Talk:Sun Myung Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sun Myung Moon article.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] The Critics and the Commies

Nowdays the critics are saying that he never was against communism in the first place. :-) This whole section kind of goes on and on. Rev. Moon's relationship with communism, as a victim, a critic, an activist against, and now as someone who is trying to reach out to the hold outs in North Korea, is a very important part of his life and why he has done the things he has done. However I don't know if making the main thing what some critics are saying is the right way to present it.Steve Dufour 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


==================>

Uncle Ed (Ed Poor) and Steve Dufour are BOTH *moonies*. They are turning wikipedia into nothing but a deception, and a Joke! Something thier Master Moon is good at! Like Father Moon, like *moonie* as well. How many entries of wikipedia have they edited, created, changed, or deleted because of it? Anybody know? This is just one more example of how *moonies* intend on "taking over the world" for thier Father Moon is all.

[edit] "Cult leader"

I just removed this twice. There is no proof that the UC is a "cult", since the word has no real meaning. If the person who posted this would like to come back and post some real information, or even a published opinion the would be a much more constructive thing to do.


I guess even 'Reverend' Moon needs somebody to help maintain the image of his self-proclaimed divinity.

Problem is, if your reverend is so great and infallible, then why does he need a 'watchdog' to keep him from being rightfully categorized as a megalomaniac manipulator? Anybody who bows before another is a fool, plain and simple. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way - 'Reverend' Moon is not the first person to proclaim himself as 'Father Divine' and 'Jesus Christ'. See also Jim Jones. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The following sources call the church a cult: The Washington Post [1], The Guardian [2], and Brittanica says "many people consider the church to be a cult" [3]. JBKramer 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, Rotten.com has an interesting article on the reverend [4] -- MakeChooChooGoNow 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to focus on undeniably reliable sources. JBKramer 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Anybody who claims that 'Reverend' Moon is not a cult leader must be brainwashed themselves. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it utterly amazing that the administrators here on Wikipedia allow the truth to be edited out for fear of offending somebody. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
We can say that According to periodical X or author Y Moon is a cult leader. We just can't state it as a "fact". We must state it as a "point of view". --Uncle Ed 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Bit Tilted

I'm a Roman Catholic, so perhaps were I to write piece on my church it would be tilted. I get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Moonies. And yes, they are the Moonies. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Moonies are a cult, I think that it's open to interpretation. I would call them something of a cult, as I have first hand been approached by the clipboard carrying women when I lived in Boston (Never in New York City though, which is far superior to Boston!). I would call them a cult based on what I know of the term, but I wouldn't consider them a cult in the way I consider the People's Temple or the Raelians a cult. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Moonies! [unsigned 13:22, 21 August 2006 170.3.8.253 (Talk)]

I get the feeling from reading this, that the author is doing a little bit of damage control for the Papists. And yes, they are the Papists. That's his or her right though, and to have acknowledged the controversy is better than ignoring it. As to whether the Papists are a cult, I think that it's open to interpretation. I would call them something of a cult, as I have first hand been approached by the clipboard carrying women when I lived in New York City (Never in Boston though, which is far superior to New York City!). I would call them a cult based on what I know of the term, but I wouldn't consider them a cult in the way I consider the People's Temple or the Raelians a cult, even those groups are not as Popish. Hell, my religion has been called a cult. It's all good, but they are Papists!
Okay, please don't anyone take offense at this; it is meant as a friendly jab at ignorance of an issue of religious bigotry and intolerance. The origin of the term "Moonies" is that it was intended as a demeaning and pejorative slur, and reflects prejudice. At least "Papist" was originally neutral. I added the Wikification in his paragraph (perhaps if he had been aware of the contents of that page, his comments might have had a different tone). -Exucmember 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, now, let's not fight. Amongst ourselves, we freely use the word "Moonies" much as urban blacks sometimes can be heard using the "N-word". I have vivid memories of singing "I want to be a Moonie in my heart" as an extra verse to Lord, I want to be a Christian. --Uncle Ed 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph removed

I took out this paragraph, which has been floundering around being changed back and forth:

"Some critics describe Moon as a billionaire businessman (although Forbes Magazine does not include him on their list of billionaires; major assets are held in the church name) who uses his followers as political footsoldiers. They also accuse some conservative figures like Jerry Falwell of compromising their Christian beliefs to take his millions (Moon lent Falwell US$3.5 million for his struggling Liberty University.)"

For one thing this was originally one person's opinion put in the mouth of "some critics". I know there is more of that here, from both sides, but it's not really how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

For another Rev. Moon is not literally a "billionaire"; he is not the legal owner of billions of dollars in assets. It is true that he is the leader of a group of people who among them have billions but that does not make him a billionaire.

For a third his followers are not literally "footsoldiers", unless they happen to be in the militaries of their various nations then they might be.

If someone thinks the Liberty University loan issue is important then write something about that; but in that case also the opinion of "some critics" is not the most important thing. Steve Dufour 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Steve.
This page is shaping up pretty well (at least compared to the Unification Church page; see my comments there soon), except for the quotations section, which is atrocious. The quotations should be representative of what the man has said in his life! At the moment, most of the quotations were very selectively chosen in an attempt by one ex-member to say something about politics in Rev. Moon's teachings. (That sort of thing should go in its own article, which I created - Politics in Divine Principle - but he didn't like it.) The "automatic theocracy" quotation should be kept - as an example of the problematic nature of simultaneous interpretation, and how it can lead to misleading results sometimes; Andrew Wilson's comments and retranslation must be included. Perhaps the quotations could be grouped by topic. -Exucmember 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the quotation section is bad. You could try putting them in order of date. That might make them seem more organized. Steve Dufour 05:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections on material regarding tax crimes

Dear fellow editors: I have made some corrections in the section on tax crime convictions. The Reverend Moon was not convicted of tax evasion, nor was he charged with that offense. The Federal tax evasion statute is 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He was charged with and convicted of willfully filing false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, and with conspiracy. I made the appropriate changes in the article, with a footnote citation to the court decision on appeal. I have not had a chance to fully study the Moon convictions by comparing the Wikipedia text to the actual court decision, but I wanted to at least go ahead and set the record straight on exactly what the charges and convictions were.

