message: 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)
thread_title: Mediums

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

message: 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)
replies: text: No opposition, so I've gone ahead and merged it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  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.
*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)
replies: text: *There is Family of Barack Obama. Redddogg (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: …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)
thread_title:  5 months on, and still nothing on "a concept in the theology of the Unification Church" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of members of the True Family 

message: 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)
replies: text: His actions may be factual, "how she felt" (which was the main subject of the removed sentence) is not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of Young Jin Moon

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

text: 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". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with references and sources

message: 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unduly self-serving" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hakja Han Moon