Talk:List of Unification movement people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Avoid long descriptive info inside citations[edit]

Please avoid long paragraphs and descriptive info inside citations. This is not needed for WP:V. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced info[edit]

First you undid my changes saying they were unsourced. Then, when I copied stuff from other WP articles showing that these particular former members were church opponents, you reverted again.

What part of "described his church life as a cult nightmare" doesn't sound like opposition? And how about deprogramming 130 church members, if that's not opposition I don't know what is.

I'm done here. Do a 2RR or 3RR if you want. All I want is accuracy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, when I copied stuff from other WP articles = NO. You don't just "copy stuff" from other wiki articles, especially unsourced stuff on WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page[edit]

Former members
True Family
Unification Church members

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, do not add back unless properly sourced. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Richard Cohen's article has a reliable source reference for his former membership. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Added already. :) Cirt (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is much better now. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk page due to no existing wiki article[edit]

True Family
Unification Church members
Former members

Moved to talk page due to no existing wiki article. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hong, Nansook 1998 p. 203 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Do As I Preach, and Not As I Do", TIME, Asian Edition, September 28, 1998, Vol. 152, NO. 12.
  3. ^ Telegraph, November 5, 1995, cited in Fair News, Summer 1996.
  4. ^ Interview with Nansook Hong and Un Jin Moon on 60 Minutes, CBS, September 1998.
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ [2]
  7. ^ [3]

Order of family section[edit]

Each subsection should be ordered in alphabetical order. Wikipedia does not proceed according to the rules of "Unificationism". Cirt (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Cirt - I anticipated his argument]:
I placed those members of the True Family that appear in the list in birth order, with spouses together, and Dae Mo Nim (Soon Ae Hong) at the end. This is the order in which they always appear in Unification Church related publications, so can be considered a feature of True Family. The list is not so long as to need to be alphabetized. I don't think we would want to insist on alphabetizing a list of the members of the Christian Trinity: "the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son" or of the Twelve tribes of Israel. -Exucmember (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources for your above claims? Cirt (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not always an appropriate response to demand sources every time an editor asserts that water is wet. You are good at finding sources; I suggest you look at published lists of the True Children and see if you can find a single one that is not in birth order. I'm sure you wouldn't go to the Israelites article, where there is a list of the Twelve tribes of Israel, reorder it alphabetically, and then when your edit is reverted with the explanation that the existing order was the traditional one, asking for references for their "claims" or that "Wikipedia does not proceed according to the rules of 'Judaism'". Or similar for the Noble Eightfold Path, or the The Twelve Apostles. Even so, here are a few that were easy to find on the web: "True Family" Unification.net, "Sun Myung Moon", New World Encyclopedia, "True Parents", Unification Church History Committee Archive. -Exucmember (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's avoid primary sources affiliated with the organization for a moment. What is the structure used in independent reliable secondary sources? I would imagine it is alphabetical, not by some other randomly created construction by the group itself. Cirt (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have never heard of a secondary source publishing a list of Rev. and Mrs. Moon's children. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And I have never heard of this artificially constructed convention for ordering a list of people. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would think that most family documents would list a couple's children from the oldest to the youngest. I think True Family was nominated for deletion and decided to be kept. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but this page is not a "family document", but instead it is a list of people in an encyclopedia. In encyclopedias and reference books, entries are organized in alphabetical order. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
But their names are most properly written in Korean Hangul, not the Latin alphabet. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the Korean wiki. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. True. Can't argue with that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Junko Sakurada[edit]

I took her off the list since her article, Junko Sakurada, does not mention anything about the Unification Church. The source given was from the Washington Times, which of course is owned by the UC. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is poor reasoning for removal, especially during an ongoing AFD which you started. Smacks of WP:POINT. Cirt (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: Now entry is sourced to two secondary sources, and The Washington Times removed. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nansook Hong[edit]

