Talk:Sun Myung Moon/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

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.
Do you think we could use the picture from his site? It seems to be from ABC news. Steve Dufour 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My impression is that "fair use" images constitute one of those zoo animal cages that "sophomores" like to stick their hands in. Some editors will insist that they're not allowed if a free photo of a living person could potentially be gotten, and will aggressively delete them regardless of what the stated policy seems to say. That happened to the pictures of UTS and Andrew Wilson. My advice is not to spend too much time defending it. Btw, did you ever follow up on those Hak Ja Han photos? -Exucmember 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I did find one picture on the encyclopedia project. I am not into photography myself so I don't have any pictures of her that belong to me to give to WP, otherwise I would. Steve Dufour 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"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)

Munitions

I moved the info on Kahr Arms so it was next to the part on Seilo. Also my dictionary defines munitions as "war supplies, especially weapons and ammunition". I have never heard of Seilo or Kahr making ammunition so I changed the word to "guns" which more accurately describes what they do. Of course Seilo does many things in the metal working field besides that. Steve Dufour 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Munitions" is more appropriate. See definitions at article Munition. Smeelgova 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
According to what source is "Munitions" more appropriate?
Here is the definition you asked Steve to see:
  • Munition is often defined as a synonym for ammunition. A narrower definition would include bombs, missiles, warheads, and mines (landmines, naval mines, and claymore mines) -- what munitions factories manufacture. These munitions are used on battlefields and war zones with lethal intent; unexploded ones may pose a hazard to civilians for years afterwards.
Kahr does not make bombs, missiles, warheads, mines or anything else intended for battlefield use. So according to the definition you cited, it would not apply, unless I'm missing something.
In South Korea, a church-related company was required by the government there to manufacture parts for a rifle (M16, I think) used by the South Korean armed forces to defend itself against North Korea.
It might be interesting to supply a link to other - better known, more popular - churches having ownership of (or substantial stock holdings in) arms manufacturers. I think you'll find that Methodists, Episcopals, etc., have a much higher percentage of their money in "munitions" than the Unification Church does.
Would you care to do the research? --Uncle Ed 12:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I've been meaning to look up Mr. Moon regarding his church and political activities, and find this article to be somewhat lacking in that regard. I also found a number of related articles that also suffer this imbalance: it seems to be mostly regarding Mr. Dufour's experience as a church member vs. effective collaboration. Thank you. Cwolfsheep 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would much prefer that someone who had an interest in understanding the church from an intellectual interest would take part in editing these articles, rather than it be just a matter of debate between "critics" and "defenders".Steve Dufour 16:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I second Cwolfsheep's thoughts. It would certainly be most interesting to have researchers investigate this article - who have had no prior firsthand experience/opinions of the subject. So Cwolfsheep, if that's you, then research/edit away! Smeelgova 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Moon's Connections with Park Chung Hee?

Consistent with Moonies virulent anti-communism, allegations were made in the 70s and 80s that made Moon a close intimate of South Korean dictator Park Chung Hee and alleged that he and his close associates were intimately involved with the South Korean CIA and military leadership at whose behest they largely acted. I know they loudly defended Park before his assasination and were genuinely viewed during the height of the hubbub regarding Moonies as a fascist threat, a New Age Father Coughlin type so to speak.

Other Issues

In the Other Issues sections there's the following sentence "Some Jews have objected to his saying that the Holocaust is partly an indirect consequence of some important Jewish leaders, especially John the Baptist, not supporting Jesus which contributed to his murder by the Roman government".

I think that calls for greater generalization. Suggesting that only Jews object to Moon's statement, which one of the oldest anti-semitic "arguments", is offensive to non-Jews as well. I'll change the part to "There have been objections..." 87.203.85.143 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Moon's political ideology and views on democracy

The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, is portrayed in some church publications as a monarch of the nation Cheon Il Guk.

"True Love King"
"Family Federation for World Peace and Unification"
"Declaration of the Establishment of Cheon Il Guk"

Rev. Moon was also portrayed as the leader of all religions in the online article "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."

Political statements in the Divine Principle

The Divine Principle asserts that existing modern democracies have been a necessary, but temporary, stage in history and politics.

"How can democracy accomplish its purpose?...We need to understand that democracy was born to undermine satanic monopolies of power for the purpose of God's final providence to restore, by the will of the people, a heavenly sovereignty under the leadership of the returning Christ."
- Divine Principle Section 7.2.6 Democracy and Socialism

"...Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties..."
- Divine Principle, Section 3.2 The Significance of the Separation of Powers

"If we are to realize the ideal world of one global family which can honor Christ at the Second Advent as our True Parent, surely our languages must be unified...then he will certainly use the Korean language, which will then become the mother tongue for all humanity."
- Divine Principle, Section 5

Political statements in Rev. Moon's Speeches

"The democratic world has come to a dead end..."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Creation Of The Fatherland, January 1, 1984

"America's intellectual establishment is liberal, godless, secular, humanistic, and anti-religious. We are declaring war against three main enemies: godless communism, Christ-less American liberalism, and secular-humanistic morality. They are the enemies of God, the True Parents, the Unification Church, all of Christianity, and all religions. We are working to mobilize a united front against them."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, August 29, 1985

"Through True Love our family shall accomplish the True Family of the Filial Child, the Loyal Subject, the Saint and the Holy Child of the Cheon Il Guk (God's Kingdom on earth.)"
- Church Motto, Sun Myung Moon, January 1, 2003

"There is no doubt that this kingdom is one that the children of God's direct lineage can reign over by upholding the heavenly decree. In other words, it is a nation in which they rule on behalf of God's commands and kingship. Democracy and communism cannot exist in such a kingdom. Once established, it will remain as an eternal state system. Considering these things, isn't it mortifying that you have not yet become the citizens of that kingdom?"
- Sun Myung Moon, March 4, 2005

Definitions of Theocracy

"...theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. Properly speaking, it refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere." -- Wikipedia

Historical examples of Christian theocracies are the Byzantine Empire and the Carolingian Empire.

See also

rule of law, religious freedom, Western world values, secular democracy, separation of church and state, religious pluralism, fundamentalism, Kingdom of Heaven


Marknw 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag removed

I removed the tag from this sentence:

There have been objections toward his saying that the Holocaust is partly an indirect consequence of some important Jewish leaders, especially John the Baptist, not supporting Jesus which contributed to his murder by the Roman government [citation needed]

I'm UC member and a long time contributor to this article. For the sake of fairness I have let statements like "there have been objections..." stand. This also seems to be the feeling of other contributors to the UC articles. We know there have been objections and criticisms and want them to be mentioned in the articles. I don't see the point of finding some critic's statement and changing the sentence to be "So and so said..." Nobody questions that there have been objections so a cite is not really needed for this sentence. That's my opinion anyway. Steve Dufour 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Who says he's the Messiah?

Cut from intro:

He has said that he is humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.<ref>{{cite journal| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html| title=The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception - Lawmakers Say They Were Misled| first=Charles| last=Babington| coauthors=Alan Cooperman| journal=Washington Post| month=June 23| year=2004| pages=A01}}</ref>

This sentence falsely asserts that Rev. Moon is calling himself the Messiah. The actual quotation in the newspaper article was:

  • The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . 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." (ellipses copied from article)

For Christians, there is a big difference between (1) hearing someone call another person the Messiah and (2) hearing someone call himself the Messiah.

I'd like someone to double-check the facts, and if they agree with my analysis, restore the citation with the correct interpretation. Something like,

  • The church considers Rev. Moon to be the Messiah. Additionally, the church asserts that dozens of departed saints, theologians and politicians in the spirit world have endorsed Rev. Moon as the Messiah.

We need to distinguish between:

  • A said C, and
  • A said that B said C

Clear? --Uncle Ed 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. However, in my opinion the most important fact about him is that he believes himself to be the Messiah. What we church members believe is not so important. Steve Dufour 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then let's quote him accurately. If he believes himself to be the Messiah, he must have dropped a hint to that effect now and then. --Uncle Ed 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Moon and Jesus

Cut from "cross and crown" section:

Salon.com writer John Gorenfeld said, "You couldn't really spell it out any more explicitly short of renting a blimp to carry a fluttering 'Moon wants you to dump Jesus and crown Moon king instead' banner."[1]

This is an error. Rev. Moon does not say he wants to replace Jesus. We need to write about the ceremony to crown Jesus as king, which the church conducted in Jerusalem a few years ago. I believe it was connected to, or in conjunction with, this campaign.

