Talk:Carlton Sherwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

need some stuff about his work at the Washington Times. also, i saw something about a book he wrote on the Unification Church, probably need that too. Wolfman 20:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

does anybody know what sherwood's decorations are? i think we need a full investigation. maybe he didn't really deserve them. where are the witnesses? this guy is pretending he's some kind of hero. i bet he made it all up, probably even went to vietnam just so he could make a big deal of it later. what scum. (see SBVT, for the sarcasm impaired).Fishboy 22:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Inquisition book

First, the book is not about Rev. Moon or his church as much as it is about the Federal Government's prosecution of Rev. Moon (and his assistant Mr. Kamiyama).

Second, there are 3 or 4 sentences apparently designed to undermine Sherwood's reputation as an objective journalist. I don't believe it's in accordance with NPOV to have the article make an (implicit) one-sided argument like this. Better to have a particular critic cited as questioning Sherwood's credentials. I don't mind a one-sided argument, as long as it's properly sourced. See Wikipedia:attribution. Uncle Ed 15:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The article is rather clumsy overall, but especially the last few sections. I hope someone spends some time editing this. -Willmcw 17:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Did you know it's almost a word for word copy of the Source Watch wiki article? [1] The people who ran that are rabid leftists. Uncle Ed 03:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I don't think going so far in the opposite direction is the right idea. "PBS smear"? You know that's hardly NPOV. Gamaliel 05:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite a bit has been done here and at Stolen Honor to try and make Sherwood look bad. Anything that cuts out some of the excess POV, would improve on this. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A "smear" is
If you want to substitute the word charge or accusation be my guest. Uncle Ed 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest: Washington Times, Rev. Moon, Inquisition

Cut from article:

Sherwood himself had previously worked for the Washington Times, owned by members of the Unification Church.

Why was this in the article? Was it meant to smear Sherwood, or what?

There is no doubt that Sherwood did work at the Washington Times. AFAIK he joined them (in part) to "check them out" but found to his surprise that there was "no story there". Just a nice bunch of guys who didn't drink to excess or cheat on their wives.

This led to his curiousity about why people were saying so many bad things about Rev. Moon. If the guys in the newswroom were decent chaps, why would the paper's founder be bad? (good tree cannot bear bad fruit, etc.) So he started digging into it and found all sorts of surprises.

We really should have an article on his book. I would write it myself, but then Wikipedians might say that Uncle Ed (that's me!) has a conflict of interest. I hardly ever write or even correct any article related to the Unification Church, unless it's in response to someone's request.

Sherwood matters, because he produced a video (Stolen Honor or Stolen Legacy?) critical of Kerry and company. And that relates to the current mess at Winter Soldier Investigation which somebody asked me to take a look at.

Somebody really ought to take a look at the book, instead of relying completely on PBS. Uncle Ed 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits

Ed, you've been on Wikipedia long enough that I shouldn't have to explain NPOV to you. I hope we can hash this out with a minimum of fuss (especially since you're not given to Rex-like howling), but the fact that you insist on inserting obviously loaded phrases like "PBS smear" tells me that you're not even trying to be NPOV.

AHEM! This is not a fact. You have apparently overlooked my comment above where I offer to you two (2) different alternatives for smear. Allow me to quote myself:
"If you want to substitute the word charge or accusation be my guest."
Please don't say that I "insist" on something when I'm not. Ever hear of "won't take YES for an answer?" You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that I'm a decent, accomodating, non-edit-warring type. So chill out! Sheesh, you act like I'm trying to thwart you or something. Uncle Ed 11:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, dealing with someone like Rex puts me on edge, and I go into other potential editorial conflicts thinking it will be more of the same. That and your use of the obviously inappropriate word "smear" had me assuming the worst. I apologize. Since you've been patient enough to convince me you're a reasonable fellow, I'll try to act like one as well. Gamaliel 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Some other issues I have with your edits, not all of which are POV issues:

  • "who made a career out of investigating financial impropriety in religious institutions" - Did he really? This doesn't appear to be the case given what aspects of his career we cover here. Perhaps this is a side-effect of our imbalanced coverage, but I'd still like some substantiation for this.
  • "He uncovered the scandal at Boys Town." Context please.
  • Even if we deal with the above two issues, I still think the intro is terrible, sorry.
  • "have been his lengthy book dissecting the railroading of Rev. Moon". This is hardly balanced. A better thing to do would be to just use that quote from Sherwood about why he wrote the book, that way we dodge the POV issues altogether.
  • "Campaign to discredit Sherwood" - This header is loaded, inappropriate, and POV.