Actually, willfully filing a false tax return can also be the basis for a tax evasion conviction, if all the elements for tax evasion are met. The Reverend Moon simply was not charged with tax evasion, for whatever reason. Yours, Famspear 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up I note that one of the links in the article leads to web site apparently operated by Reverend Moon's church which describes his tax problems as having involved "tax evasion" and conspiracy. Again, that description is incorrect, as explained above. Yours, Famspear 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also made some minor edits in the references to the Schengen treaty, and have moved the material down to the bottom of the section. I'm unclear exactly as to what the original author was trying to say about the Schengen treaty and Moon's travel, so I hope that my edits didn't do any damage. In any case, it's unclear from the text exactly what a travel ban in Europe under the Schengen treaty has to do with tax convictions in the United States. For example, if there is something in the treaty that restricts travel by persons convicted of crimes, or tax crimes, then that needs to be documented to make the article less vague. If another editor gets to this before I can look it up, perhaps that editor can make the "tie-in." Yours, Famspear 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Steve Dufour 11:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I have added some detail about why the Reverend Moon requested that he NOT have a jury trial. As some readers may know, a defendant in a criminal case generally has a right to a jury trial. In this case, the prosecution successfully fought Moon's attempt to NOT have a jury trial. Moon was concerned that certain statements he made (now quoted in a footnote in the article) could adversely affect his chances in front of a jury. He wanted to have the case tried "to the bench." (Both jury trials and non-jury trials are fairly common.) Moon ended up with a jury trial, and a conviction.
I have not yet located any information that would either confirm or negate the article's assertion that the trial court did not allow mention of "religion." Yours, Famspear 04:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I'm not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I have removed certain editorial comments hidden in the text of the article, right after the reference to the fact that the jury did not accept the defense's contention that the funds in question were being held in trust for the church Rev. Moon was building. The comments are as follows:

[1] disputes over tax liabilities ten or a hundred times as much, have been regarded as mere accounting oversights when the taxpayer was popular, and [2] it doesn't make sense for someone to put his own money in the biggest bank in America and then give the money to a church without claiming that funds transfer as a non-taxable donation (it would have reduced Rev. Moon's adjusted income for that year to zero, and he wouldn't have had to pay ANY taxes on the money he spent on his family).

Without agreeing or disagreeing with the comments, I would say they are interesting, and are arguably more "viewable" here on the talk page. I haven't gone back to check and see whose comments they are. Yours, Famspear 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

They were probably by Ed Poor, a long time UC member, as am I, who has been active here on Wikipedia for quite some time. Steve Dufour 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's sounds like something I would write. Bush senior owed around 200,000 dollars and was simply permitted to mail in a check, no questions asked. Why did they make a federal case out of Moon, when the estimated liability was much lower? --Uncle Ed 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ed Poor: What were the facts in the George Bush senior case? If it was just a case of owing money on April 15th, that's not a crime. What were the circumstances? Yours, Famspear 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax case its own article?

What do you think of the idea of making the discussion of the tax case its own article? Steve Dufour 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. For one thing it seems that there are some people who are interested in the case itself as a legal issue without having any special interest in Rev. Moon. Steve Dufour 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I support it, and I intended to say so. It seems to me that any time there is one particular topic within an article that gets large (legitimately), that has a coherence of its own, and that (as you mentioned) may be of interest as an independent topic, we should consider making it a separate article. I thought these criteria were met also by the topic Politics of/in the Unification Church / Divine Principle, but the author of the borderline original research didn't agree. I still believe that his material needs some cleaning up, and I still believe quotations should be few and representative (not selective in order to prove a thesis). Btw, Isherwood's book may be a good source (or point to good sources) for some missing references. -Exucmember 16:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see Politics of the Unification Church as a separate article. See Wikipedia:making a spin-off for tips on organization and formatting. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back Ed! Good idea. I promised Exucmember that I would start an article on UC opposition to communism, when I find the time. Maybe it could be included in the politics article. Steve Dufour 22:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is moving way too fast. We need to be circumspect and guard against creating POV forks that bowdlerize this article in doing these splits. I'll be contributing and keeping an eye on these splits to ensure that they are proper and do not violate WP:NPOV's provision on POV forks. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That is something to watch out for. I also followed your link to the main fork article: Wikipedia:Content forking Steve Dufour 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, we should leave behind a reasonable summary of the material that is split out. Otherwise we are forcing readers to read both articles in order to get the basic facts. In this example, we should have a paragraph explaining the basics of the matter, including the nature of the infraction and the penalty. Not too long, but more than what we have now. -Will Beback 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Steve Dufour 11:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can pretty much ignore FeloniousMonk. He objects to nearly every spin-off article I've ever been involved in. He will not allow any clarity brought to topics that deal with the fine points of views and ideas that go beyond the material world.

He consistently misuses the term "POV fork" to mean "any spin-off he objects to" rather than "a spin-off which violates NPOV policy by asserting or assuming that a particular POV is true". His misbehavior is well known and he's been brought before the arbcom for it multiple times. There's a new case starting even now.

His misbehavior extends to stalking all me edits and branding any spin-off I propose on a controversial topic as a "POV fork", regardless of how well balanced and neutral the parent article and spinoff article are.

Don't be fooled by his admin status. Despite his bluster, he carries no more editorial authority than anyone else. --Uncle Ed 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Still it is a good point that all the new articles have a NPOV. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Many Wives?