"Jesus is, was, and always will be the source of salvation." --Uncle Ed 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section gutted

I notice the criticism section has been pruned, chopped back, and watered down since the last time I was here. -Exucmember 07:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of criticism left. Steve Dufour 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"crush individualism"

I took off this comment. I don't think you could find anyone who seriously thinks that in the future human beings will no longer be individuals because of Rev. Moon. Steve Dufour 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Put it back, or I'll crush you! ;-) heh, heh --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Steve, you should read more of Rev. Moon's words. It's true there won't be any crushing of individualism going on. Rev. Moon refers to the process as DIGESTION see here. riverguy42 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the comment probably refers to Rev. Moon's support for the idea that the benefits of "communal" salvation render the idea "individual" salvation obsolete. Or something to that matter. HEY...waittagoldarnminnit...isn't this idea of community salvation a bit like theocratic communism??? >;-) riverguy42 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously though Steve, a number of Rev. Moon's writings DO seem to point in the direction of a future in which "human beings will no longer be individuals". I think that's what Rev. Moon is pointing to when he describes a future in which the (Jesus) Christian idea of personal and individual salvation gives way to a collective salvation. riverguy42 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Riverguy, you are not far off. You just need some relevant quotations from Rev. Moon's voluminous speeches.

His theology of salvation accepts Jesus as the pioneer of salvation, but he also says that people cannot enter Heaven as bachelors. Heaven requires marriage, but don't forget that our idea of "heaven" and "paradise" are non-traditional. In coming weeks, I'll be writing more about these topics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Ed. I'm beginning to get a little clearer on Rev. Moon's ideas in this area. Perhaps not so strangely, I am seeing some interesting similarities between SOME of Rev. Moon's larger theological goals and the earlier teachings of Ernest Holmes and Divine Science. Perhaps some of Rev. Moons ideas in Divine Principle were derived from Divine Science? Back before Rev. Moon was born, Holmes also envisioned a kind of "unification", not just of world christianity but in the larger sense of ALL the world's faith traditions. This was based on what Holmes (after about thirty years of studying virtually every faith on the planet) came to understand as the "Golden thread of Truth", that runs through all the world's faith traditions. Holmes saw himself as a teacher, and asked his followers (originally, a diverse group from many different churches) to encourage thier home church congregations to study and pray on the "Golden Thread of Truth" that unites, and that this would naturally result in more focus on that which unifies as opposed to that which divides. I lament the fact that Rev. Moon's ideas (specifically, the means by which they are expressed) have yielded so much divisiveness. I think you might find that Divine Science is not only fully compatible with your current beliefs (Divine Science asserts that ALL religeons are true for their believers), but may be complementary.riverguy42 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda or "Information in service of a cause"

Merriam-Webster definition of propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person [1]

  • Rather than just pull out one of the three M-W definitions to support an argument against using the word...riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the dictionary I used in high school, so that's the definition I'll accept. I would say that every newspaper spreads ideas and information for a purpose; see advocacy journalism. This is an American tradition that goes way, way back in history. Using a newspaper to expose evils is a God-given American right. That's why dictators and totalitarian goverments always eliminate freedom of press to consolidate their power.

  • ...let's look at all three definitions of propaganda (my emphasis):
1: (capitalized) a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
To the extent that (for example) the Washington Times has an admittedly biased view on behalf of the Neoconservative wing of the GOP (as opposed to the paleo-conservative roots of the GOP), then it is not necessary to impute falsehood in order to accurately describe the Washington Times as a "propaganda" tool. Nevertheless, as I have previously stated, the word MUST be used carefully as it certainly can be pejorative. In my view, the extent to which more than twenty years of operating losses at the Times have been and continue to be subsidized by the Unification Church to the tune of about three billion dollars indicates that the evidence supporting use of the word propaganda vastly outweighs any concern about using the word based on it's potentially pejorative impact. I suppose we could replace the word "propaganda" with "heavily Church subsidized pro-neoconservative partisan media communications", but that would be cumbersome and even more pejorative, methinks. riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also say that the Unification Church's defensive use of comparisons between the Pope/pontiff and Rev. Moon also invites fair use of the capitalized Propaganda (Def#1) as well as propaganda (Defs #2 and #3), and here, the etymology of the word may also be helpful:
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623.riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of this definition, though, implies that the information being spread could be false or mere rumor. When someone uses the term propaganda to dismiss a news report, they are emphasizing this aspect of the word. As in, "Oh, that's just propaganda. You can ignore it."

Let's take care, then, to distinguish between the two usages of the word. If the Washington Times revealed true information about communism, and if this accelerated its downfall, then this is a good thing (if you like religious freedom and the right of workers to negotiate their own wages) or a bad thing (if you like tyranny and oppression, or if you think socialism is worth giving up a little individual control).

I'd rather not see the term used in its secondary sense, unless the charge that the Times spread false info or rumors is clearly marked as someone's viewpoint. It would especially help if they gave an example.

  • I think we're in agreement here, especially as this is a biography of a living person. I will (first and foremost) spend my time adding citations to some of the other unreferenced stuff, and use the time to "bone up" on UC doctrine and history.

But I suspect the complaint (oops, charge!) of critics is that the Times influenced Republican presidential policy in a way that the critics disliked. That is, they don't mind so much that Rev. Moon was influential as the fact that he lent support to the critics' opponents. But this is sheer speculation on my part. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to give my opinion. "Propaganda" is a POV term, except when used in the narrow sense of an official government system of information. So we shouldn't adopt that POV by describing the Times as a propaganda effort, or using that term in the heading. On the other hand, it is a term that's been used, not just in pubdit's columns but also in the congressional report. Quoting an SF Chron article that quotes the report:
  • A 1978 House subcommittee report...described what was then Moon's only English-language paper in this country, the New York City Tribune, as "a propaganda instrument for the Moon organization" employed to "attack and discredit" Moon's many detractors.
So can use the formulation some have called it "propaganda". Whatever we say it should be kept to a proportionate weight. The life of Rev. Moon has many noteworthy aspects yet we need to keep the article short enough to be readable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Will. Thanks for weighing in with your opinion on using the word "propaganda" to describe Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized media. I have not ever heard this opinion before, in which the word "propaganda" is automatically deemed to be merely POV unless used "in the narrow sense of an official government system of information". The etymology of the word and it's definitions both clearly contradict this, and in fact the word has it's etymological roots in Church-controlled systems of information, not in Government systems. Is there a Wikipedia precedent you can point to to explain this seeming contradiction? Thanks (again) riverguy42 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Rev. Moon's media represent "advocacy journalism"?

(Note: intro -- as this discussion (a) involves a BLP, and (b) it involves the use of a controversial term in the context of a BLP, the length of this discourse reflects the concern among editors in adhering to Wikipedia guidelines around BLP's. For those interested, a review of the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing may also be helpful. riverguy42 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Ed Poor (above)...

Hi Ed,

Above, you invoked a defense logical argument in favor of describing the criticism of Unification Church media above as advocacy journalism as opposed to describing that criticism as propaganda.

I just now had a chance to review the entry you referenced. On review, I note that this form of journalism is characerized thus:

"Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose."

Note the "and", which seems to imply that to qualify as "advocacy journalism", Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized media must be practiced transparently to avoid the designation "propaganda".

Please note that Rev. Moon's statements regarding having "used the Washington Times to stop that evil attempt" were followed immediately by his further comment "...you didn't know that, did you?". I think that Rev. Moon's seemingly explicit admission that he covertly used the Washington Times to "stop" the "evil attempt" hardly qualifies as "transparency". Also, camoflaging the ownership of the Washington Times, UPI and Insight under layers of cross-ownership is anything but transparent. I wonder why the Unification Church doesn't just own and subsidize it's media directly, transparently and outright (as the Roman Catholic and other Churches do), rather than creating deceptively named sub-corporations run by highly-ranked Church Members to do the "ownership" job in the shadows?

update: The Unification Church POV can't claim advocacy journalism as an alternative to Propaganda because of lack of transparency. A quick look at the Washington Times website, where you will find no reference anywhere to the fact that it is owned/operated/controlled/subsidized by the Unification Church, pretty clearly confirms "no transparency". Unification Church ownership is hidden behind the deceptively named "News World Communications" corporate "parent". A further, and more telling sign of the extraordinary lack of transparency results from a site search of the Washington Times for "Unification Church". Incredibly, this search yields ZERO hits, not ONE SINGLE Washington Times news or editorial that even acknowledges the existence of the Unification Church, much less describing it's relationship to the paper (note you have to exclude the three hits that all point to reader responses and one blog). Now, similar searches on a "control" term such as "scientology" yields a stunningly different result. Clearly there is compelling evidence here of an organized, sustained and long-term policy in place at the Washington Times to self-censor any news around it's controversial relationship with the Unification Church, and to even keep the WORDS "Unification Church" out of the paper --- combine this with Rev. Moon's own words, "I used the Washington Times"...and there simply is no other answer. I think the case for the word "propaganda" is pretty strong.
riverguy42 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the topic I added, I'm making a case here for reverting back to my original section title, but I respect the power of the word and do not wish to misuse it. I think I need (and will seek) an independent (no UC affiliation) editor's voice here, as I think a word like "propaganda" should only be used when, and if, it is the most accurate description of the critical charges against Rev. Moon in this regard, and where no other reasonable alternative exists.

