Talk:Presbyterian Church of Korea

Requested move 17 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by Sawol who really should have waited for an uninvolved closer, but what's done is done and no one seems to have objected. Jenks24 (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) → Presbyterian Church of Korea – to revert undiscussed move – Sawol (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: According to the article, there are two denominations that both consider themselves presbyterian, TongHap and Hapdong. Removing 'The' would be uncontroversial but making this denomination to be the unqualified Presbyterian Church needs a discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• If this move is accepted, the existing pages Presbyterian Church of Korea and Talk:Presbyterian Church of Korea should be moved aside somewhere, not merely be left to sit deleted under incoming parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is the page Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) for this name. The present Presbyterian Church of Korea was made by copy-and-paste of 0lympic at 14:10, 27 November 2013‎. So they should revert back. I want the below process. 1. Delete the page Presbyterian Church of Korea. 2. Move the page The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) to Presbyterian Church of Korea. 3. Retarget the redirect The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) to Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) 4. Merge the talk page [[Talk:The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap)]] to [[Talk:Presbyterian Church of Korea]]. This RM does not need. Sawol (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the TongHap Presbyterians are the ones entitled to the unqualified name? What about HapDong? How do we reconcile this move with the information in Presbyterianism in South Korea? See also the online list of churches at reformiert-online.net. According to that list (perhaps not a WP:RS) there are several churches that name themselves in English the Presbyterian Church of Korea. Someone has tried to organize all the Presbyterian churches in Template:Christianity in Korea, and I'm wondering if anyone who knows about Korean churches is willing to comment on this move proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

TongHap and HapDong are the qualified names. This problem is just the technical request. Presbyterian Church of Korea was found in the Joseon Dynasty era. And in the major schism in Presbyterian Church of Korea, the Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) and the Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDong) were formed in 1959. The three pages The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap), Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) and Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDong) are original. See the page history of The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap). But the present page Presbyterian Church of Korea is copy. So I requested this. The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) must be moved back to Presbyterian Church of Korea. Sawol (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note from one of the editors

moved from the original Presbyterian Church of Korea article - Nabla (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any edits!

Thanks!

--Sean 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bit of revising. I hope it's okay. One specific question - is "Korean Presbyterian churches" an acceptable term? --Alynna 05:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work! I suppose it's the correct term.

--Sean 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)