Why is she listed twice? Northwestgnome (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I took off the special subtitle "Others" which was above her name. In United States law the relationship of parent in law to child in law is not ended by divorce. She is the mother of Rev. and Mrs Moon's grandchildren, as well as being a living person under WP policy. There is no need to brand her as "Other."Steve Dufour (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Which do you like better "Family of Sun Myung Moon" or "Moon family"? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Or "Sun Myung Moon's family"?Steve Dufour (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. "Moon family". Cirt (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove "Former members"?[edit]

If the purpose of this article is to list members why have former members? Or else change the name to "Current and former members of the Unification Church." Northwestgnome (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it is fine to leave as is. Compare List of Scientologists. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
On that list people who attended a couple of Scientology classes or read one of Ron Hubbard's books are listed as former members. Do we want the same thing here? Northwestgnome (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That is that how that particular organization counts membership - they still actually count those people as active members for the purposes of their statistics. I am not sure yet on statistical practices of this organization. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I was just in a discussion on Facebook where some said Richard A. Cohen and his wife should still be considered members. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Source? Cirt (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Not WP:Reliable ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This topic was discussed by quite a few people and the consensus was that former members should not be included in this list (or in the category) unless their former membership is a "defining characteristic" of their notability. This phrase "defining characteristic" was cited afterward by a number of different editors. I was not involved in the original discussion, but I can support this apparently sensible guideline. Alternatively, I wouldn't object to removing all former members. -Exucmember (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose removing former members. Their membership is cited and discussed in multiple different reliable sources and is noteworthy of mention. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with removing former members, assuming of course that there are adequate sources for their inclusion. If it has been noted in the past that someone is a member then that's the historical record. The only reasonable exemption I can think of would be if a person was a member for only a very brief period, but even then it's best in most cases to simply note the circumstances of their membership. That ability to annotate the entries is one of the advantages of lists over categories.   Will Beback  talk  09:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There are actually 100s of times more former members than members. I don't especially object to listing some of them here, but what makes these few notable and not others? Also their status as members (when they were members) and their reasons for leaving are all different. Some were only members for a few months. One, at least, for many years who raised her family in the church and then left after her children had grown and she and her husband divorced. When I nominated the list for deletion before (I voted keep on the second nomination) I asked who would keep the list up-to-date. Is someone going to phone the people on the list every week to ask them if they were still members, or had rejoined if left? Steve Dufour (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[ec]
I don't know how many current or former members there are. But I work on literally thousands of article, and in those I've seen hundreds of lists of notable residents, alumni, followers, journal contributors, and members. We don't delete people from the list of notable residents because they left or from the list of followers if they've died. There need not be a memory hole here. It's typical and uncontroversial to include both current and former members of an entity.
As for being up-to-date, I agree with that concern. We should avoid implying that those who are listed as members are necessarily current members. We may have a source saying they joined and no source saying they left, which is typical of how sources work. (By comparison, it's typical and frustrating to find a source that talks of an arrest or indictment, with no available or traceable source that mentions the final disposition.)
This is a good case where more information, with reliable sources, is better than less.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
We could rename the article People associated with the Unification Church. Then the issue of membership or non-membership would not be such a problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That could be fodder for another list, but there is no need to rename this one. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW (from the point of view of a long-time UC member) the "former members" listed are kind of a "motley crew." While the three "anti-cultists" have something in common, Richard A. Cohen really is more like Jonathan Wells and Josette Sheeran like Lee Shapiro than they are with other "former members." Tim Folzenlogen is in a class by himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As is the case at List of Scientologists. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how the people Steve mention differ from one another, but the list can be annotated to discuss those characteristics of their membership.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like original research to me. Borock (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Not if it is from secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a source besides WP that has put together a list of ex-UC members? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Compiling a list of members using secondary sources would not be a violation of WP:NOR. If it were, the majority of lists on Wikipedia would have the same problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I did respect the process and vote to keep on the second nomination. However are there any secondary sources that say the concept of a "former member of the Unification Church" is a notable identification for an individual? One thing to consider is that there are no special requirements to become a member, in contrast to some other organizations. A person could go to church one Sunday and join and then quit the next Sunday and call him or herself a "former member." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If reliable secondary sources note it then it is notable by definition. If there's an actual case of someone joining and then immediately leaving then I think that's a special case, as I said above. In those cases we might omit them entirely, include them in a footnote, or include them along with a description of their membership. It'd depend on the circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Supporters[edit]