Of course, the best way for the UC to solve it's problem here would be to (a) divest itself, or (b) publically embrace a transparency doctrine. riverguy42 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I used Wikipedia to "defend" my church, then I have made a mistake. Advocacy is discouraged here. Anyway, I'm not sure about the fine line of difference between advocacy journalism and propaganda. Using a newspaper to crusade against evil by exposing corruption and other wrongdoing is generally considered good, while "propaganda" is generally considered bad.
If a newspaper tells the truth in its articles, and the result is that the people are inspired by the difference between their good ideals and society's ills - and then do something to change things - that is more of a "crusade" than advocacy journalism I think. But that takes us far from the topic of this article. Unless you want to hear more about media and other organizations that Rev. Mono has inspired or founded. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings again Ed! This is a talk page and your advocacy is not only allowed here, but necessary (as this is a BLP), and...(at least by me) welcomed. You are most open about your POV and potential COI, and your voice in the discussion can therefore be heard in context -- so no apology needed.
Anyway...support for your logic above rests on "If a newspaper tells the truth...to crusade against evil...in support of good ideals"...all rests on someone's personal belief that the underlying agenda is "good" and not "evil", and you thenceforth assert that Moon's media agenda is "good", therefore it should be referred to as advocacy and not propaganda.
Perhaps invoking an outside opinion here might help.
From Abraham Lincoln, Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, April 18, 1864:

"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty [abolishing slavery in the state]; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated."

Propaganda is a word, like tyranny. When it is used to describe Unification Church media operations, most members oppose it. When it is used to describe points of view in opposition to Rev. Moon, many Church Members embrace it. But it is nonetheless the word that is used by the very critics in their own criticisms -- and that is why I used it in the original subsection under "Criticism". So, in this context -- first off, the characterization of UC activities as "good" and opposing views as "evil" is the POV of the Unification Church. Secondly, the term propaganda makes (at least technically) no such distinction between "good and evil". Third, it is well known by expert propagandists that the best propaganda organ is one that is 90-95 percent truth, with the lies and distortions hidden among the "camoflage" of truthful elements. For example, this is one likely reason why the operating losses of the Washington Times has had to to be subsidized by $3 billion of Unification Church funds since 1982. If this is true, then the Times would not, indeed it cannot be allowed to operate as a "for profit" paper, because in this construction, the very PURPOSE of the paper is to provide a large body of truthful work in which the lies/distortions can be embedded. Nobody ever said here that the larger body of Washington Times stuff is "evil", or "lies", if it were then the paper would be useless as a propaganda tool. Nevertheless -- given all the evidence we can see here, the most accurate and meaningful description of the criticism of Rev. Moon and The Washington Times here uses the words "propagandist" and "propaganda" respectively, as the major media critics themselves do use teen.
I will reiterate that I need to hear an argument against using the word propaganda to describe the criticism of Rev. Moon that is devoid of UC POV, especially as the editor who reverted my edit has both COI and POV, reflected clearly in history.
riverguy42 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This was all gone over 5 years ago, when Wikipedia was deciding which newspapers could be sources. The consensus then, if I recall correctly, was that the Washington Times was just as accurate and reliable as the New York Times as far as hard news goes.

  • I'll look...can you direct me to the discussion?

The distinction between the two papers was largely to be found in columnists and of course on the editorial and op-ed pages. It was determined that the editorials and other commentary are conservative, but that the news was just regular news.

So if you know of anyone who is saying that a "truthful work" contains embedded lies and distortions, please be sure to quote that person. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Ed. First off, thanks (again) for treating this topic seriously and fairly, and for your earnest efforts around reaching a concensus here.
re: "if you know of anyone who is saying that a "truthful work" contains embedded lies and distortions",
Maybe I should not assume you pay as much attention to politics as I do. There are literally hundreds of instances.
Here's just one example - "The big NEA Sept-11 Lie; How the Washington Times helped create a myth about the teachers' union and Sept. 11 that has become conventional wisdom"
Now, in this case, the target of the lie is organized labor - teacher's unions. This kind of stuff has been the hallmark of Unification Church media since 1982. I don't want to overload the article (or even this talk page) with dozens of references around negative stuff, just want to make sure that the article represents fairly the reasons why Rev. Moon is so controversial in this area. The critics call Rev. Moon a propagandist. So...that's the criticism and I can no longer see ANY reason to avoid the word, fair enough?

Theocracy dispute

Some people have expressed fear that Rev. Moon might make what would nowadays be called a "Taliban-style" theocracy. You know, make people believe and worship a certain way, or off with their head.

  • It is essential to mention that the association does not imposes its own principles on others; all who are involved in the peace process, mostly as appointed Ambassadors for Peace, participate out of their own conviction. --Dr. A. Abdul Santoe, European Representative, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-Lahore, The Netherlands]

So the "fear" quotes need to balanced with the "faith & trust" quotes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind control

Removed from article:

The APA's pronouncement that there is no scientific merit behind the theory of mind control weakened the legal basis for deprogramming claims in the United States.[citation needed]

Remind me to google this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here it is:
  • The report was carefully reviewed by two external experts and two members of the Board. They independently agreed on the significant deficiencies in the report. [2]
Courts decided not to accept "brainwashing" as an excuse for crimes committed by Americans in the US, since there is no such thing as brainwashing as a scientific concept. [3]
This should be explained in greater detail at Brainwashing or Mind control. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is is fully covered in APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
In particular DIMPAC#APA_memorandum_-_dismissal_of_DIMPAC_report, which reads"

On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because "the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur."[2]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

I removed this whole section, some of it could be put back however if the information is cited:

Other criticisms: theocracy, anti-semitism, anti-gay, views on women

Moon, perhaps one of the most controversial religious leaders, has been widely criticized. Some civil libertarians consider his call for unity between religion and politics is contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.
There have been objections toward his saying that the Holocaust is partly an indirect consequence of some important Jewish leaders, especially John the Baptist, not supporting Jesus which contributed to his murder by the Roman government (see Unification Church and anti-Semitism).
In a speech to church members in 1997, Moon said: "What is the meaning of lesbians and homosexuals? That is the place where all different kinds of dung collect. We have to end that behavior. When this kind of dirty relationship is taking place between human beings, God cannot be happy." and referred to homosexuals people as "dung-eating dogs".[4]
Rev. Moon's views on women as "objects" in a subject-object relationship with their husbands generated further criticism. In 1996, Moon summarized these views;[5]

"American women have the tendency to consider that women are in the subject position. However, woman's shape is like that of a recepticle. The concave shape is a receiving shape. Whereas the convex shape symbolizes giving. When water is poured into a container does it fill from the edge of the container, or from the deepest bottom? (Deepest bottom.) Since man contains the seed of life, he should plant it in the deepest place. Does woman contain the seed of life? (No.) Absolutely not. Then if you desire to receive the seed of life you have to become an absolute object. In order to qualify as an absolute object you need to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to your subject."

I have never heard of any civil libertarians criticizing Rev. Moon on the issue of church and state. Mainly because their interest is to protect individuals against the powers of government. In fact the ACLU in New York supported him in his tax case vs. the US government. Also uncited.
The statement about the Holocaust is uncited. It is a legitimate criticism so could be put back with a cite.
The speech cited was not mainly about homosexuality, so it is misrepresented. There is also no cite that says it caused controversy or criticism.
The inclusion of the quote about women is original research. The cite from Robert Parry's site does not show that this "generated further critism." Mr. Parry certainly has the right to criticise as much as he likes but he is motivated by his own political ideology, not by anything Rev. Moon says. To say otherwise is also original research.
Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, a number of editors responded to my somewhat heated (and overly long) diatribe in reaction to the removal of this section. I think there is now a consensus forming among the editors involved, and thanks (especially) to Ed Poor for mediating. If anyone is interested, the entire dialog is archived on my user talk page.riverguy42 (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


