Talk:Sun Myung Moon

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to mergeAs a Peace-Loving Global Citizen here. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen offers no evidence that the topic meets WP:NBOOK and its sourcing is poor-to-mediocre (Korean bookstores, Washington Times, minor sources complaining about bias in WT coverage), I'm proposing that it be merged here (possibly as a mere {{cite book}} in a 'Bibliography' section, due to lack of substantive third-party coverage). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Merge I don't speak Korean so I can't evaluate the Korean sources. However, as you said, the Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church and Robert Parry is somewhat of a conspiracy guy. Otherwise the English speaking world has taken little notice of this book. Borock (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Merge I agree. There is not enough material for an article, beyond just the information that the book exists. I renominated it for deletion. It was kept back in 2009 but since then no other coverage has come forth. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge The book has spent dozens of weeks on various bestseller lists, sold over a million copies, even reached bestseller status on Amazon Japan, and there are plenty of major Korean news organizations giving tons of press to this book. The sources neither require they be in English or be from English countries to pass notability. The fact that someone hasn't gotten around to writing up a synopsis of the book is irrelevant. If I had the book I'd do so.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• (i) Please reread WP:NBOOKS -- sales figures do not make a book notable. (ii) Depth/prominence of coverage matters, regardless of the language -- and the coverage of this topic appears to be wholly lacking in either. (iii) The fact that no prominent source (and AFAIK, no reliable source whatsoever) has written a detailed review of this book is entirely relevant. (iv) What is irrelevant is a synopsis -- as that is WP:NOT what an article is meant to be about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please actually read the sources. I've provide coverage by multiple third party sources which devote several entire articles to the book. Currently only a tiny amount of information has been pulled out of them, but that's irrelevant. One article even went so far to note that the book was so popular that it was a topic of daily conversation. You may wish to read the guideline yourself: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. . This has been provided multiple times. But let me spell it out for you once more: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] That's multiple major news organizations all dedicating entire large articles to the book.--Crossmr (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Segye is a UC subsidiary, the MSN article is a puff-piece, the Naver article is a puff-piece on the launch of the English version -- "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this ain't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• If you'd like a review of the book, perhaps you should attend this conference [7], where George D. Chryssides will review the book. His credentials appear to make him a published expert in the field and a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• So if we wait a few months there may be one (not "multiple" as WP:NBOOKS requires) "non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" -- unfortunately it is hardly "serving a general audience". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's easy to make that claim when you blow off every article as a "puff" piece. Regardless of your opinion, news organizations dedicating entire articles to the coverage of the launch and it's history is non-trivial coverage. [8] This one looks to be a review/introduction of the book and there is no evidence that they are owned by UC. [9] they had 2 articles on the book. Nor this one [10]--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• (i) Material lacking any "analytic or evaluative claims" (as expected from WP:SECONDARY sources), and taking the topic's self-descriptions at face-value, can reasonably be described as "puff pieces". (ii) Material about the launch of a book, rather than the book itself, does not "address the subject directly in detail" and so does not add to WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• both statements of which are irrelevant to the three sources I provided.--Crossmr (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The first statement certainly seems to apply to both naeil.com pieces & the hankyung.com. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• It does not, nor would it be relevant even if it did. Nothing in notability requires that kind of coverage. It only requires non-trivial coverage which these are.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and that review you so desperately wanted: [11], that's a detailed piece on the book.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge - per nom and other reasoning set forth. Seems to be the best way to deal with this article on a non-notable subject. BelloWello (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - minor book that derives its notability wholly from Moon. BelloWello (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• I went ahead and merged since that seems to be what most people wanted. As soon as there are serious reviews of the book, preferably in English, so there is some material for an article it can be revived.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bias

I have noticed certain bias towards Moon's completely unfounded claims. I ask the Wikipedia community to remove said bias.78.177.48.119 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific in what you'd like to remove, and why? Keep in mind that just because you disagree with Moon's claims would not be grounds for their removal. 38.109.88.218 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)