Apparently, this article counts Myung Hee Kim as Sun Myung Moon's second wife. However, I thought there was no proof of this. I thought that Chung Hwa Pak simply wrote about that in his book The Tragedy Of The Six Marias, but that he also wrote about many other things such as Sun Myung Moon performing sex acts with members as an indemnity sort of thing, and that there was no proof of such things. Supposedly, many people easily believed the things Chung Hwa Pak wrote since he was with Sun Myung Moon during the early years. However, I heard that Sun Myung Moon denied these claims. Therefore, I think there may be lack of evidence to say that he has 3 wives. It may be safer to say that he has 2 wives, but that there is a possibility that he has had 3, but no proof. Anyone have input about this? I won't make the edit myself, not yet at least. I'd like to see if anyone has something to say about this. Jamesters 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, I solved this myself through further reading. Sun Myung Moon denied sex acts with multiple members thing and there was even someone else during those times that also protested that such things never happened. As for the 2nd wife thing, it seems it is true but was not an official marriage or even a relationship of any sort. Instead, some kind of providential sex thing. I don't understand it completely and will probably read up on it more. Afterall, I wonder what Sun Myung Moon considered providential about having sex with that girl. But anyways, I guess that means he really did have 3 wives (even if not all marriages were official). Problem solved! Jamesters 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You have it a little wrong. The second marriage, to Myung Hee Kim, was a common law marriage that has always been a part of the official biography taught to members. This was not considered extra-marital by the Unification Church. The "providential" sexual relationships are of two kinds, one based on rumors or allegations by critics (including Chung Hwa Pak), and another that have been admitted by members of the True Family (including by Sun Myung Moon) but not acknowledged publicly. All such "providential" sexual relationships, however, were officially denied, and were hidden from the members. Those of the first type may or may not have actually happened (though I heard Dan Fefferman say he believes they did in the case of the p'ikareun/ 6 Marys). Those of the second type are now only denied by members who would rather not know the truth, as the evidence is pretty overwhelming. A son who was born from one such union confronted Hyo Jin Moon seeking acknowledgement as a member of the True Family. Nansook Hong reports in detail in her book the reaction of Mrs. Moon when she asked about this, and then about Sun Myung Moon's explanation to her justifying it. I don't think it's wrong to say that this particular "providential" sexual relationship (and resulting birth) is common knowledge among the members (but only in the last decade). In another case that would have fallen in the second category, Mrs. Moon and oldest daughter Yejin Moon adamantly protested Sun Myung Moon's plans to have a "providential" sexual relationship with the Korean woman whom he had blessed with Jesus, and Sun Myung Moon backed off and didn't go through with it. I think this one is pretty well-known among members who've been around for a while.
The situation with the first wife was that she wouldn't accept Sun Myung Moon's mission as messiah and the relationship he had to his disciples, but neither would she grant him a divorce. So he couldn't legally remarry for some years. What surprises me is that some long-time American member would write on Wikipedia that Hak Ja Han was the second wife, contradicting the official biography. I assume he thought that since this was technically correct, since Sun Myung Moon was not actually legally married to Myung Hee Kim, that it sounded better that there was only one marriage that didn't last. But in this interpretation Sun Myung Moon was an adulterer, something that member wouldn't want to say. I think this is an excellent example of something that is a little more typical than ideal in Korean culture (a pattern transported to a surprising extent into the culture of the Unification Church in America) of what outsiders call deception but which is really a person fooling themselves into thinking that they can say something that is technically correct from one point of view (or just slightly incorrect) but is actually misleading, and that it's somehow okay. In one sense we shouldn't be too harsh on the Koreans for this, as they lived in a society where honesty might be met with brutal repression in the first half of the 20th century and violation of rights and priveleges by the powerful during the second half. In other aspects, Korean culture has its strong points, but if American Unification Church members don't insist on honesty, fairness, transparency and other virtues which are relatively stronger in the West, the Unification Church in America can never succeed here. Outsiders might be surprised at the lack of awareness of within the American Unification Church of the need for correcting such obvious, basic problems. But any criticism by subordinates (or of course by outsiders) is seen as a threat by most Korean leaders, and, unfortunately, there is far too little reform-mindedness among the members. -Exucmember 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just trying to get the facts straight. So let me try to clarify this. He married his first wife Sungil Choi 1945 and they eventually divorced due to conflicts of beliefs. His second wife was Myung Hee Kim but they were not officially married. Now, was Sun Myung Moon still married to Sungil Choi when he had a relationship with Myung Hee Kim, and I'm not just talking legally, but was Sun Myung Moon's relationship with Myung Hee Kim considered extramarital or not? Then of course Sun Myung Moon's third wife is Hak Ja Han. So did he have an extramarital relationship with someone else while married to Hak Ja Han? If so, who was this woman he had sex with?
Also, Exumember I totally loved your wikipedia profile page! I really agree with you and those are some inspiring words! Ya, there are a lot of flaws in the Unification Church. Maybe I can one day be that member you speak of. Jamesters 00:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see the section expanded to include the events of his earlier marriages. After all this is supposed to be the story of his life. As a church member I don't think I am the right person to write it however. Steve Dufour 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] munitions manufacturing

The church itself never manufactured munitions. A business started by members did, and as far as I know continues to. Steve Dufour 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations and simultaneous interpretation

I've moved this quotation to the talk page until the correct translation and Wilson's commentary is added, perhaps a small section talking about mistranslations:

"But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So, we cannot separate the political field from the religious. Democracy was born because people ruled the world, like the Pope does. Then, we come to the conclusion that God has to rule the world, and God loving people have to rule the world -- and that is logical. We have to purge the corrupted politicians, and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Third Directors' Conference, Master Speaks, May 17, 1973

[edit] Politics in the Unification Church

I've just started this article. Please check it out. Steve Dufour 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why shift the picture to the left?