====Major SNIP==== ....I'm out of patience. riverguy42 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're out, have some of mine? ;-) Doctor Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Here is a suggestion. How about making a "criticism" section to Divine Principle and moving the "subject/object" "controversy" over there?Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. River, do you agree? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the controversy and criticism that have been generated (from what I see) are based more on Rev. Moon's post-Divine Principle speeches and talks. "Dung eating dogs" is not (I think) in The Divine Principle. I think the criticism is leveled at Rev. Moon himself, so I'm not seeing the reasoning behind taking it out of the bio and putting it into "Divine Principle". For another example, see my reply to Ed on "subject object" below.riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, as we appear to be in dialog here, I will (next edit) tone down (delete) some of my more incendiary language, and let's keep talking...riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
One reason I suggested it is that in an article about a person the rules are more strict about what you should say. Both the subject/object question about men and women and the exclusion of gays are legitimate criticisms which are sometimes made against the Divine Principle. However, when you use that to say that Rev. Moon hates women and/or gay people then you could run into problems with WP's BLP policies. BTW the "dung-eating dogs" speech was mainly about heterosexual relationships, gays were only mentioned in passing. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: "However, when you use that to say that Rev. Moon hates women and/or gay people then you could run into problems with WP's BLP policies."
Nobody here fits this [Straw Man] supposition, none here have said "that Rev. Moon hates women and/or gay people" or used the word "hate". I think most of us are trying to fairly represent the criticism of Moon's personal statements. Now, if Moon's statements are widely criticized as a form of "hate speech", then that view may be appropriatly represented here as long as it is otherwise acceptable in a BLP. riverguy42 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears this is being solved but editors may find it helpful to read WP:Criticism. Although an essay I think it provides helpful ideas on how to deal with matters like this. A criticism/controversy section is usually problematic since it implies that something has been criticised or was otherwise controversial. However this requires references to the effect and is often difficult to do. Instead, it's usually better just to provide details on noteable viewpoints and let the reader decided for themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas. I have been relying on the BLP specific policy on criticism, but the essay is great, thanks.
You said "this requires references to the effect and is often difficult to do." I have been using a news archive search/timeline technique to analyze and solve this problem and I'd like to (a) share the idea, and (b) solicit input as to whether this technique has been validated elsewhere on Wikipedia.
When used (for example) on the Google News Archive, an explicit search for "Moon the controversial" results in a timeline view such as this. Also, I have used a "control subject" to (for example) show that in this analysis of news archives, "Moon the controversial" generates about five times more news archive hits (47) than, say, L. Ron Hubbard (9), as reflected here.
Clearly general web searches are problematic, but as this technique searches only news archives, it seems to hold water. Thoughts??? riverguy42 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh? What these ideas have to do with this article? Please read WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, Nil Einne pointed out the inherent difficulty in measuring the "effect" of whether something/someone is controversial, as we work to achieve consensus and balance in this article. Here on the talk page, I am proposing a potential technique by which we might informally measure the effect, solve the problem, and perhaps we may agree to use this as a means of reaching a consensus, and I have shown an example of how this technique works. I am soliciting input.
The Google News Archive is made up of sources that Google have determined to be legitimate sources of "news". How does this conflict with WP:NOR#Sources, which says: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I was not able to find anywhere in the NOR policy that deals with proposals made on talk pages. Please help me understand your position in citing NOR in this context. riverguy42 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Theocracy section below. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OT material removed from "political influence" section

I took this off:

In June 2006 the Houston Chronicle reported that in 2004 Moon’s Washington Times Foundation gave $1 million to the Greater Houston Community Foundation, which made donations to the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. A man described as a "Virginia electronic gumshoe named Larry Zilliox" by reporter Rick Casey suggested that this was to lobby Bush's son President George W. Bush for a pardon for Moon's 1982 felony tax conviction.[3]
Moon said:
"The power of God is far greater than any political power in the world. That is why Jesus was feared. That is why the world sometimes reacts to us with fear. They don’t understand and fear the power of God."[4]

The first part was just a rumor in a newspaper gossip column. I could also mention that even if true it tends to show Rev. Moon's lack of influence with President Bush, since the pardon was not granted. The second part is just a quoted statement, there is nothing that says it has anything to do with political influence. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, before I restore this (your latest blanking of controversial information), Please note that your comment indicates that you did not read the article which you claimed to be "just a rumor in a newspaper gossip column" as justification for removing it. The Zilliox information (or "rumor" as you call it) was subsequently and independently verified by the Houston Chronicle. The point of the article was that the reporter CONFIRMED the information provided by Zilliox.
In this latest case, your assessment of the situation was (again) flatly incorrect, and once again I see you providing insufficient (and factually incorrect) basis for removing content. Again, Steve, your Unification Church status is a COI, and your POV both indicate that you should recuse yourself from blanking content. If you think there is something wrong with a section or citation, please comment here on the talk page, or TAG the article.riverguy42 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute the fact that the Washington Times Foundation gave money to the Bush-41 library. The part that seemed like gossip column stuff was the theory that this was to influence Bush-43 to grant Rev. Moon a pardon. If you think so you could go to Las Vegas and see if any of the casinos would take a bet that Bush is going to do this. (Please also see the proposed wager below. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no such a thing as a COI by being an adherent of a religion. Jews can edit articles about Moses, Christians can edit articles about Jesus, Mormons can edit articles about Joseph Smith, Sikhs can edit articles about Guru Nanak, and so forth. Please stop making these type of comments as these may be bordering on personal attacks, and do away from too much bold in your edits. Discuss the edit and not the editor is a sound advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jossi. Thanks for weighing in. Regarding your statement "There is no such a thing as a COI by being an adherent of a religion", I think (having just re-read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest , that I disagree with your statement as written. Perhaps you meant to say "...just by being an adherent of a religion", in which case I agree with you. It's clear that in and of itself, an editor's relationship with the Unification Church (including his work on parallel entries for the Unification Church's Wiki "New World Encyclopedia", which as I understand it is compensated by the Church) does not necessarily present a COI that would, by itself, be valid cause for complaint.
It is the combination of COI and a long history of tendentious editing , specifically in blanking content that is unflattering to the controversial subject (Moon) or the Unification Church -- that presents the problem and brings up the COI as a tangential issue. If you disagree with what seem to be broadly held and long-term views around tendentious editing here, you may wish to check into the history of similar complaints. I am aware of (and work with) other UC member-editors who do not exhibit the problem.
Regarding your comment: "Jews can edit articles about Moses, Christians can edit articles about Jesus, Mormons can edit articles about Joseph Smith, Sikhs can edit articles about Guru Nanak, and so forth." -- of course they can, and so can Unification Church members edit, so let's not introduce a Straw Man here. I never suggested that DuFour stop editing. A have asked him to stop his pattern of tendentious editing as regards blanking content that is unflattering to Moon or the Church. I am suggesting that, in light of the combination of tendentious editing and COI, that he tag or talk about his proposed deletions and recuse himself from further edits that reinforce a well established pattern, one which (in my estimation) is widely observed over a long time.
Again, thanks for your input. If you still think my interpretation of tendentious editing in the context of COI is off-base, I'm happy to hear your further views. Also, I would welcome your assessment of whether the "OT material removed" was, in your opinion "off-topic" or not. riverguy42 (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
There is always two sides to a coin. The same "COI" and "WP:TE"" can be asserted for those of the opposite POV... that keep adding material to an article about which threis no agreement. Rather than discuss the editors, their motives, or their bias (which BTW we all have), it would be much more productive to engage civilly in discussing the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: your comment "The same "COI" and "WP:TE"" can be asserted for those of the opposite POV" how is that possible? In order to justify that statement you'd have to impute a similar level of WP:COI to "those of the opposite POV". Two POV's may oppose one another, and both might display WP:TEND but if one has COI and the other does not, that is a completely different matter and the two certainly are not comparable.
Suggest you read this first, and then read the definition, and note...
"...their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference."
And...
"If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously. Of course, all of the editors I have been in conflict with over this "content blanking" have single-issue edit histories indicative of both WP:TE and WP:COI.
And...
"Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.:
Finally, the consequences are quite clear...
"Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."
There are absolutely not "two sides" to the COIn you describe. By now it should be perfectly clear that the combination of WP:TEND plus WP:COI makes for a very serious situation, and it was in this context that I asked the editor to recuse himself from further undiscussed blanking of content. That editor has most kindly obliged. OK?
riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Role of women

I would just add this directly, but River has the article "in use" and I want to avoid an edit conflict.

The designation of men as "subject" and women as "object" has been a topic of misunderstanding and a bit of a sore point for critics. More than woman theologian within the church has tried to explain it away, but Moon clearly places women in a subordinate role. The key point is that being a subordinate in no way lessens a person's value. It all depends on how well the "subject partner" treats his "object partner".

(By the way, this also relates to the church & state thing or the "theocracy issue".)

Everyone naturally rebels against an evil, self-centered leader. If "subject" is taken to mean a person who has unlimited authority to enslave another person, then it is merely a synonym for "master" or "owner". Considering that Rev. Moon said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is the 20th Century American he admires most, it would seem odd to say that Moon favored the kind of self-centered subjugation that Dr. King fought against.

Not to prolong this, I'll just give one example of subject-object relations. Moon said that a man's sexual organ belongs to his wife. I think that means that a man must pledge to his wife never to have sex with anyone else! Also, that he should use his sexual organ to make love to her; see absolute sex.

So a woman is not a slave, not a "thing", not property. Being an "object" does not mean that she is less of a person. She is a "daughter of God". (I spent a lot of time writing about things like honor killings and female genital mutilation partly to show the difference between the Unification/Christian view and the Arab/Muslim view.

