Talk:Kook-jin Moon

Neutral POV

As I said, I am not planning to work on the article itself. However, I see some problems with it:

Kook Jin Moon, more commonly known as Justin Moon, (born July 17, 1970) is a firearms designer and businessman. He owns and operates Kahr Arms, a U.S. small arms manufacturing company. He is the fourth son of Sun Myung Moon (controversial founder of the Unification Church) and Hak Ja Han. [edit]Early Life

Kook Jin Moon is considered by Unification Church teachings to be one of the "True Children," by virtue of birth in 1970 into the "True Family" of Sun Myung Moon, who has called himself "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." [1]

This is too much detail about his parents. That he is a member of the True Family is of interest only to UC members, not a "fact" for an encyclopedia article for the general public.

I'm afraid your reasoning is seriously flawed here. There are more than a dozen articles on Wikipedia about Unificationists, but almost none of them would be notable enough without the Unification Church connection. It is because of their relationship to the Unification Church that they are as notable as they are. By the criterion you propose almost none of them should be mentioned, because they're only of interest to church members.

Apart from this, it is perfectly clear in the sources cited in this article that the authors of these cited sources are very interested in Kook Jin Moon's role as a member of the "True Family," the son of the messiah.

He was raised in an environment of luxury and privilege.[2]

This is someone's opinion.

The source of the opinion is cited in the article, and I'm not sure many people would doubt that it's accurate. I used the phrase from the article rather than exaggerating it. I see your point here, though - I'll put quotation marks around the phrase. I also (in the original edit) included Kook Jin Moon's own opinion (cited), which contradicts the author's opinion.

One of Moon's friends[4] who has since left the Unification Church, Tim Porter, was quoted in a recent article about Moon regarding their late teen years together: When [Porter] was called to East Garden, he would join the Moon kids in target shooting, tackle football, wrestling. “Sometimes [Justin] would bring in his younger brothers and have them beat us up,” Porter says. “His point was that we were wussies and he wanted us to be stronger. It was like military training, getting us ready for the time when we would take on the unbelievers.” According to Porter, Justin regularly reminded him and the other members’ kids about his father’s elevated place in God’s drama. “He would always philosophize about the world ending,” Porter says, “and how great his father was. That’s why he did all this stuff with guns. He believes that they’re going to take over the world. He would say this all the time.”

Way too much weight is given to this person's opinion. It is probably a BLP problem.

There is nothing wrong with quoting someone's opinion, especially if they were an eyewitness to events that shed light on some notable person's upbringing, and particularly events that are key to a person's early life. If other Wikipedia editors have a different point of view about what is "key," they should add those events for balance. There is no "BLP problem."

"This scion of a self-proclaimed messiah did not want to go around with some cheap Saturday night special that was easily concealable but fired only a piddling .22- or .25-caliber slug. He shared the passion in the street for the more lethal 9-mm."[6]

This is an opinion and also mind-reading. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

The "opinion" logically necessarily follows from Kook Jin Moon's own statement on the issue (which is also in the article). It is not mind reading.

It is unclear what role his father had in the formation of the company, but many people familiar with Kahr believe the True Father was at the very least consulted. “I used the connections I had,” Justin replies when asked what part the church and his father had in the formation of the business. “I borrowed money.”

There shouldn't be a sentence about something that is unclear or unknown. Also a possible BLP problem.

If you read the source articles, it's clear that the authors assume it is of great interest to readers what relationship Kook Jin Moon's gun manufacturing company has to Rev. Moon and the Unification Church, but neither church spokesmen or Kook Jin Moon are fully transparent or completely forthcoming about it. That's why it's unclear.

Thanks. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for someone to add material to the article which highlights the favorable side of Kook Jin Moon. There are many more unfavorable items (that are not BLP problems) from articles I've read that could have been added, but I didn't do so. I'm sure this article will develop over time. Perhaps better quotations can be found to illustrate some key points that authors of articles I read felt were very important in describing Kook Jin Moon. Also, more could be said about Kook Jin Moon's recent activities, but I stopped writing when I had a certain amount of content. (I didn't even add any category tags.) In any case, an article that was curiously absent now exists. -Exucmember (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that I should edit srticles about Rev. Moon's family since I am too emotionally involved as a church member. However, I will go ahead and remove the hearsay and BLP problems from this one. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I find your wholesale blanking of sections of this article offensive. I spent over an hour answering each of your concerns, some of which were completely unfounded. In light of this, your statement that you shouldn't edit articles about Rev. Moon's family since you are too emotionally involved, while true, is disingenuous in this case after gutting the article. -Exucmember 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are clear BLP problems with the article. I will report it on the BLP board but not edit it myself anymore. You can not paste the opinions of a person's detractors in the article and make that the main point of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, your statements are simply inaccurate. I am in the process of editing the article to give your POV the benefit of the doubt, even after your wholesale blanking of large sections of well-sourced material. If someone interviews several people who grew up with Kook Jin Moon and reports what Kook Jin Moon said and did, but these don't match your idealized view of one of the True Children, well, that doesn't make the author of the published article a "detractor." The so-called "main point" of the article, if there will be such a thing after the article is more developed, will likely be that Kook Jin Moon is a smart guy and invented a way to make powerful handguns smaller (and people may have varying opinions about whether that's a good thing). But I only started the article - up to the founding of Kahr Arms. So much of the important material hasn't even been added yet. -Exucmember (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is better now. Thanks. I still have a problem with using the Conde Nast article for so much of the material. I read it when it was first mentioned on the Internet and it is basically a "Gonzo journalism" piece. That is it is mainly about the author's experiences and feelings visiting a gun show and meeting Kook Jin, not so much an objective presentation of facts.