This was just done. Oddly enough it seemed to be the first thing this editor did after joining Wikipedia. I don't have any real objection, however it does seem more normal for it to be on the right. Steve Dufour 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. I see he has also made a contribution to the Jerry Garcia article since then.  :-)

Thanks for changing it back exucmember. Steve Dufour 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote section

Maybe the best thing to do is let anyone put in a quote but rotate them out after a week or so. That way the section would be constantly changing but always have a balance between different people's additions. Steve Dufour 22:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We can post as many quotes as we like to Wikiquote. However there are now far too many in this article. The usual rule of thumb in bios seems to be no more than five. -Will Beback 04:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I just checked out Wikiquote. Never noticed it before. I didn't start a new article since I wasn't sure how what the standards are. Steve Dufour 10:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the "Quotes" section should be deleted. People usually cherry pick quotations, often out of context, to prove a point with an unspoken agenda. The quotations chosen are often not at all representative of what the man has said, overall, in the many (surely over a thousand) speeches he's given in his life. There's a certain dishonesty in it. A brief quotation in a section on a particular topic to illustrate a point is a much better way to handle quotations. Keeping them in a separate section is just asking for a low quality result in perpetuity. -Exucmember 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and take out the section then, if that is what you feel is best. Steve Dufour 09:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I see exucmember has gone ahead and moved to quotes to Wikiquote, good work. Steve Dufour 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some problem with quoting Sun Myung Moon on his page. I think have a wikiquote page to provide many quotes is a good idea I also think any biography of a person should have quotations from that person so that a casual reader doesn't haven't wade through a lot of information."

I have put 6 quotes up while keeping the link to wikiquotes for more in depth research. I have put 3 what one might call inspiring quotes from him and 3 quotes that would be considered controversial. They are all referenced to their original webpage which is page run by a member of the Unification Church so I believe their accuracy. None is out of context but the original source can be easily accessed if anyone had a problem. I think this is a good compromise.--Robbow123 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. (I recommend commenting on a Talk page before making a controversial edit, to give time for those opposed to answer before they revert.) I mentioned above that "A brief quotation in a section on a particular topic to illustrate a point is a much better way to handle quotations." There are already such quotations in the article, and I don't have any prolem with more being added. The quotation section was originally added as a way for one editor to get his POV across by cherry-picking quotations that fit the point he was trying to make. There will always be the temptation for editors of this page to add such quotations in the future. That's why I said above "Keeping them in a separate section is just asking for a low quality result in perpetuity." What do you think about this problem? Do you have a proposal for solving it? You know that editors are going to come along and want to add a quotation to this section. Are you going to police it forever and tell all of them that their additions are not welcome? What do you think of having, as I've recommended, quotations that support statements made in the article? Advantages include a greater likelihood that the quotation will be representative, as the editor will have to justify some general statement about Sun Myung Moon. The "Quotations" section could be removed entirely and a link to Wikiquotes put in the "See also" section. -Exucmember 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think providing true quotations that are not taken out of context is controversial. Even with a reference to wikiquotes that wouldn't stop anyone from adding quotes in the future or if a quote section was removed it would not someone to create a quote section. Quote sections are common in biographies. If the quotes section is abolished in all of Wikipedia than I have no problem. After doing some research I see that there are these blue boxes that refer people to other wiki projects like wikiquotes and wikimedia.

If you could create that for Moon then I think that's what should be done. As long as there is a quote section then people will be rightly encouraged to edit it and add quotes.

So if you know how to make one of those blue boxes refering to WikiQuotes than I am all for it. Thanks--Robbow123 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know how to do it either, but I was pretty sure I could figure it out. I went to the Winston Churchill page and took a look (figured they'd have it). There was a "wikiquote" template at the top of the "External links" section. I'm adding it and removing the "Quotations" section. Is this what you had in mind? -Exucmember 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at it and that's what I had in mind. That way quotes can go there and others will know where to add quotes. If I get inclined I may even organize the quotes but this is a good start. Thank you--Robbow123 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dung-eating dogs"

I had to include that much of the speech to put the words "homosexuals" and "dung-eating dogs". He did not say, "Homosexuals are dung-eating dogs" as is often repeated by people with a lower standard of caring about facts than should be practiced here on WP. Steve Dufour 03:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the people with a lower standard got the impression that Moon said "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs" because in his speech of May 4, 1997

The topic heading before the paragraph you quote says that exact thing.

I imagine the headings were written by someone else other than Moon. But since it is on the official Unification Website [unification.org] the statement reflects the feelings of that organization even if they were not direct quotes from Moon.

I was personally present when he gave the original speech, transcribed the audio tape and edited the speech, and added the headings to it. He spoke forcefully, and unequivocally, about his disgust for those who practice promiscuous sex and homosexuality, and compared them to dogs who eat dung. I made no effort at all to downplay or minimize what he said, as I agree with him. It originally appeared on my web site at http://www.unification.net/1997/970504.html. Damian Anderson 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you like you could say "The editor of his speech on unification.org summarized Rev. Moon as saying, "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs." However I think it is better to quote the whole part of the speech itself. Something should be said, I think, because this one remark is one of the most talked about things in Rev. Moon's whole life. Steve Dufour 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that his purpose in making the remarks was to warn members against immorality. Steve Dufour 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views on Communism "and" Democracy

If there is a section in this article titled "Views on Communism" then there also needs to be a section called "Views on Democracy" -- don't you think? Moon's "critique" of Communism (a political ideology) also stems from the fact that he is proposing a political "counterproposal" to Communism and Democracy both called "Unificationism" -- a theocratic monarchy.
Sincerely Marknw 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good idea.Steve Dufour 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There could also be Views on the Bible and Views on other religions. Steve Dufour 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Some Christians"