No Taliban-style theocracy for us, please! --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed...I might try to take this in the direction of the "form-follows-function" line, but I think the real problem Moon presents for you here in the "Subject-Object" metaphor lies more in his view of women as the "receptacle object" for "male seed" stuff. Here, Moon appears (to outsiders at least) to confuse plant biology -- in which "seed" carries all the necessary genetic information for an individual -- with human biology, in which male "seed" does not. So, when Moon said: "Does woman contain the seed of life? (No.) Absolutely not. Then if you (women) desire to receive the seed of life you have to become an absolute object." I can't speak for women in general, but I can say for sure that this "absolute receptacle object" stuff is really offensive to my S.O.!! And she's right. From this perspective, Moon is absolutely saying that women are "less", because he is saying women don't contain the seed of life -- while men do, and that's pure nonsense. Male "seed" is not "seed" at all, it's just half of the whole DNA picture -- utterly useless by itself, yet Moon glorifies male seed as if it were complete, needing nothing but a hole in the dirt (absolute object receptacle) to sprout. Terrible metaphor, and I think Rev. Moon probably deserves whatever criticism he gets for using it. riverguy42 (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Rev. Moon also talks a lot about "blood lineage" when in scientific reality blood has nothing special to do with a person's genetic heritage. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but "blood lineage" is a cross-cultural concept that translates well and that's why it's less controversial than "absolute object-receptacle for seed". Also, "blood lineage" historically applies to women and men equally (Queen of England). I've offered Ed an angle you might like to pursue, it's on Ed's talk page...riverguy42 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad my wife doesn't read this page. "Hole in the dirt" indeed! --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wager proposed

To Wndl42 or anyone else. Please name a charity that is doing good work to help people and I will donate $1000 to them if Bush-43 pardons Rev. Moon. In return if Clinton-44 does this you promise to donate $1000 to the Salvation Army. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a titillating offer you make, but I think such things are inappropriate for an article talk page, so I've responded on your user talk page.
"Once you decide to titillate instead of illuminate . . . you create a climate of expectation that requires a higher and higher level of intensity" --Bill Moyers. riverguy42 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any special inside information. However, most people who are into conspiracies say the Bush and Clinton families are in cahoots. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Moon's notability

Hi exucmember...

I appreciate your work on Wikipedia.

For a second time, you moved an edit I made to the front of the article on Sun Myung Moon.

I absolutely agree with you, in that Moon's notability (outside of Unification Church membership) derives primarily from his controversiality, indeed I made that argument successfully in a previous series of talk page discussions arguing for expansion into some areas of criticism that I felt were a bit watered down.

I have been candid about my view that some UC members (understandably) want to promote inclusion of additional and (perhaps) unwarranted favorable viewpoints on Rev. Moon to balance the weight of all the criticism, sometimes to the point of tendentious editing. For me, I just want to see that the sections on criticism and controversy are accurate and comprehensive, and are presented in context.

Anyway, the reason I supported an earlier revert of your moving my edit was because I felt the article flowed better that way. With all of the criticism of Moon, I thought that making note of Rev. Moon's status as a highly controversial figure "fit" better in the section describing the controversies, that way readers unfamiliar with Rev. Moon will understand why so much of the article is devoted to criticism and controversy.

It seems you and I are in agreement on the basic point on Rev. Moon WRT Wikipedia, that - notability derives from controversy.

What do you think about my reasoning for wanting to place the statement (or an additional reference to it) as a leadoff to the "criticism and controversy" section? Appreciate your thoughts.

Again, thanks...

riverguy42 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Moon's notability derives primarily from the fact that he is controversial, so I believe there is no question that this must necessarily be reflected in the introductory paragraph.
If a similar statement is needed for flow at the head of the criticism statement (and I think it is), there should be something there too. You ([User:Wndl42|riverguy42]]) seem to be more familiar with the flow of this article; any chance you could create a statement for both places? Thanks. -Exucmember (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with your move ExUC. I have added a mention of his anti-communism, which is on of the main sources of the controversy. I also removed the discussion of his motivation for being anti-communist, religious or personal experience, since this has long been uncited and a source of disagreement. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gulf War

After thinking about it, I believe that Rev. Moon's statements about the Gulf War were not a prominent feature among all the things he's said and done in his life (and all the things that have been said about him), all of which are candidates for this article, but need to be pared down to include only the most important. So I think all mention of the Gulf War could be deleted, and I certainly don't think it's worth more than one or two sentences at the most. -Exucmember (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It shows his international concerns. Many of the things in the artice are not even about him, but about things his followers have done. Besides his comments about world peace are much more prominent than his comments about gays, for instance. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
His attention to the Gulf War was minor. You are right, his statements about world peace are many, and the conferences related to the topic are also - that would be a legitimate topic for a section of this article. Do you have specific suggestions for paring down or eliminating material that is off the topic here? -Exucmember (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
For instance the fund-raising scandal in Japan was not about him, but about church members. He has not even been in Japan for many years. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishing paragraph

I ended up taking the paragraph about fishing out from the 1970s section since it covered a longer period of time (1950s to present). It was also mainly about members not Rev Moon himself. Maybe a new section could be started with more information. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New World Encyclopedia article

I just posted a link to: *Article in UC sponsored wiki encyclopedia. This might be interesting, although we can not use it directly as a source. It also has more pictures, which we might want to use. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the article, reading parts of it. It looks good, well-written. Since it's GNU, clips here and there could be used for this or related articles on Wikipedia, right?
I did notice one mistake, however. A picture caption refers to the birthplace of "Sun Yong Moon." This is just wrong. I think it should be "Sun Myung Moon," keeping "Yong Myong Moon" (his birth name) in the text only (so as not to confuse the reader by putting it in the caption unexplained). The text uses the spelling "Yong Myung Moon," which is an idiosyncratic spelling which is not a part of any Romanization system. The standard system used by all publishers except the Korean government (who to everyone's dismay wants to have its own - bad - system), is McCune-Reischauer, where it would be spelled "Yong Myong Moon" with or without an accent mark (breve, hacek, or dot) over the "o" in "Myong." The Korean government system would spell it "Myeong" - the vowel spelling based on a historical mistake! - but this is still better than the uneducated "Myung" choice. The choice "Myung" could only be made by someone in the sphere of American English who is unaware of how vowels are used in the entirety of the rest of the world - and how standardized spelling of non-Roman alphabets are based on international commonalities. I'm not sure displaying such ignorance is a good idea for an encyclopedia billed as "New World," unless the "world" we're talking about is not the whole earth or the international community, but some other meaning of "world" which is something much smaller and more narrow, and - ironically - ignorant of the larger "world."
Critics, btw, can point to the same irony in the Unification Church, where the many organizations with the word "international" in them (actually "world" in Korean) pursue a second, relatively hidden agenda that is parochial and promoting of Rev. Moon rather than focused only on what is best for the international community. In general, this is particularly true for the Korean leaders, who are very interested in this part of the agenda. -Exucmember (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I referred to the UC's New World Encyclopedia for this edit back in December. I would nonetheless be very cautious is using it for anything more than just the most basic facts --- and to cross check what you find there, and I would hope that all edit summaries will include reference to the fact that the UC wiki was used as a source, so we can keep an eye out for the possibility that this article (and others) might wind up "morphing" toward the editorial focus of the UC wiki. It appears to be a well-polished wiki, but clearly not a neutral source.
Additional thought...if any editors here are also contributing to the UC wiki, my understanding is that UC wiki editors are compensated for thier work, and such editorial involvement might therefore present a conflict, so (with all due respect) I suggest extreme caution would be prudent. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, it should not be used directly as a source, since it is a 3rd level source as is WP. But sourced info from it, and pictures, could be used here as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I checked out a couple of pictures and they were "used by permission", not freely shared with WP and others.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Moon's Politics

There appears to be a need for a section on "political views", as there is so much "anti-communist" stuff, it seems like Moon's politics are therefore notable, but we also need to avoid "undue weight", perhaps by adding more on what Moon is "for" rather than just what he is against -- "one world theocracy" and such.

Thoughts? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A section that sourced his views in a verifiable way would be good, IMHO02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
You are welcome to add a section on his political views. However, he is best noted for his crusade against communism, which seemed to have real effects. On the other hand, it seems a bit unlikely that his concept of an ideal society, theocratic or not, will take place any time soon. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed...thanks. I'm reviewing this UC overview, but it's a difficult exercise to try to find any neutrally sourced information. Is anyone here familiar with any interviews, bios etc. that may be (clearly) from outside the Church sphere of influence and yet not from cult-critics?riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
RE..."crusade against communism, which seemed to have real effects", the counter to this view is that it was widely known that the "Soviet Union" (which was arguably not "communism" as such) was collapsing from within right from the end of WWII, and Moon kinda "rode that wave". The link I'm reading (above) says Moon really has no preference between "communism" or "democracy" as long as it's a monarchy with "True Parents" in the "headwing". Or am I misinterperting something?riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Still he is noted for his stand against the version of "communism" that was practiced by the USSR, North Korea, Mainland China, Cuba, etc. and for the organizations he founded that opposed it. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not revive the linguistic dispute over whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union established a Communist government in Russia and the SSR's. It's fairly well known that "communism" (with a small c) is the "ideal state of affairs in which socialism has withered away". Given the small c definition, obviously, this sort of communism has never been established anwywher.