I agree with you that he is notable as the son of Rev. Moon. This should be prominent in the article. I put it first thing after the intro. I still question explaining that he is a True Child or a member of the True Family. I don't think in an article about a Jewish person you would say that he or she was a member of God's Chosen People, or even about a pope you might not say he was the heir of St. Peter. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, IF people criticize Father Moon because (1) a company his followers started in Korea was required by the government there to supply gun parts or (2) because his son voluntarily started a company which sells pistols to policemen (and other law-abiding U.S. citizens) - THEN, we all need to work together to describe this criticism accurately.

Bear in mind that some Christians (and many non-Christians?) believe that Christianity is necessarily pacifist (i.e., should not resist or 'fight back' against evil). If critics are judging the UC, RM, or KJM by this standard, then (regardless of what you and I might think) we need to take a neutral standpoint when writing Wikipedia articles.

Let us clarify who is making these criticisms. If possible, let us discover on what basis they are making them. Then, simply describe their viewpoint.

Almost as an afterthought: we can also report the church position on things like (1) responding to an ultimatum from a national government: help us make guns, or close your business; (2) the legitimacy of supplying pistols to law enforcement officials (to make arrests) and law-abiding private citizens (for self-defense). --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The whole gun thing is an important criticism of the church, and of Father and Kook Jin Nim. However, although I like ExUC, he is using the articles on the True Family as coatracks for his theories about problems within the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, you referred on my talk page to "your [Exucmember's] theory (here is how I understand it: 'The True Children have failed to become the leaders they should have been and this is the cause of the failure of the UC')?" And I responded:

• Steve, I'm impressed that you have the ability to discover an unstated theory of mine that even I didn't know I held. Here's what I really think - My basic approach on Wikipedia is that I report on what I know about. Almost any position critical of almost any aspect of Unificationism may seem like a minority view to current members, who much more closely follow the Korean model of critique and free speech than they do the American model. Unlike the True Children, Rev. Moon has been widely criticized in the media for decades, and frankly I think the fact that much of that media criticism has been exaggerated and has an emotional quality of sarcasm and disdain has made it more difficult for members to have honest self-examination of real problems within the church. It leads to being overly defensive, and sometimes sees an attack where none was intended (such as the innocuous phrase "right-hand man" to describe Bo Hi Pak, which I think is completely neutral and quite accurate). When I was creating an overdue article about Kook Jin Moon, I never once thought anything like he "failed to become the leader [he] should have been." I was simply conveying the facts as I knew them as well as some of the controversy (not all of which I agree with - some believe designing a smaller, more lethal weapon will increase deaths; I don't know whether I believe that, but if a lot of people feel that and draw certain conclusions, this becomes potential content). The case of Hyo Jin Moon is different, and I think most honest members believe he did not act like an exemplary leader during the period Nan Sook Hong reported about in her book, which long-time leader Dan Fefferman said had "a ring of truth about it" (though again, counterproductively - though understandable in this case - there was the occasional phrase reflecting sarcasm or disdain). -Exucmember (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you've referred to it again. Let me say more directly: I have no such theory. I do have a theory about the failure of the UC, but I have given no hint of it that I can recall on any page on Wikipedia, certainly not on an article page - it's not the appropriate place for such a thing. As far as the True Family members, you may not like the content of published statements regarding the behavior of members of the True Family, but they are part of the citable description of those people. The assertion has been made by members that criticisms of Rev. Moon or his children are simply attacks by Satan. An alternative explanation is that they don't like some of the things these people do or say. Such published, public criticism of their behavior is part of their biography, for better or worse. But everyone has a slightly different perspective, which is why cooperation on Wikipedia usually works out in the long run. I would have been happier if you had edited the specific passages you found most problematic, rather than saying you weren't going to edit and then deleting large sections of the article. As it turned out, I had to do that, trying to look at it from a sympathetic point of view. I still think the article could be further balanced by adding material where I left off, including details about the ingenious inventions leading to 5 patents (ought to be done by someone who knows guns, as has been done on the Kahr Arms page, though much more briefly), growth and success of the company (again, by someone who knows about this), and any other of Kook Jin Moon's important activities I might not know about. -Exucmember (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In general WP shouldn't have an article on someone whose only notability is being the child of a notable person. Kook Jin does have some notability as an inventor and businessman so probably should have one. In my opinion, none of the other True Children should. Another problem is finding any objective sources. Almost every "mainstream" source is going to discuss them only as a "coatrack" (to use WP jargon) to attack Rev. Moon and the church. In fact there is almost no serious, objective study of the church in published sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Frederick Sontag's book (1976)? Or George Chryssides? There are serious scholars of religion out there - you just have to dig for them.

And Hyo Jin Moon deserves a page because he was appointed leader of World CARP for a while and also had a leadership role at the Manhattan Center. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But these things are not notable to the world at large, just to church members. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the company small or does the company produce small arms? Andries (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Both. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

this doesn't sound very neutral

"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)

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)

Request for clarification of objections

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)

Infobox problems

Who is Christopher Miner Spencer, and why is his name in the infobox? Did the contributor simply forget to finish setting up the template? [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fising that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a source

• 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)

Picture in the Infobox

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)