What do you think of a section for well-known supporters of the church, who are not members? Borock (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but unfortunately not appropriate for this page. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it would run into major WP:Blp problems.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be possible to start a new page Supporters of Sun Myung Moon, but only include people whose support has been long term and well documented. As it is they are left out on WP while fairly minor church members, and former members, are listed here. Borock (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Do they have existing wiki articles on them? Cirt (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few do. I would not list anyone who did not, here or there, because they would not be notable. Borock (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article would run into problems with WP:OR since probably nobody else has ever put something, list or article, on the topic.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. I for one won't be creating it. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
As it is WP doesn't list people like Emmanuel Milingo and George Augustus Stallings, Jr., important figures who have been married by Moon and promoted his church in high profile ways. Borock (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it would make more sense to list them here than start a new page. Better to keep related information together. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it merits inclusion on this page, if they are not stated in secondary sources as members of the organization. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree Cirt. Putting people on a list just because of an indirect connection would tend to give fodder to conspiracy theorists. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I will start a section on supporters and see how people like it. I don't think it will be a problem is each is well sourced. If not we can take it out. Borock (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus above not to include such a section, if those individuals are not also members of the organization. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
[4] = was just added by Borock (talk · contribs) despite consensus against this. I removed it, citing above discussion on this talk page. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I will start a new article for it then. Borock (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that is a better idea. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. If you like it please feel free to add more names. Borock (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I glanced at some of those entries, but I didn't see any whose source described them as "supporters of the Unification Church". Is praising Rev. Moon an expression of support for the UC? Does agreeing with one or another of their political positions count? How about buying products sold by Moon-affiliated companies? It's going to be hard to compile that list while keeping to strict sourcing rules. Anyway, this is now a discussion for a different page.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the UC issue is resolved by the article scope. Supporters of Sun Myung Moon   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This has now been nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of Sun Myung MoonBorock (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I made a mistake not calling it a list. Borock (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Even as a list it would be difficult. For one thing how do you define "support"? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim Folzenlogen[edit]

The standard on Wikipedia is WP:RS and WP:V. This individual is notable and has an existing Wikipedia article. He also is a former member of the Unification Church organization. This is quite simple. Therefore, he is a "former member". He should be included on this page. -- Cirt (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion, "He should be included on this page" does not follow from your assertions. As I mentioned in my edit summary, there was broad consensus on this point. A person should be included on this list only if his/her former membership in the organization was a "defining characteristic". Just as the fact that it is not the case that every fact about a person is included in their biography, judgement must be used to determine what is relevant and what is not. -Exucmember (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Let us stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and not just makeup random subjective characteristics for inclusion. -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Has Tim's former UC membership been covered in depth by multiple independent reliable sources? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Tim Folzenlogen is notable.
  2. Tim Folzenlogen's membership in the Unification Church organization is verifiable to WP:RS sources.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable people?[edit]

I counted 5 or 6 people on the list who don't have their own articles. Their entries redirected to other articles, in most cases to lists embedded in articles. Why list them here and then send the readers to another list? Wolfview (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well 4: In Jin Moon, Soon Ae Hong, Tyler Hendricks, Michael Jenkins Wolfview (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tyler Hendricks, Michael Jenkins seems to be notable. Not sure about the first two. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I took off three whose links redirected to other articles or lists. What's the point of listing them here if WP offers no other information on them? Of course if articles are written on them then put them back. Wolfview (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge in True Family[edit]

