Talk:Nansook Hong

message: Source for "heir apparent" claim is Nansook Hong herself:
*"Peter Kim, the Rev. Moon's personal assistant, was assigned to tutor the young heir apparent." (P. 57, Shadow)
:Most of the book sounds like Nansook with slight rewording, but occasionally a phrase is jarring to Unification Church members because it sounds so unike her. I remember a phrase along the lines of "Moon's minions" or "Moon and his minions" and thinking it didn't sound like her at all; I never saw any evidence that she had that kind of attitude toward the members. So also a clever phrase like "heir apparent" sounds more like Eileen McNamara than like Nansook Hong. But Ed, you are going way too far out on thin ice on this "heir apparent" issue. See my comments on the issue on the Talk:Hyo Jin Moon page. -Exucmember 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heir apparent

message: *McNamara and Chryssides apparently relied on the same primary-source materials, although King says McNamara's words follow Chryssides's more closely than they do the primary sources. 
:Ed, I always thought you were fair-minded and balanced in your edits, but I read the article at the URL immediately above, and I have to say that your title for this section is misleading (contrary to the conclusion of the author of the article), and in addition you chose the one sentence to quote that most suits the claim of plagiarism you are repeating here (whereas almost everything else in the article runs counter to it). -Exucmember 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if my edit was misleading then I've made a mistake. Thanks for catching it. :-) --Uncle Ed 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think you were intentionally attempting to mislead. (Besides, anyone can read the article.) But it says things as far on the other end of the spectrum as "Actually, to call the charges 'not clear cut' is too fair to McNamara's accusers, who in fact have no case at all." So the statement you quoted was as far from representative as possible, that's all. As I said, your edits are normally fair-minded and balanced; I wish all the members had a similarly public-minded sense. -Exucmember 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, well, being "public-minded" is part of the church mandate. And so is honesty. ("Honesty comes first, particularly between God and man." ) --Uncle Ed 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism, or what

message: The book conveniently leaves out who she was shopping for. The passage makes it sound like she just went to boutiques for herself. Church members report that she shopped mainly for other people, not even her own family. Or that she had to buy formal wear for speaking tours. --Uncle Ed 02:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: True Mother's life work

message: Cut from intro:
:Nansook Hong (born 1966),  ...
The part in HTML "hidden text" markup is what I cut.
There is no need to describe Hong as "hand-picked" in this fashion. It makes it sound out of the ordinary, but Rev. Moon arranged all his children's marriages. I think that adjective came either from Library Journal  or maybe from Hong herself. 
And why does the first sentence of a biography of Rev. Moon's daughter-in-law have to allude to Moon's former marriages? Readers want to know about Ms. Hong - not her former parents-in-law (they can click on the handy links when they are ready to learn about them.
The scare quotes around the True Mother title are unnecessary, too. 
Finally, the bit about apparent next-generation successor is just too much non-Hong for the first sentence of an encyclopedia biography. Tell us about Hong!
Now, all this information need not be permanently hidden, but I'd like some help from Steve and River Guy and ExUC and others to decide where it should go. That's why I did not delete it, but only used HTML to hide it. It's still available when you click the edit button. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no official church policy about whose pictures should be in a prayer room. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: I've nominated the category for deletion, BTW: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 6.  Besides that, is there any evidence that she is really a "former Unificationist"? I still consider her part of the church community. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Former Unificationists

message: I just did a Google book search for "Nansook Hong" (in quotation marks) and it returned 40 titles, mostly scholarly books on new religious movements. -Exucmember (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plenty of sources for Hong

message: I have proposed merging In the Shadow of the Moons here since they mostly give the same information. Borock (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any sources that talk about her without talking about her autobiography? Obviously they can't talk about the book without talking about her.Borock (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, then the book is more notable than her, and not the other way around. But in answer to your question, yes, there are. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess a case could be made that the book is more notable. Borock (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The book is by Hong, she is the author, not simply the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to also be an argument that she is the more important topic.  Of course it's possible to have both, for instance Malcolm X and The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agree that both should be retained, per that example. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Malcolm X and his "autobiography" (of which he is not the author BTW) have had far more lasting impact on the world, than has Ms Hong. Borock (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I removed a long quote which took up a big part of the article. Besides copyright considerations, the article is supposed to be about the book and to be based on secondary sources as are all WP articles. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Long quote

message: I find this sentence somewhat questionable. Not only does it accuse a living person of a crime, but it comes from a self-published source. Robert Parry of The Consortium reviewed the book, and wrote that "it adds first-person evidence that Rev. Moon has flouted U.S. currency laws through a long-running conspiracy to smuggle cash into the United States or to lie to customs agents about where the cash is going."[12] I trimmed down another quote for the same reason, self-published and BLP.Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP issue

message: Almost the entirety of Hyo Jin Moon is sourced to Nansook, and particularly to her autobiography, and generally describes his behaviour during his marriage to her. It would therefore seem reasonable to merge it here (mostly into the section on her biography). WP:MERGE#Reasons for merger #2 (Overlap) & #4 (context) therefore clearly apply. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me.  Hyo Jin Moon has gotten almost no coverage outside of the Unification Church, except for his divorce (and his death as well.) Borock (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. The Hyo Jin Moon article has never really established why he is notable. Nansook Hong, on the other hand, seems to be notable as a author. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go ahead and merge, since that seems to be the consensus. Borock (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal