Talk:Nansook Hong

Multimillion-dollar Moon family estate

Cut:

the multimillion-dollar Moon family compound

If I recall correctly, in 1995 the Moons lived on the Belvedere Estate. The church bought it for a mere $625,000 in the early 1970s. --Uncle Ed 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, no, I got the ownership correct, but the dates of residence wrong.

• I don't even have one home of my own to dwell in. You may think I have East Garden, but that's the Church's property. Do you want me to have a home of my own? [1]

The church owns East Garden. I'm sure it cost more than a million dollars to purchase the land and build the conference center.

Phyllis Kim had a small house there, and Rev. Moon's youngest son (the bald-headed 'monk' guy) had an even smaller one. The main building had quarters for Rev. & Mrs. Moon upstairs. --Uncle Ed 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I always thought you were fair-minded and honest with yourself and others in your edits, but I think your on the verge of pulling a Korean-style con-job here (where you get to fool yourself too). Both Belvedere and East Garden are opulent estates with mansions typical of the Irvington-Tarrytown area. The new Korean-style mansion on the East Garden property cost, I think I remember, $24 or $26 million. The bathrooms have expensive Italian marble facing on the walls floor-to-ceiling. The dining room has a living garden with a brook flowing through it. Like the first mansion that came with the property (which you didn't mention in the phrase "purchase the land and build the conference center"), that second mansion is residential (Moon family) except for the huge room that constitutes the "conference center." Adding that some servants or private tutors also live on the property may not strengthen the case that you seem to be making, that Rev. Moon and his family don't really live in luxurious surroundings. Or perhaps you had another unspoken reason for emphasizing the point that the property is church-owned (which seems irrelevant to me). If you can make a good argument that there's a difference between living in a mansion (or on an estate) that is personally owned versus owned by a church over which Rev, Moon has complete control, I'll happily put the "church-owned" phrase back in the article myself. Btw, I never liked the word "compound" to describe East Garden; though technically correct because there are multiple mansions and other buildings on the property, I think detractors with anti-cult sentiments like to use it because it's reminiscent of the Branch Davidians at Waco. -Exucmember 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always been sensitive to claims that I might be unconsciously biased in favor of my church, even from anonymous claimants. I therefore take your criticism seriously. I welcome constructive criticism.

The reason to emphazise "church-owned" is to counter the accusation made by church opponents that Rev. Moon is wealthy, that he got rich "off the hard work of others", etc. The UC view likens Father Moon to the RC church's Holy Father. He's given luxury and convenience so that he can focus on his God-given mission.

I've been all over the $625,000 Belevedere Estate and in all building but the main house, and it doesn't look opulent to me. It's quite run-down, and a number of church families reside there other than the Moons. If it's worth anything like tens of millions now, all the better for its owner: the church.

I won't revert at all, because it's been my policy for 5 years at Wikipedia never to edit-war over church-related articles. I think we can work this out through discussion. --Uncle Ed 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, the pope doesn't have the authority to hand absolute control of the buildings at the Vatican off to his son. My implicit question remains unanswered: What's the significant difference between Rev. Moon's living in a mansion (or on an estate) that is personally owned versus owned by an organization over which Rev. Moon has complete control?

Your referring to "the $625,000 Belevedere Estate" may reveal an unconscious bias on two counts:

First, is it really the most accurate way to refer to it in terms of its value as of the purchase price in the early 70s? The house across the street from mine sold for more than that last year. Dr. Michael Mickler (now academic Dean of the Unification Theological Seminary) describes Belvedere as a 22-acre estate, the large downpayment of $294,000 paid for primarily by the members through the 'Belvedere Project': "[Premier Unification Church theologian Young Oon Kim] noted, 'For seven weeks nearly every member in our Family, in every state, abandoned all other activities to sell candles.' There was total mobilization."[2]

When I was there in 1976, Belvedere was picturesque - magically beautiful. I don't remember when the Moon family moved to East Garden, but it was certainly by 1981. Whenever I was there in the late 80s & early 90s, I had the same impression as you did, that Belvedere was run down.

Second, why do you keep bringing up Belvedere? The Moon family moved out from Belvedere to East Garden more than 20 years ago! East Garden is the estate where Rev. Moon lives, with an opulent mansion, and then an additional even more opulent mansion was built on the property. It has very expensive furnishings and furniture.

I didn't remove it, but I really think calling the $24 million (then-current cost not counting the land, other mansion, or other buildings) Moon family residence a "conference center" is so much of an extreme stretch as to be inaccurate and misleading. The "conference center" is a giant ballrooom on the first floor which is used for frequent meetings, almost entirely consisting of church members or personal guests of Rev. Moon. -Exucmember 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry! :-) --Uncle Ed 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Heir apparent

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)

Date of Rev. Moon's Easter revelation

Hong gets the date of Rev. Moon's Easter revelation wrong, a sure sign that she cribbed her introductory matter for someone else, or that she had a sloppy ghostwriter.

• All that changed on Easter morning in 1936, when Sun Myung Moon was sixteen. He had been deep in prayer on a mountainside when, he says, Jesus appared to him . . . (p. 18, Shadow)

It also shows that whoever wrote this passage was not Korean, or they would have known about the Korean age system, whereby a man born in 1920 would be 17 in 1936. Moon's Easter encounter took place when he was 16 (in Korean age), thus obviously in 1935.