I have proposed that True Family be merged into this article since it is mostly duplicate information.Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support merge to Unification Church and here. True Family and member of the Unification Church are two distinct things. Also there is lots of duplicate information on wikipedia and it doesn't seem to be a problem. BTW is someone going to move Rev. Kwak to the former members section? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, two different pages for two different concepts entirely. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: could somebody tell me how the True Family is distinct from being simply a subset of membership of the UC? The article on the former certainly does little to make this distinction. The closest that it comes is the single paragraph on the theological implications of the 'True Parents' (which could easily be accommodated within the UC members list). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Because the concept of "True Family" satisfies WP:NOTE, in and of itself, separately and independently from a "list" page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Really? Which (reliable secondary) sources discuss "the concept of 'True Family'", as opposed to constituent parts (which also happen to be constituent parts of the UC membership)? As far as I can see, it is only the TIMEasia piece that does so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • [EC]The failure of True Family to contain any substantive discussion of "the concept of 'True Family'" has been a concern of mine, on that article's talk, for some time. Currently that article is mostly a list of Moon family (and thus UC) members. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
    • See those searches. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Most of the news is behind a paywall, and what little isn't only has trivial coverage. Best that I've been able to come up with to date on Google Books is this (may be good for a single sentence of text). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Respectfully disagree with that analysis of the source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
            • You are welcome to present sources from these searches that discuss the concept of True Family in detail, to refute "that analysis". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • That single sentence is already found in Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, Hak Ja Han, and probably some other WP articles. Also some of the news stories seem to contradict the opening sentence of the article which says: "The True Family, in Unification Church terminology, is the family of church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon and his wife Hak Ja Han." Some say that any believer in the Unification Church becomes a member of the True Family. A few say that any family with a husband, wife, and children is a "true family" (not capitalized). This last is what I would guess most people would understand this expression to mean, if they were not familar with the Unification Church that is. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (Provisionally) merge, based upon the lack of any (current or immediately discernible) material discussing "the concept of 'True Family'" in any depth -- which leaves True Family predominantly a list of Moon family members, and thus members of the Church he founded. Should such material eventuate, this opinion will, of course, change. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This merge proposal seems to ignore the special place that the True Family has within the UC.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That is discussed in the major articles on the Unification Church, and the family members are listed here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: Will, do you think that the True Family article gives any substantive voice to this "special place that the True Family has within the UC"? 04:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support merge There is material in the True Family article that is not list entries. I changed my mind. Looking over this list I see that there is a good section on Moon family members in this article. The extra information in the other articles could be moved to Sun Myung Moon or Unification Church. Very few people are going to be looking for it in an article called "True Family", which most people would not connect with the UC at all. Borock (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some members of Rev. Moon's family do not consider themselves members of the Unification Church. For instance Hyun Jin Moon. Wolfview (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
If the articles are not merged, then probably only family members that are also notable as church members (or former members) should be listed in this one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the background information in True Family being merged to Unification Church and the notable people being listed here, as they already are. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The part that discusses "True Family" as a part of Unification Church belief is now a section in Divine Principle since that is the main article on Unification Church beliefs. What do people think of redirecting True Family there? Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
As Divine Principle is essentially the main article on UC theology currently, and as TF is meant to be a theological concept (when shorn of lists, family ups and downs, etc), this seems reasonable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Former members and WP policy?[edit]

I was about to add a name to the former members section and this popped up when I clicked "edit":

This list is subject to the WP:BLPCAT policy and the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list.
When adding living persons to the list, the WP:BLPCAT policy requires that the person identify themselves as belonging to this religious category, and that the person's religious beliefs are relevant to their notable activities or public life. A reliable source must be provided.

I decided not to add the person. Now I wonder if we should have the section on former members at all, considering this policy. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Who were you trying to add?Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Patrick Hickey (politician) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like he belongs on the list as much as any other person on it now. Two of the three sources that are online talk about his former UC membership and it also seems to be a big topic in his book. BTW he seems to be as notable as an author as a politician. I will add his name, although I agree that there are BLP questions in general about the whole page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It would also be possible to merge the members and former members lists. If a person was notable as a member that notability remains even if they leave. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that. However I think there is some interest in highlighting former members as a special class. Borock (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Or else there could be a different page for former members. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing a renaming of the list to "Unification Church people" would not be controversal, since it now includes sections for people other than members. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Unification Church people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Unification_movement_people&oldid=941087516"