I took this out after considering it for a long time. It shouldn't be hard to find real people who have made these criticisms. Steve Dufour 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, although the cited article (which was initially being used an evidence that "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's crusade), does say that 'mainstream Christian leaders' plural condemned the intiative. StuartDouglas 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to call it an anti-crusade. :-) Steve Dufour 15:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
True enough :) StuartDouglas 11:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just took it out again. I am in 100 percent agreement that the criticism (or persecution) of Rev. Moon by Christians should be covered in the article. However the material needs to be cited. After you do that you can work on "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups". Remember that this is a biography of a living person.Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm..... Could Rev. Moon's controversal points of view be given by themselves without the mention of spokespeople for the other side? I'm not sure if this would work. Steve Dufour 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I see your point, that in a biography of a living person, the burden is higher, and that if there is negative uncited negative material it can be deleted immediately. I think this guideline is designed to prevent gratuitous criticism that may be damaging to someone, when in fact the allegations may be completely without merit, not having actually even been made except by that particular editor. In Rev. Moon's case, we know that certain allegations have been made, so sources should be provided. Perhaps tagging "some civil libertarians", "some Jews", and "some gay rights groups" now with the [citation needed] tag and giving those who would like to preserve those allegations some reasable period of time to respond is appropriate. As far as this specific allegation, I thought StuartDouglas was saying that the allegation is cited by Rev. Moon in his speech. I guess I'll let him speak to that. -Exucmember 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no - apologies if I was unclear. All I did was change the text to better reflect the article which was being cited. Initially the text on the Rev Moon's article read "some Christian ministers began joining" Rev Moon's campaign, with a footnote to an external article which was supposed to support that statement. It seemed to me that the external article in fact said almost the exact opposite. I wholly take the point that in a bio of a living person the burden of proof for any statement is higher than for a historical figure, but I also think it's important that apparently supportive citations are exactly that - supportive. As it happens, I think Steve Dufour's change is fine. StuartDouglas 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I think I remember finding a citation somewhere just like that myself. The cited article was saying something almost exactly opposite of the assertion in the article that was supposedly supported by the citation!
And I agree that Steve Dufour's change seems fine. -Exucmember 17:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, not all criticism is considered persecution. When it's simply a theological disagreement, the UC does not brand this a persecution. For example, hardly any other Christian church thinks the fall of man had anything to do with sex, let alone the seduction of Eve by the archangel Lucifer.

It's when they treat us differently that it's persecution, like being branded "non-Christian" by the national council of churches - or when they put our leader in jail (see Sun Myung Moon tax case) for something that Catholics do routinely.

Anyway, persecution can be a good thing: when it helps "pay indemnity". --Uncle Ed 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unification Church Cult Statement

The article states that some people consider the Unification Church to be a cult, saying it is primarily politically motivated. Islam has no divisions between state and religion, they are one and the same, but Islam is not usually referred to a as a cult. Are purely political organizations cults, or does a religious aspect have to be involved? Does the fact that one religion is against Communism as a system of evil make it a cult? There are other religions that are not too fond of Communism either. - MSTCrow 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witnesses, which are utterly non-political, are also often called a "cult". Steve Dufour 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's the text I think we're referring to:
  • Other writers have asserted that Moon's anti-communism is a reaction to his personal suffering, as opposed to having any spiritual or religious basis. Critics have seized upon this point of view as evidence for their claim that the Unification Movement has primarily a political basis; thus, they argue, his Unification Church is a cult as opposed to a religion.
These are specific claims and so should have references. Which critics have said this? -Will Beback 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about "critics" per se, but 20 years ago a court judgment said the 'church' was less religious than "political and economic" - the opinion was later overturned or invalidated, but it was a common sentiment at the time.
Opponents frequently have argued that the church's views on political and economic matters are so intrusive into these areas as to disqualify the church as a bona fide religion. They seem to think there is a limit to how much religion should be allowed to affect politics.
This is their opinion, and it is relevant - however much church supporters (like me!) disgree with their point of view. --Uncle Ed 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views of the cross

I am removing this quotation as obviously inaccurate. The things that the "Concerned Women of America" state are not true are facts. It's unfortunate but the history of Christianity has indeed been marked by inquistions, crusades, forced conversions, demolition of indiginous cultures and witch hunts. And the cross was its symbol (the shields of the crusaders were painted with a large cross). To deny this is to deny history. My point in emphasising this on Moon's page is that 1) this "take down the cross" action of Moon's and the fact that many actually did it is an historical event and 2) Moon's motives for doing this are transparent and just as Gorenfeld has stated - the replacing of Jesus with himself as Messiah. 4.246.203.34 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be confusing "truth" and "accuracy". As long as that guy said it, and he really is a spokesman for CWA, then the quote qualifies as verifiable. --Uncle Ed 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW in the opening paragraph it says that Rev. Moon claims to be the Messiah. We probably don't need John's opinion about it. Happy Thanksgiving everyone, or whatever fall holiday you celebrate. Steve Dufour 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, but the church's point of view clearly favors the idea that Rev. Moon is the Messiah, and this is probably the single must controversial aspect of church teachings. Indeed, one of the foremost aims of the church is to get recognition for Rev. Moon as the Messiah (or "True Parent" or "King of Peace", etc.) as part of what DP calls the Foundation for the Messiah. By the way, would you like to start writing that article? It's a red link right now. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
O.K. Give me some time to think about it first. Steve Dufour 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Added some more to what you did. It is not so easy to explain! Steve Dufour 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article:

which was started in the belief that the cross was a symbol of religious intolerance to many non-Christians, especially Jews and Muslims. Freelance journalist John Gorenfeld, who has researched Moon and the Unification movement, said, "You couldn't really spell it out any more explicitly short of renting a blimp to carry a fluttering banner." [1]

That's not why Father Moon and U.S. Christians began this campaign. Steve, help me out here.

Also, the observation "Moon wants you to dump Jesus and crown Moon king instead" seems very negative. It's also completely opposite to the church's view point about the relationship between Rev. Moon and Jesus. How can Gorenfield say "dump Jesus"? That's a misrepresentation.