However, most political scientists and historians call the USSR a Communist country - meaning (1) that it was ruled by a Communist Party and (2) that the ruling party used Marxist-Leninist principles of politics, economics and ideology.

Rev. Moon has a strong preference for democracy over Communism. He also holds in common with most other Christians a hope for the Kingdom of God over any manmade system.

Perhaps it will help if we distinguish between the most commonly types of theocracy that have been tried (or proposed), and the "Kingdom of God" which Rev. Moon says Jesus was trying to establish. --Uncle Ed (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. But I maintain that Moon is being "fluffed" here for anti-communism and that the truth is his views are more subtle. So...is it fair to say: "While Rev. Moon's politics explicitly reject Soviet style stalinist or pre-1980's Maoist systems, he nonetheless accepts communism on equal terms with democracy provided that a monarchy or "upper house" occupied by "True Parents in eternity" is established as the ultimate seat of global power." -- or along these lines? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think something like that could be mentioned in the article. Still the story of his relationship with communism, especially, with the Stalinist North Korean government, should be a major part. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve. Here is a Yahoo search for "moon anti-communist": [6] Redddogg (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That is cool. However, not all of the 6 million articles are about Rev. Moon. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok...I will rewrite (after noting some of Ed Poor's and other observations) for balance and propose the following revision:
"While Rev. Moon's politics explicitly reject Soviet style stalinist, pre-1980's Maoist, and other explicitly athiest systems, he nonetheless accepts communism on equal terms with democracy provided that a theocratic monarchy, or "upper house" occupied by "True Parents" is established as the ultimate seat of global power in eternity. Presumably this monarchy would represent the realization of the biblical prophesy of a returning "Lord of lords" and a "King of kings".
Now, if this is deemed a good start, then I could see us moving into some other territory. For example, comparing the seemingly paradoxical status of the U.S. as "One Nation, under God" that yet still is founded on a system that "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". While one could suppose that Rev. Moon might adopt a similarly view towards "one world under God", from what I can see Rev. Moon's statements don't suggest that he holds this view, hence the prevalent supposition among critics that the monarchy he envisions would (immediately or eventually) suppress via law the paractice and free expression of any non-unification religion(s). Ed, I suspect that Rev. Moon may have explicitly referred to our First Amendment at some time -- either pro-or con, do you have a source or any insight? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't know what "fluffed for anti-communism" means. Rev. Moon has opposed Communism for most of his life. The interesting questions for me are: (1) how intense has his opposition been? (2) What effect has this had in the world? Another interesting question is a matter of dispute between supporters and critics: (3) How much of Rev. Moon's opposition to Communism is religiously motivated? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note: It seems to me that a biographical article should be mainly about what the person has done, not what he would have liked to do. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Rev. Moon has (by his own admission) exercised considerable political power to advance an agenda in support of a vision. That vision is quite relevant, I think. To the extent that Rev. Moon has described that vision, it should be represented here (IMHO).riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Theocracy

Removed section:

  • Reverend Moon rejects the idea of separation between Church and State,[citation needed] and has called for a one-world government[citation needed] under the United Nations with "True Parents" appointed to the role of Secretary General in "eternity".<ref>Foundation Day 1997</ref>

Better to say that Critics X and Y claim that Rev. Moon rejects this separation. And please cite the critics who make this claim.

The church makes a distinction between "separation of church and state" and "the separation of religion and politics". As explained by longtime Moon aide Colonel Pak (paraphrasing from memory here to save time), the purpose of the separation of church and state is to prevent government from violating the freedom of religion. The US is a model of this, in the eyes of the church, with two -- count 'em, two! -- clauses in the First Amendment touching on this. (1) The government cannot establish a state religion and make people believe in it or follow it; see establishment clause. (2) The government cannot stop people from believing in or following whatever religion they choose; see free exercise clause.

On the other hand, Colonel Pak explained in Truth Is My Sword that there is nothing wrong with religion trying to influence politics. To give an example of my own, suppose I have a religious motive for opposing theft, murder, and adultery (see Ten Commandments) because I'm Jewish or Christian. I would then be inclined for religious reasons to vote for laws, lawmakers, or leaders who would support a prohibition of these crimes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed...I thought we'd been through this, Rev. Moon has described exactly that scenario in the UC sourced speech I cited and in several other speeches, so no need to position this as "Critics say"...don't have time now for chapter and verse, so I'm reverting and trust you'll read the source(s) again to confirm to your satisfaction... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert your reversion, but I think you are misinterpreting the quotation.
Please help me distinguish between (a) the correctly quoted passage and (b) the interpretation of the passage. Bear in mind that I've been in the church 30 years and might be more familiar with what Rev. Moon means than the average person. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed...and sorry if I got a little POINTy. I've attempted to address you "interpretation" question above. If you feel strongly about this, do you want to move it to a sandbox and play with it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sandbox idea is an excellent one, but for now let's just keep going based on our mutual respect and good will, okay?

This was an improvement, I feel.

The difficult thing to express is the distinction between government and "the Kingdom of heaven". Perhaps there is something there which is too obvious for words, something which goes without saying. So let me try to say it.

"Government" implies to me the use of force to compel people to act in a certain way. "You vill eat zis and you vill LIKE it!" (if I may evoke a childish stereotype)

The kingdom of heaven, in my view, is a purely voluntary association. Kind of like an amateur baseball team sponsored by the local bowling alley. No one makes you join, and there are no penalties or rewards - other than the sheer joy of helping your teammates to win! --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your POV. Let me paraphrase to see if I have it. You would assert that Rev. Moon's view is that his vision for the world is no different than what we have in the U.S. -- "One Nation (World) under God", except that there would be a Monarchy (with SOME level of power or influence) above i.e. "Lord of Lords, King of Kings", but that monarchy COULD have no more or less relationship to the legislative process as the Queen of England has in the U.K. Does that sum up your view?
Now, the very first words of our First Amendment clearly draw the line. Given all Rev. Moon has had to say on the topic, I'd think there would be an explicit statement by Moon on this aspect of the First Amendment.
To move away from or diminish the WP characterization here, I think a couple of important questions should be raised and addressed by the experts here:
Would Moon or "True Parents" be involved in oversight or participation (direct or indirect) on the activities of deliberative process associated with an "Abel" U.N.?
Would Non-UC governments be clearly and unambiguously protected to the same extent that we have in the U.S.?
Would (for example) Tibet be allowed to have it's own "spiritual leadership" in the Dalai Lama, even though that tradition is explicitly incompatible with UC theology? If it were allowed, would Tibet's representatives be legally and explicitly assured that their "spiritual" voice would have "equal time"?
I think that ANY form of explicitly theocratic monarchy, even if (initially) purely "figurehead" in nature, would run into many problems, and once a "seat" like that is defined, the potential for future usurpation is very dangerous, and if history is a guide, inevitable.
Now, purely as illustration...let's say for sake of argument, that the Bush Family's involvement in Moon's effort to set up the "Abel U.N" is not purely "benign". Let's say that Neil Bush was in Japan last month in support of the "Abel" initiative for purely political reasons. History would show that any concerns about how Unification Theology (now) will be "used" (as proto-christianity was then, by Constantine) by non-Church members for political gain -- to create a "world papacy" would be very well founded. This is not just idle speculation, it's historical precedent. This is what critics believe, and I think this is the mainstream view (from outside the church) reflects this fear. If we are going to avoid representing statements by Moon that appear to support this statements this way, I'd maintain that we need some reliable sources to say otherwise.
Thoughts? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Compensated endorsements

Rev. Moon is not a tub of margarine. I think we all realize that paying someone to say, "I believe in him", would be seen as worthless. Both pro-church and anti-church are pretty much agreed on the worthlessness of a compensated endorsement.

On the other hand, if a major public figure gives a speech at a Moon-related event and picks up a hefty fee, that is newsworthy. I have in mind Bush Senior getting $100 thousand for a speech in the 1990s. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I love the "tub of margarine" comment, thanks for the smile...
I struggled to find this language in an attempt to tone down the pejorative language and tone of the previous section heading "Buying endorsements of celebrities. I was hoping I'd get a few brownie points for that edit  ;=)
riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. I think this section does bring up a legitimate point of criticism. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

. . . . . . . . . . . <= brownie points for River Guy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

World government

Disputed text:

  • Reverend Moon teaches that religion and politics are inseparable entities, and has previously called for a one-world government under the United Nations with "True Parents" appointed to the role of Secretary General in "eternity":
  • Rev. Moon said, "I established the Women's Federation, Religious Federation, Youth Federation, and all these federations to work with the United Nations for world peace. The day that the United Nations declares True Parents' Day to the world, the entire world will celebrate. Also United Nations should invite True Parents to take the position of Secretary-General in eternity."[13]

I don't dispute all of this, of course. I myself added the quotation. I simply followed the link provided in the footnote. What I dispute is the interpretation of the quote.