I'm going to try to tweak the article a bit, maybe that will get us somewhere. Gamaliel 20:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As for your last 5 points, I agree completely with the first four. I need to dig up the half-remembered pre-Washington Times biographical data on Sherwood, such as the Boys Town investigation. (I might be going senile and confusing Pauline Fathers with Boys Town.)
Yes, the intro sucks. But there's no way to have a good intro until the article body is stable and fleshed out. So let's leave the intro till the end.
The term railroading should not be used, unless it's a quote from Sherwood or somebody else (and properly cited: like UC members said Moon was railroaded or Rev. Abernathy, an aide of Dr. King, called it a really rotten case of racist railroading)
Yes, let's dodge! Just quote people: let them say in their own words why they did what they did.
I don't know about the "discredit" header. Let's work on all the other stuff first. Uncle Ed 11:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm kind of partial to the intro I wrote. ;) I think that will do for now until someone comes along and writes a really good one. Other than that I'm with you on the dodging issue. Gamaliel 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moon railroaded

Steven Scott reported:

African-Americans have identified with Moon since he served a 13-month federal prison sentence in Danbury, Conn., for tax evasion in the early 1980s.
"The support that he got while he was in prison really came from African-American clergy,"
said Bill Reed, a tour spokesman in Washington, D.C.
"There was a tremendous amount of controversy surrounding his imprisonment. Many thought he had been railroaded into prison because the U.S. government wanted to get him out of the country. African-American ministers saw his plight as being very similar to their plight." [2]

This is obviously not Sherwood speaking, but someone connected with the Unification Church. A "spokesman" for a 46-state speaking tour by Rev. Moon would have to be either a church member or a close supporter. Not a bystander or fence-straddler.

I'm not really sure what the point of including this would be, it seems like it would drag this article far too close to becoming a debate on the merits of Rec. Moon and his church as opposed to this book on the church. Gamaliel 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rory O'Connor

Rory O'Connor casts doubt on Sherwood's credibility here:

Is Sun Myung Moon, self-proclaimed Messiah, True Father, and major media magnate, out to get John Kerry? Award-winning investigative producer Robert Parry thinks so, and recently laid out his case in a detailed report ("Kerry Attacker Protected Rev. Moon") on his web site.
As I reported last week (Sinclair Plays Fast and Loose with the News) Carlton Sherwood, producer of the controversial anti-Kerry film "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," wrote an investigative book in the 1980s looking into the activities of Sun Myung Moon and followers in the Unification Church. In "Inquisition: The Prosecution and Persecution of Reverend Sun Myung Moon," Sherwood concluded that Moon and his associates "were and continued to be the victims of the worst kind of religious prejudice and racial bigotry this country has witnessed in over a century."
But, as was revealed in "The Resurrection of Reverend Moon," my 1992 documentary for the PBS Frontline series, there is ample reason to question Sherwood's conclusions, since evidence exists that Moon subsidized the book -- promising to purchase 100,000 copies of Inquisition -- and that he played a role in the creation of it. A letter, addressed to Moon from his aide James Gavin, stated that Gavin had reviewed the "overall tone and factual contents" of Inquisition before publication and had suggested revisions.
"Mr. Sherwood has assured me that all this will be done when the manuscript is sent to the publisher," Gavin wrote. "When all of our suggestions have been incorporated, the book will be complete and in my opinion will make a significant impact. In addition to silencing our critics now, the book should be invaluable in persuading others of our legitimacy for many years to come." [3]

I don't know if this consitutes an "attempt to discredit" or not, but he seems to be arguing that:

  1. Gavin supports Moon
  2. Sherwood let Gavin see his manuscript before publication
  3. Sherwood agreed to incorporate revisions suggested by Gavin
  4. Sherwood was once employed by a Moonie newspaper
  5. Therefore Sherwood's book is nothing but a whitewash of the Moonies and should be discounted and ignored entirely

Sorry, I'm writing this before work and I'm rushed. I'm not sure I've got O'Connor's conclusion exactly write - but he certainly seems anti-Sherwood to me. Uncle Ed 12:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam Memorial

Cut from article:

, Sherwood charged that Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund was misspending and stealing money intended for construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall.

Did he actually say "stealing", or did he just note that 9 million minus 2 point something leaves a hefty balance? Uncle Ed 21:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECarlton_Sherwood_f377.html"