If there is controversy, real actual dispute over why the campaign was conducted, we should cover it as a controversy - not quote some freelancer making gratuitous cracks.

Please supply some legitimate criticism from someone with a following, not some hack's personal opinion. --Uncle Ed 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

...

I will be glad to look up some info for you.

...

...

You might need to sit down for this. Note: I am not Christian myself, however the following research was done by those who are.

"Abraham was the father of faith, Moses was a man of faith, Jesus was the son of man, trying to carry out his mission at the cost of his life. But they are, in a way, failures." (Sun Myung Moon, "Victory or Defeat," from Master Speaks, March 31, 1973, p.1.) He also teaches: "This means that the failures of Adam and of Jesus Christ have been restored by the appearance of True Parents." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, January, 1995, p.8) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/wfwp3.html

Here Moon is quoted saying that rather than the church's immaculate conception, Jesus was illigitimate. http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/howwas.html

"I am now making a prototype of the perfect family, accomplishing what Jesus could not do." (Sun Myung Moon, Today's World, May, 1995, p.12.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html

Get a load of THIS one: "Bring in the flocks. Bring in the sheep and bring them to the throne of your True Parents. Bring them to the throne of our True Parents, the mighty throne of heaven. And I will place the Crown of Glory on our True Parents' head. I will lead them. I will show them that the Lord of Lords and the Kings of Kings and the King of Glory is our precious Lord Sun Myung Moon and his beloved bride Hak Ja Han. They reign as king and queen of the entire universe. And that I, Jesus of Nazareth, known as the Christ, bow in humility before them. I bow before them. Any who will follow me must do the same. I bow before the name of True Parents. I bow before our precious Lords, our True Parents, Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han." (Purportedly by the spirit of Heung Jin Nim Moon, The Victory of Love, NY, NY: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1992, pp. 65-66).

"Jesus: Reverend Sun Myung Moon! Thou art the Second Coming who inaugurated the Completed Testament Age!" http://www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml

"Until our mission with the Christian church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible. Now, however, our primary mission is to witness to the Christian church." (Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks-7: "Bible Interpretation," 1965, p.1.) http://www.newcovpub.com/unification/isrev.html

"The time has come when the whole world must be concerned about me. From now on, American Christianity must follow me." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sunmyungmo189468.html

"Am I foolish and insignificant or am I great? I gave all the individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me." (Rev. Moon, Today's World, March 1995 p.6)

Now I ask you, what is the difference between Moon and the lunatic in an asylum who thinks that he is God or Napolean? Besides money I mean. I'm sorry but this guy is a dangerous megalomaniac.

[edit] Cross as a symbol of conquest

It was said above:

It's unfortunate but the history of Christianity has indeed been marked by inquistions, crusades, forced conversions, demolition of indiginous cultures and witch hunts. And the cross was its symbol (the shields of the crusaders were painted with a large cross). To deny this is to deny history.

This is true and is in fact the same as the Unification Church position:

  • "It was introduced by Constantine, over 300 years after the death of Jesus. What is of God always unites his children. The fact that the Cross is a symbol of division, shame, suffering and bloodshed prove that it is not of God but Satan." [5]

[edit] "Claims"

This is from Wikipedia:Words to avoid:

The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect. The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation explicitly in their definition of the word: "To state to be true, especially when open to question". Of course, there are other definitions of claim as well. These generally don't have the same connotation, and the word can be used freely in those senses. For instance, making a claim in court or claiming a piece of land are valid.

...

Can anyone explain why edits that not were reverted according to the history tab do not show up hours later when googling the article. This is the second time I've seen this now. 4.246.205.168 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ...

:You might be confusing "truth" and "accuracy". As long as that guy said it, and he really is a spokesman for CWA, then the quote qualifies as verifiable

I disagree. The quote is not verifiable because it is not true. No offence with the following comments but please consider, would you use a quote from some swastica wearing neo-nazi holocaust denier stating that it never happened just because he is speaking in opposition to some other hate group which is the focus of the article? I know that sounds extreme but the cross was viewed exactly the same way by millions during the past 2,000 years. IOW, why use a quote that is obviously wrong as a counter to another wrong?? Shouldn't Wikipedia be about the facts and not about spreading revisionist misinformation? About quality information not just whatever fills up space? Should we include a quote from Bozo the Clown uttering nonsense just because he might have an opinion on some subject? Additionaly, the inclusion of this quote does an injustice to the many many who suffered and died at the hands of Christendom. Can't another quote from a Christian group objecting to the removal of the cross campaign be found? I'd think there'd be plenty. At the least a caveat ought to be added that the statement does not hold up to history. For these reasons I am again removing the quote. If someone still insists on putting it in then more power to them. 4.246.206.198 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Long winded. The short comment is, this guy from the CWA is attacking a wrong with a falsehood. How does that help the Wikipedia reader? 4.246.206.198 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Opposition from a salon.com staffer

Cut from "crowning" section:

According to blogger John Gorenfeld, most particants later said that they were misled about the event [6]

This link has nothing about "participants ... misled". Apparently this blogger is in the process of re-arranging his web site.

On the other hand, I recall reading a year or two ago about a phone and mail campaign to get participants to recant their support. I'm not sure what percentage were persuaded to do so or on what grounds.

Frequently, supporters have changed their mind when faced by adverse publicity. Whitney Houston ditched the RFK Blessing, and Bill Cosby said he "didn't know" the Family Federation was connected to Rev. Moon! I don't know how they get to be world-class entertainers and still have no idea about groups trying to ride on their coat tails. Don't they have publicists and lawyers? --Uncle Ed 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

...

About the take vs tear down the cross debate. I provided a link. This is from the Church's own publication not somebody's memory of it. Here it is "tear down" http://www.tparents.org/UNews/Unws0304/cross_bronx.htm. Now in the interests of honesty I also found a link from their publication that said "take down" [7]. The links don't take up too much room so I've included them both.