Only an outsider could make such a simply blunder, leading me to wonder how much of her book Nansook Hong actually is responsible for. She clearly didn't write the first 20 pages of "background". (I heard that Chryssides made plagiarism accusations, but I forget how that turned out.) --Uncle Ed 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unlike you, I read the whole book, and my eye for detail found about a half-dozen mistakes. Most of these were mistakes that a Korean would not have made. They were clearly made by her unnamed collaborator, and apparently Hong didn't catch them. This weakens her case because many members are looking so hard for some way to ignore the horrendous ordeal she endured for many years by discrediting her on the basis of various small matters. Members who read the book, if they are honest with themselves, will realize that her experiences ring true (Dan Fefferman's phrase describing the book was something like this) and that it is her story. -Exucmember 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the phrase "unnamed collaborator" as a neutral alternative for "ghostwriter".

I have no doubt about any instance in the book where she says Hyo Jin Moon mistreated her or committed sins. A friend reported being present at a public "confession".

Dan's a peach. He's been a stalwart supporter of "conscience" and has maintained positive contact with ex-member Steve Hassan. I'm too much of a hot head. ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism, or what

• 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. [3]

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)

Well, if my edit was misleading then I've made a mistake. Thanks for catching it. :-) --Uncle Ed 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Oh, well, being "public-minded" is part of the church mandate. And so is honesty. ("Honesty comes first, particularly between God and man." [4]) --Uncle Ed 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Article about the book

It's time to separate Hong from the book which Herbert Rosedale got Eileen McNamara to wrote for her. --Uncle Ed 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the overall view of members (based on my extensive conversations with fellow churchmen) is that HJ Moon mistreated Nan Sook terribly. No one condones this, least of all Rev. Moon. He said only, "Can I not forgive my own son?" The key word is forgive because this implies wrongdoing, not approval. Recall that Jesus forgave the sins of "the woman caught in adultery"; he did not approve her sins, nor did he condemn her to death: he told her blatantly to "go and sin no more".

Some people have the idea that there are only two reactions to an accusation:

1. deny that it happened (or that it was wrong)
2. condemn the person for doing it (take away his position, punish him)

In the Unification Church (as is common in Christianity and other religious traditions) there is a third alternative:

• Give the person a chance to repent

The UC is not, as some (critics) think, a political organization trying to impose its will on people by force. Rather, it is a "rehab clinic for sinners". Concepts of healing and repentance are so foreign to major segments of U.S. media that the "justify or condemn" paradigm is too often applied.

Wikipedia should at least acknowledge the existence of the church POV about forgiveness, repentance, grace, etc. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with some of your other assertions, I agree that "Wikipedia should at least acknowledge the existence of the church POV about forgiveness, repentance, grace, etc." Why don't you write something to that effect? (You already got a start above.) I think it would be a good addition to both the Nansook Hong and Hyo Jin Moon articles. -Exucmember 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I wouldn't dream of asking you to "agree" with me about the church! (If two writers agree, one is redundant.) All I ask is that we "agree to disagree", so that the article can be neutral.

You'll note that I address you more than Steve on talk pages, because I'm not looking for co-conspirators but rather for people who will "agree to disagree" so that we can get neutral articles that describe pro-and anti-church viewpoints fairly. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

True Mother's life work

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)--Uncle Ed 02:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Cut from intro:

Nansook Hong (born 1966), <!-- was hand-picked by Sun Myung Moon to be the wife of Hyo Jin Moon, his first son by "True Mother" Hakja Han Moon; Hyo Jin Moon was the apparent next-generation successor at the time. Nansook Hong --> ...

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 [5] 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)

The first sentence, as written, was fine (I feel you're nit-picking), but I have changed it, attempting to address your concerns. Some form of that sentence is essential to establish notability, including his status as apparent next-generation successor at the time. If you are going to deny that he was, I have to conclude that you were either completely out of touch with the mainstream of the church for years, or that you're fooling yourself with a kind of revisionism, or that you're being disingenuous, or something similar. In the prayer room on the 20th floor (where all the elevators go) of the New Yorker Hotel (which at the time was the "World Mission Center" - the closest thing the UC had to a world headquarters), there were two pictures on the altar, one of Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han, and one of Hyo Jin Moon and Nan Sook Hong. Every member assumed the eldest son would inherit his father's position. It wasn't until later that this began to be doubted. -Exucmember (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no official church policy about whose pictures should be in a prayer room. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Category: Former Unificationists

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)

Plenty of sources for Hong

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)

Merger proposal

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)

• Support: per WP:MERGE rationales #2 'Overlap' & #4 'Context'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Oppose process that ran for two days. Oppose redirecting a book article to its author when the book is itself independently and separately the subject of coverage from multiple WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I guess a case could be made that the book is more notable. Borock (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A case can also be made not to end discussions and redirect pages and merge articles after only a couple days of time passed since the initial merge proposal. That is inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If the articles are merged it should be under the title Nansook Hong, since she is the subject of the book. Right now the article on the book duplicates information in the article on the person, however material could be added on the sales figures of the book, critical reception, influence, and so forth. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The book is by Hong, she is the author, not simply the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Yes, agree that both should be retained, per that example. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

• Comment: I will attempt to implement suggestions above by Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), and expand the article about the book In the Shadow of the Moons to include additional sourced material on recommended subjects including sales figures of the book, critical reception, influence, and so forth. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Long quote

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)

BLP issue

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)

Merger proposal

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I will go ahead and merge, since that seems to be the consensus. Borock (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish you guys had waited longer. The merger doesn't make sense to me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)