Talk:Chung Hwan Kwak

Citations and notability

This article currently has only three citations -- none of which even mention Kwak (let alone provide "significant coverage"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's not true; the 3rd citation does mention him. the other two are useful for describing the bizarre event itself (which because of its subversive nature has very few primary sources attesting to what went on there — sources who are willing to speak, anyway.) But I agree that the article can use more sources, so feel free to provide some of your own. Yellow Rain (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added sources and removed unsourced material from the article. Redddogg (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Chung Hwan Kwak as "'number two man' to Sun Myung Moon, having replaced Bo Hi Pak"

I see two problems with this:

1. It cites the claim to Talk to Action, which is very much a populist and a avowedly partisan liberal source. While it may be a RS for some things, subtleties of the power structures of conservative organisation would not be one of them. I would suggest that we need a less partisan and more measured source for this.
2. Bo Hi Pak is still listed as "Sun Myung Moon's 'right hand man'". We either need to remove this or place them both as 'one of the number two/right-hand men' to Moon.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have said before that WP does not need to name someone as "number two" or "right hand" man to Rev. Moon. These would just be someone's opinion anyway. Just say what their jobs have been. Both are related to Rev. Moon by marriage. This should be mentioned. In the UC it would be considered much more important than merely having a title for the work you do. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I took off that item. Rev. Kwak's importance in the church should be clear from the cited facts given in the article: Chairman of News World, head of the Family Party, his daughter married to Rev. Moon's son. I also took off the item about him hating white people. This was sourced by a posting on a neo-nazi website, which blamed him for a UPI story they didn't like. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, there are no subtleties of power structures. Rev. Kwak is far and away the person in the most powerful positions in key Unification organizations, many times over. No one else is remotely close, unless you were to redefine the issue to include some unlikely hypothetical power struggle with members of the True Family. He is clearly the "#2" man. I was surprised and pleased that someone like John Gorenfeld, who makes some inaccurate assumptions about the church, would hit that nail so squarely on the head. "Right-hand man" was far more apt for Bo Hi Pak (always at Rev. Moon's side), before his exile to Japan and subsequent fall from grace (or at least from all positions of power). Unlike Andrew Wilson and Frank Kaufmann, who likely would have made similar accomplishments without Sun Myung Moon, Rev. Kwak has fewer notable specific accomplishments apart from his positions of power in an astonishingly long list of Unification organizations - he was made by Rev. Moon.

Sun Myung Moon must be in the first phrase of the article. Steve - I'm sure you didn't think of it this way, but the article at present can be criticized for trying to hide the connection with Sun Myung Moon, the "front group" accusation.

More to the point, readers should get a summary in the intro, and in some cases in the first sentence or even in the first phrase if possible. "Number two man" sums it up perfectly. We should look for a better source. Tag it rather than requesting a better source and waiting (as Hrafn seems to be willing to do in this case) if you want to be persnickety. But I really don't understand deleting it. Instead of a summary that will help the reader, you would like the reader to derive some pattern based on superficial coverage in a short article. Well, even that is now not as easy to do since the long list of organizations he's in charge of has been deleted rather than tagged. -Exucmember (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did make some changes along the lines you suggested. However it's not WP's job to explain the UC when no one else has done that. On the other hand, if you want to write a book on the church I would be the first to use it as a source. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources

• American City Business Journals -- A directory or Who's Who.
• The Colombia Journalism Review -- Respected source of info on the media, used to establish ownership of News World by the UC.
• United Press International --Rev. Kwak's employer.
• Church and State -- Seems to be respected, ideologically opposed to the UC.
• Center for Studies of New Religions -- Called a "cult apologist" organization by "cult critics".
• Washington Post -- Respected newspaper, however it is engaged in a life or death struggle with the Washington Times.
• John Gorenfeld -- Freelance journalist and blogger who is focusing on the UC in order to attract attention to himself, we UCers wish him well and hope he gets hired for a full-time job. :-)
• Lee Penn -- Christian conspiracy theorist whose main focus is to warn of interfaith activities being the work of the anti-Christ. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The WP has seven times the circulation of the WT (which is kept afloat by UC subsidies), and I would suspect a very different readership. As such the "life or death struggle" would appear to be complete hyperbole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They might both die. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the Sun might explode tomorrow and kill us all -- WP:CRYSTAL. But the WT's existence is unlikely to materially affect the WP's survival either way so no "life or death struggle". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please write to the Post and tell them that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would, but they'd only misinterpret it as another fiendish Unificationist attempt to lull them into a false sense of security -- just like 'let's purposely get only a fraction of their circulation, from people who wouldn't buy their paper anyway' stratagem failed to convince them. They know that the real threat is the Orbital Mind Control Lasers camouflaged as Korean telecommunications satellites. As the corollary on M. Python's theorem states: 'everybody suspects the Bavarian Illuminati'. ;) 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon coronation

Why is this section relevant to Kwak? He appears to have played only a very minor role in this 'ceremony'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The article starts out by saying he "was." To me this makes it sound like he is no longer alive. Is that okay or should it be changed? Midsummersday (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)