...

Wow, here I am a non-Christian arguing for them. I can't believe that polyannaish advertisment about the cross in the article. All that stuff about hw the cross is bad sure flies in the face of scripture.

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23 New International Version

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:17-18

"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14

"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ." Phillipians 3:18 (Watch out Moon!)

"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" Colossians 2:15

Although I might agree with you that wearing a cross would be like wearing a amulet in the shape of a gun around your neck, it is obvious from the Bible why Christians might be offended at the denigration of the cross. For them it is a symbol of redemption. 4.246.206.198 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, 198. I recognize all those quotes as "verifiable".
Remember, though, that in religion the interpretation of scripture is of paramount importance. What may be a symbol of redemption to one group may be a symbol of conquest (think Constatine) or of unmerited suffering (Unif. view).

I absolutely agree. Even church scholars feel that the legalizing of Christianity in 325 C.E. was the beginning of the long slide for the church.

The distinction between "tear down" and "take down" is metaphorical, having to due with (1) violence and/or aggression vs. (2) voluntarism and permission. In contrast to the "take down the cross" campaign, partisans spoke of "tearing down" the Berlin Wall; no one asked permission, but crowds gathered and destroyed the wall by force.
Unificationists are well aware that Christians have traditionally viewed the cross as a "burden ... to take up" (like Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus along the route to Golgotha) - and also viewed it as a symbol of redemption. I neglected to start an article on Redemption by the cross explaining the Unification view that believing in Jesus' resurrection provides tremendous spiritual benefits to the reborn Christian; there are limits to the salvific power of the cross, though, and believing that one has been "washed in the blood" and therefore may regard oneself as sinless is considered a great heresy in our church.

Interesting. No mainstream church though {and I'm not aware of any others) believes that being "washed in he blood" makes one sinless but only that ones sins are forgiven. The NT teaches that 'Christ died so you don't have to' since the "wages of sin are death" Gal. 6:23, and since everyone sins since the fall of Adam they needed this redemption to escape eternal death and/or hell. The Judaic ritual, commanded by Yahweh in the OT, of sacrificing a lamb every year before Jesus' crucifixion (though some say that he was actually impaled) is said to have forshadowed this. To denigrate Jesus' sacrifice as a failure and the cross as an object of repulsion would equally be viewed as a great heresy in Christendom. Additionally, as shown above, the Bible (NT) itself takes the view that Jesus' death was necessary and right, and we all know that the Bible is viewed as the infallible word of God by many or most Christians. To say something contrary is to invite trouble.

Our general policy is to agree to disagree, which accords well with Wikipedia editorial policy. Each article on a controversial subject describes the opposing points of view without declaring either side as correct.

Good - to a point. Sometimes one needs to take a side (while being fair even to that side) especially when something is clearly wrong. It would be hard to write an article about Nazi Germany for example without making any value judgements.

More than 90% of Christians disagree with each of the various Unification viewpoints on Jesus, salvation and the cross. Articles should note the percentage of agreement or disagreement when this is known. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As of the current edit I only want to re-add the link to who attended the crowning. I do think that Moon's controversial quotations should be added to the wikiquote page [8]. I would advocate dividing the uncontroversial quotes from the controversial ones on the page. 4.246.207.49 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dividing the "controversal" from the "uncontroversal" might be harder than it sounds. But as far as I know no one has removed any quotes from the wikiquote page. Steve Dufour 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not refering to the quotes already there which a cursory reading of which all sound favorable to Moon, I mean the addition of the controversial ones (such as those I listed above).
If you add them with cites no one will remove them. Steve Dufour 06:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I was trying to add back the link to who attended the crowning but the edit page contains a different page than the current page. The local edit link is different itself. Must be a wiki problem. 4.246.207.49 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and opinions (about the cross)

I see that the comment from the CWA is back so I would like to put up a bit of counterweight to that.

...

Adding quotes. About the comment from the CWA, as one can see the ridiculous comment and the balancing comments I added is only serving as a wandering detour and distraction from the article. I still think it should be removed. 4.246.200.116 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it says in the first paragraph that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. The article really should be about how he has tried to carry that out. Of course criticisms of him and his followers should be included in the article. But differences of opinion about religion should not take up about half of the article as they do now. Otherwise why not include a few paragraphs about how the Hindus disagree with him because he is not a vegetarian? Steve Dufour 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I cut out:

Others, though, see this reasoning as a convienient stepping stone for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus.
Michael Schwartz of Concerned Women for America said, "The cross does not, by any means, symbolize a 'history of religious intolerance, forced conversions, inquisitions or racism. That is an outrageously bigoted statement."[2]
On the other hand with regard to the Crusades we read that "Like pilgrims, each crusader" was "granted a cloth cross (crux) to be sewn into their clothes. This 'taking of the cross', the crux, eventually became associated with the entire journey; the word 'crusade' ... developed from this." Crusades. See also The Burning Cross Spanish Inquisition Witch-hunt Salem witch trials New Christian Marrano Morisco Ku Klux Klan
Nevertheless, to the great majority Christians themselves the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and their redemption. Any denigrating of it is considered heretical.

Generally speaking, people can make up their own minds as to how they feel about the cross without the opinions of "others", Mr. Schwartz, the WP article on the Crusades, and "the great majority of Christians". On the other hand, if the whole "take down the cross" thing is really so important then maybe it should have its own article. Steve Dufour 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed Kingara's comment that says the same thing as Wilsons. Also it cleaned it up a bit and tried to give all the legitimate sides a voice. 4.246.206.62 08:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve: "I don't think not displaying the cross is considered "heretical" by the great majority of Christians

That's not what I said Steve. Again:

Nevertheless, to the great majority Christians themselves the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and their redemption. Any denigrating of it is considered heretical.