Church critics say that Rev. Moon has "called for a one-world government", and I think that is incorrect. However, this is a subtle distinction, so I invite my collaborators to take some time to examine this closely.

"Government" involves the exercise of authority, typically with force. I immediately think of the Taliban flogging women on the street if they show their ankles even for one second, while bring their sick child from a car into a hospital emergency room. I think of some third-world country in Africa executing a girl who is accused of adultery (while hypocritically letting the man go free). Less extreme forms of theocracy would simply require people to attend church, temple, synagogue or mosque - under pain of fine or imprisonment if they skip. This is 180 degrees opposite from what Rev. Moon has in mind, unless after 30 years of studying his teachings I still just don't get it.

"Kingdom of Heaven" involves a vertical relationship with God. If the link to vertical relationship is red, that's because I haven't defined it yet; but it's a key term in Unification Theology. Along with the God-Man relationship is the horizontal relationship between "siblings". This all implies that the K of H is a "One World Family".

I maintain that family and government are distinct.

Steve, help me out here. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that anyone, critic or supporter, thinks that he is going to establish a world government in his lifetime. It is possible that sometime in the future most people will believe in him as the Messiah. It is possible at that time that a world "theocratic" government might be established. I hope that the rights of non-believers and believers in other faiths will still be respected, but that would be up to the people then. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The worry (or claim) that "Moonies are out to take over the world" needs to be addressed, even if it's a fabrication of the Fraser Committee and deprogrammers.
The kind of help I'm looking for, is statements by Rev. Moon which clarify this matter. Yesterday, while reflecting during Sunday Service, I wondered just how much authority the church hierarchy has had over members' lives.
Aren't even full-time missionaries and fund raisers simply just volunteers? Can't they pack up and go home any time they want? Hmm. Perhaps this relates to the mind control controversy. Detractors have claimed that "mind control" prevents people from making moral choices - at the very least, they lack informed consent. I wonder who made such an argument and when. We could balance that with anyone else who made the opposite argument. Or, if there's a clear consensus in the scientific community against the mind control theory, we could just write neutrally that it's a false idea, being used to tarnish Rev. Moon's reputation.
Another thing: shouldn't we have a section on "the struggle for legitimization?" Something like this:
  1. In the US, the church fell into disfavor when traditional Christians, politicians and deprogrammers combined ...
  2. After ___ years, the IRS finally declared that the church was a bona fide religion, granting it permanent tax-exempt status.
  3. In _____, New York State stopped insisting that the 'church' was not religious and dropped its demands for real estate taxes on [this and that property]. In Long Island the parsonage was declared to be a church residence in 20__.
  4. The idea that Rev. Moon's followers "brainwashed" or duped people into joining was discredited in 19__ when the APA said ... (see Margaret Singer).
I'm talking about opposition on religious, political and scientific grounds. Traditional theologians called Rev. Moon's teachings heretical, politicians claimed he was "Communist" or "anti-democratic", and psychologists said he brainwashed people. How much of this kind of talk has died down, and when? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. In general the UC articles need more facts and less opinions. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Steve & Ed

This is a direct quote from Moon's "Divine Principle":

"Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties"

I don't think it gets any clearer than that. It is a simple statement of fact that Unificationism has a clear political ideological component.

Please refer to this month's posting on the SF Bay Area website where Moon lays out the template for becoming a "citizen" of his monarchy. [7]

"Seventh, the Age After the Coming of Heaven that God and True Parents have opened is a time of dramatic change. As registered citizens of Cheon Il Guk, you have the mission to make this era blossom and bear fruit in blessing and glory. Therefore, please become Heaven’s emissaries, fulfilling the dual missions of the “Peace Kingdom Police Force” and the “Peace Kingdom Corps.” Serve humanity under the banner of the Universal Peace Federation, which is working to establish the position of the Abel-type United Nations. Worthy countrymen and women, if not you, then who, will nurture and protect the blessed families and this blessed planet Earth that God has given us?"

My question is, when Moon uses words like "citizen", "police force" and "Kingdom" on this site, is he speaking metaphorically about some "spiritual" idea like the Kingdom of God in the Bible? Or, in his mind, and the mind of the followers, is the idea of "citizen" and "Kingdom" a literal and political reality? If so, documenting these political goals here is "more facts and less opinions", isn't it?

This kind of information is extremely relevant.

Please also refer to the Oath of citizenship (United States) where it clearly states that we pledge to have no "allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"

Speculating on whether or not "people of God led by Christ (Moon's family?) will form organizations analogous to today's political parties" ever comes to pass isn't the point really. An article like this, in Wiki, should make all of the societal goals of his organizations clear for the sake of the readers. Isn't this at the heart of what people want to get out of an encyclopedia article? Real information and not just PR "fluff."

I think a possible illustrative example is the history section of the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where there is a discussion of how the church gave up its theocracy and the notion of a literal kingdom and became highly productive members of American society.

Documenting these facts doesn't necessarily mean you are a "church critic."

Another example might be the discussion about the political activities of Father Divine who, with Mother Divine, founded the International Peace Mission movement.

Respectfully Marknw (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Marknw that these things should be mentioned. But still Rev. Moon is most noted as the founder of a religious movement and as an anti-communist activist, not as the founder of a political party. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with Marknw here. The problem I had before with some of his edits was his repeatedly re-entering exactly the same phrasing (some of it poorly worded) without regard to the surrounding material or the flow of the article. The issues Marknw raises here are important and some such facts should be included - many readers would find those things to be more important than some of the material already in the article. Steve is also right in pointing out that Rev. Moon is primarily a religious leader, so political material should not be so overdone as to dominate. -Exucmember (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all making valid points here, which leads to the question of how to describe Moon's political views. As a follower, I believe he is first and foremost a religious leader.

Moon told Frederick Sontag:

  • Our movement is basically a spiritual and religious one. We are destined to change the world because our goal is not just spiritual but physical as well. It involves everybody. How shall we do it? Not by military take-over or violence, but through a process of education, particularly education of the leadership of nations. This is where the Unification Church and I get involved. We go out and witness about God not only to the multitude of people on the streets, but also to those people who could lead the country toward God. Our desire is to put new life into their hearts, that they might become God-centered leaders. This is our process for changing the world. Sontag (1976)

Marknw quoted from Exposition of the Principle, and here is the same quote with more preceding context:

The Significance of the Separation of Powers
... By analogy with the human body, whose organs function in accordance with the subtle commands of the brain, all the institutions of the ideal global society are to abide by the desires of God. Just as the commands of the brain are transmitted to every part of the body through the peripheral nervous system branching out from the spinal cord, in the ideal world God's guidance is conveyed to the entire society through Christ, who corresponds to the spinal cord, and God-loving leaders, who correspond to the peripheral nervous system. The peripheral nervous system branching out from the spinal cord corresponds to a nation's political parties. Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties. [8]

Moon also told Sontag:

  • I do not think in terms of taking over the power or government of a nation. I am not ambitious to become a senator or the head of state of this or any other country. But as a messenger of God, my responsibility is to relay the message of God to the people who actually run the country and the society, to those who can actually influence the nation. [Sontag, op cit.]

So there is really a dispute between Moon opponents and Moon followers as to how God's will (as seen by Moon) is going to be manifested in society:

  1. Opponents say that Moon intends to take over the world by force and establish a dictatorship
  2. Supporters say this is a misreading of Moon, and that Moon intends only that people of faith and conscience will voluntarily perform good deeds

I see no way for either side to convince the other. Moon followers (like me) are convinced that they have the inside track on what Moon means. Moon critics are convinced that they understand Moon better than his own followers.