Moon's and the UC's comments about it can be regarded as denigrating it. However if you want We'll leave this out.

I went ahead and took out the unsourced back and forth comments on the cross. This is an article about Rev. Moon, not one about the cross or about how people feel about the cross. Plus there was not any notable "blacklash" against the campaign by other Christians, which is shown by how far down USA Today (if it was them wrote the orginal story quoting Mr. Schwartz) had to dig to find someone in the Christian establishment who cared to make a comment on it. Steve Dufour 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is losing valid criticism

Disappointing Steve to check back and see that bit by bit the article is losing valid criticism. Examples:

1) The removing of the reference to the crowning of Jesus as the Messiah. You said "I'm not sure they intended to crown him as the Messiah", but IS clear that that is how HE perceived it. "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." And I doubt that they were completely unaware that that is how he sees himself. But consider, if you don't say what he was crowned as that will only beg the question in the reader's mind "okay so he was crowned but crowned as WHAT?". Obviously he was crowned as something, (and it wasn't baseball's MVP). Why not say what that was, at least in his mind. Additionally look at those bowed heads of members of congress [9].

2) The removal of the comment Many, though, see another, more suspect motive behind the campaign - it's a convienient stepping stone, they say, for the usurpation of Jesus with Moon, especially given some of Moons own comments about Jesus which you said you were removing because it was "unsourced". Yet the very next sentence provided a source.

3) The quiet removal of "Everyone I talked to was furious" said Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) spokeswoman Chris Lisi." while removing material to the cornation page.

4) The removal of the line To the great majority Christians the cross is revered as the symbol of Christ's sacrifice and of their redemption.

In another month will the article be indistinguishable from a Moon publication? 4.246.201.106 02:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1) The intro paragraph says that Rev. Moon has said that he is the Messiah. If the opening sentence said "Sun Myung Moon is a man who believes himself to be the Messiah" that would be fine with me also. However it is not clear that Representative Danny Davis crowned him as the Messiah.

Just bringng out a small flaw. You may do with as you wish.

2) I don't think that "many" would believe it was possible for Rev. Moon to "usurp" Jesus.

That's not what that sentence said. It said that the removal of the cross (and Moon's claiming to be the messiah, his put downs of Jesus etc.) is viewed "by many as a convienient stepping stone to the usurpation of Jesus with Moon". That doesn't mean that he will actually be able to accomplish this feat - except perhaps in the mind of his followers. I think this sentence should remain. If the word "many" is a stumbling block might I suggest changing it to "some"?

3) The coronation has its own article; Ms Lisi could be quoted there with no complaint by me.

Might you re-add it then?

4) The article is about Rev. Moon. Not about the cross or how the great majority of Christians feel about the cross. Steve Dufour 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well some people might feel that it's ALL ABOUT the cross, and the whittling away of its significance while simultaneously puffing up Moon.

If you want you could make a section "Christian reaction to Moon", or something like that. Steve Dufour 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said it's in your hands. I commend you for what you, as a Unificationist, have left in. Subjective objectivity is no easy feat itself. Just please try to keep it fair. 4.246.203.11 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are doing well too. BTW I would prefer not to see a totally positive article with all the controversy and criticism taken out. People would find that boring. Have a great Christmas. Steve Dufour 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvements

The person who placed the cleanup tag seems not to have commented here, so it's impossible to know what defect he felt was present. I can make a couple suggestions, however.

1. The section Overview of the beliefs of Unificationists is too long and too uneven. The main articles for this are at Unification theology, Divine Principle, and on other pages. A church member should summarize and edit down this section, perhaps moving some things to those pages and providing a much briefer overview.

2. The section Related organizations is disorganized and does not represent the ideals or activities of the church very well. It seems to me that 3 prominent groups of related organizations are [a] philanthropic, [b] ecumenical, and [c]educational. Philanthropic organizations are not even mentioned (!!), only 1 ecumenical organization is described (!), and only 2 educational organizations are mentioned (!), one of which is listed as a business! Perhaps subsection titles could give an indication of the purpose of the church's vision for related organizations (e.g., Philanthropic, Ecumenical, Educational, Media, Business). -Exucmember 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Gorenfeld article removed

I made a page on John and someone removed it. I thought he is notable enough and I tried to make the page fair. I mentioned that he is an independant journalist who specializes in reporting about Rev. Moon. I also included a link to his website. I don't see why anyone would remove it. Steve Dufour 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was removed because it didn't assert the notability of the subject, a requirement for biography articles. If you type "Template:Db-bio" in the search box, you can read the whole rationale. If you type John Gorenfeld and click to create the article (which does not exist at the moment), one of the links is deletion log, where you can see that User:Joyous! did a speedy delete based on "Db-bio" (I had to search for "Db-bio" to know what it meant). Something similar happened to me once. Personally, I think if a person seems to be notable (like this), some time should be given for the author to add a notability statement. How are we supposed to know all the rules? Just tell us! Wikipedia has a policy not to bite the newcomers, but it doesn't say anything about people like you and me, who might be called "sophomores." I recently got bitten for following a rule which seemed (obviously, to me) to take precedence over another rule (about which I was only vaguely aware). -Exucmember 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ex. I tried again, this time giving a link to an interview the NPR did of John. I don't think I will ever be an expert WPer! Steve Dufour 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your help. It should be safe now.

[edit] "an extensive history of making political donations"

This does not seem to be substanciated by the information in the articles cited, most of which are by Robert Parry and John Gorenfeld. The only thing close to a "political donation" is the money paid to ex-President Bush to give some speeches in South America and Japan plus a possible indirect gift to his presidental museum. Although this could be criticized, still it is not exactly a political donation since Bush was not in office at the time and is probably not going to run for office again. There is no evidence given at all for "an extensive history of making political donations". Steve Dufour 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/n/Talk%7ESun_Myung_Moon_b61d.html"