As Wikipedians, I would like to suggest that we simply describe this split, rather than trying to say that one side is right and the other wrong. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Generally in agreement with the variety of POVs here, but the reason I introduced the topic in the first place is that "anti-communist" is an explicitly political statement (theo-political in light of his opposition on the basis of the atheistic aspects) , and I felt then and still feel that "anti-communism" was/is being given undue weight in the absence of any other discussion of Rev. Moon's political or theo-political views. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. Moon is outspoken on his theological opposition to Communism's militant atheism:
  • Moon to Sontag: "Communism is trying to take the world by force. But God will take the world by love. We must become the embodiment of this love." [9]
The dispute over Moon's political views mainly concerns the degree of force which the two sides maintain that Moon (or his followers) intend to use to enforce their conception of God's will. On the one hand, we have quotes from Moon contrasting the "force" of Communists with his own idea of "taking the world by love". On the other hand there are Fraser, Hassan & others asserting things like, "Moon's stated ambitions include the establishment of a one-world government run as an automatic theocracy by Moon and his leaders." --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to try to read Rev. Moon's mind, but might "automatic" not also be translatable from the original Korean as "natural"? Hence "love", being the "natural" state then be re-construed in the context of Moon's vision as "natural theocracy" -- a reasonable alternative? Of course this would be synthesis on my part without some reliable source to back it up... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to dig up the translation that Andrew Wilson made of the passage. Till then, I'm inclined to regard your interpretation as closer in spirit than that of most critics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

By the way, I made extensive changes to the politics and controversies sections. I may have been sloppy, so I invite a simple revert (with no danger of it sparking an edit war) if I've made a mess of it. We can always go back to the article history. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree that the changes were extensive. Maybe not so much sloppy as hasty...tag and talk would be better, but I am not inclined to just revert. You (Ed) have earned due respect here as an expert and so (unless others object) let's discuss the several deletions rather than just revert. All in favor???
  • 1): Cite critics for "Propaganda" section -- wow, don't know where to begin except to direct attention here. Do we really need to make a laundry list?
  • 2): No time now for #2...will add later.
riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I was came to Wikipedia tonight to make some edits Ed might have liked, but I saw what he did here and thought it needed some work (before I looked at this Talk page). Demanding citations for criticisms that have been made in the press at least 100 times seems a bit peevish, considering how much in Unification articles is poorly sourced. On the other hand, finding a single (representative) source should be easy. The criticism section should convey the criticisms accurately, and not be overly apologetic Unification Church POV in their presentation.
The section "Ownership of vast enterprises" is only from Unification Church POV. As I said in edit summary: "first paragraph is somewhat spurious church argument, second paragraph is unsourced OR church argument" -Exucmember (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, Steve and Exucmember. I led an extended discussion on why it is important to characterize the criticism explicitly using the word "propaganda". I recognized then and do now that the term is a pejorative, and I invested extraordinary effort here at the talk page in discussions including all here and in offline research before finally using the term in the article, and it has remained there until last night, removed without discussion.

  • Point: Rev Moon cannot simultaneously; (1) be a self-proclaimed messiah, (2) be head of a global "church", (3) be the ideological founder of a global media empire with well-known political bias that has existed solely because of billions of dollars of UC subsidies since inception 25 years ago, and (4) be speaking publically about how he covertly uses that media arm in support of various UC related agenda -- without generating well-deserved and well-founded criticism of his media as propaganda and himself as a propagandist, either in the world at large or as that world is reflected here on Wikipedia. The use of the word is clearly supported and IMO is necessary. The criticism of Moon as a propagandist is among the most important and notable criticisms, his media impacts hundreds of millions of people and this is not a place where Wikipedia should be pussyfooting around in deference to the church's efforts to mute, dissipate or mitigate this criticism.
    • Comment on point: Well, he's certainly engaging in advocacy, I'll concede that! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This thirty-year timeline of news items from Google's news archives (not just a "web search") explicitly associates Rev. Moon with the word "propaganda". A similar search substituting "Unification Church" for "Myung Moon" gives the same length of history but only half as many news items, which illustrates why the critics who describe this "propaganda" should be represented here.

I am changing the heading back, and will welcome whatever discussion follows. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who, in restoring lots of deleted criticism, chose not to keep the word "propaganda" in a heading. I hadn't caught your discussion here. It wasn't "the church's efforts to mute."
But I would guess that your wording is doomed, and, I'm afraid, rightly so. I very much appreciate your looking into this and getting support for your arguments, which I agree with. But the "Point" paragraph above, though well-argued and logically valid, is essentially original research. Equally important, a heading is not the right place for a pejorative term. It will just be changed repeatedly by both church supporters and those who are not but who are nevertheless fair-minded people who don't think a pejorative is appropriate as a statement of fact in an encyclopedia article. It seems to me the appropriate place for it is in the text, putting the statement in its proper place - in the voice of the critic - citing at least one published source (preferably quoting them) that concludes "propaganda" or "propagandist" rather than this conclusion coming from a Wikipedia editor. As an ex-member, I'm aware that Rev. Moon frequently makes outlandish, boastful pronouncements about how great or influential he is (one humorous one was boasting about how masterful he was at learning English, which, at that very moment, more than a decade after moving to the U.S., was about 60% incomprehensible). Based on my extensive knowledge of such statements, I would say he's really not as dangerous as some might fear, and I personally would vote for Moon's claims about the Washington Times responding to his desires or directives be set in the context of his fanciful boasting in general. -Exucmember (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ex...I agree that pejoratives should be avoided if at all possible, but this one is the uniquely and particularly appropriate word, it "Does no harm" (that isn't already done, as previously established), and is off the charts on the "notability" scale. I am sensitive to your concern over WP:OR relative to the point I made, but that's just a supporting argument. The main point is that Wikipedia is, by intent and design, a reflection of the world of reliable sources on any topic. We neither add nor take away "weight" from whatever the sum-total of reliable sources are saying, we reflect notability as it's found (including mainstream criticism), and in the context of a BLP we "do no harm". I say we keep it, and get an outside opinion if we continue to disagree. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, you make a compelling argument. Perhaps a pejorative word that actually reflects the criticism can be retained in a title, and WP:OR avoided, if right in the first phrase of the sentence that follows the title it is clearly stated that the word "propaganda" is used by critics to describe his media. Even so, there's one point that you haven't directly addressed. If Wikipedia is to be a "reflection of the world of reliable sources," then I assume you mean the word "propaganda" is there because it is what critics are saying. In that case, the word "propaganda" in the heading should be in quotation marks. Are you arguing that the article should imply not only that critics are calling it "propaganda" (quotation marks in heading) but that Wikipedia is calling it "propaganda" (no quotation marks in heading)? -Exucmember (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh...very good counterpoint! I would counter-counter (mildly) that the heading in question is under "criticisms" and thereby all subheadings will easily and readily be identified by readers as criticisms. But I think we're on to something larger here WRT the overall construction of the article. In the meantime, I am OK with doing something to make it clear that we are documenting the criticism of Moon as a propagandist as opposed to presenting the criticism as a "Wikiopinion" on the matter. For now, if that means putting propaganda in quotes (in the section preferably, in the heading if you must), I'm fine with that at least for now...no time at present to add more. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh...forgot to mention...I understood your first invocation of WP:OR as you applied it to the POINT I made here on the talk page, but I'm unclear how you see WO:OR as being relevant to the use of the p-word in the article. Is it just in the way the word is presented? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR in the article (as opposed to in your POINT paragraph) is only relevant if you were trying to argue that Wikipedia (rather than critics) can call it "propaganda."
Btw, Ed - or someone who knows how to archive pages - isn't this discussion page getting too long? -Exucmember (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is 185 kilobytes long. I have made an archive of it, but I hesitate to "trim" this page. (Does everyone here including Mark and River trust me not to selectively keep only the most flattering bits? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a critical and ongoing discussion and I would react strongly to Unification Church members or ex-members taking the initiative to choose which sections should be archived or not. As soon as we have (besides me) a voice not affiliated (present or past) with the Church, this section stays. The "propaganda" question is not "doomed", it remains unaddressed to my satisfaction. Maybe we need an RfC? WNDL42 (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Communist

I see that this section has been removed. I really think that this point should at least be mentioned. For instance the Yoido Island speech in 1975. I would think that for most people speaking to an audience of a million people would be a notable event in a life. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"As head of the UC"

I removed this as a reason for controversy and criticism from the intro. The UC is a very small group of people. Rev. Moon's controversy mainly comes from his political stance against communism and secondarily from his interpretation of the Bible which fundamentalist Christians disagree with, not from being the leader of the UC. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree, Steve, but don't forget that opponents of the church see him as the "cult ringleader". I've been in for 30 years (99% of my adult life), and the anti-cult aspect of it used to be just as big as the theological and political.
Opponents oppose the church and (its founder) Rev. Moon, because BOTH challenge the status quo. Moon (and we 'Moonies') did not merely show up with a few novel theological ideas (like "Eve seduced by Archangel Lucifer" and "Jesus did not come to die"). The man and his movement are trying to change a world which would rather carry on business as usual.
Communists don't want to give up their power. Traditional Christians don't want to offer their loyalty to a yellow-skinned "Second Coming". Parents who want their children to get good jobs after university don't want their kids in a mind control cult.
Apart from these concerns are legitimate worries (even of mainstream Americans) about what Rev. Moon's real plans are. So this article needs to be greatly expanded. My cuts from 2 days ago were indeed hasty, but ExUC caught my biggest errors - no harm done, eh?
We need more about Rev. Moon's accomplishments, especially in terms of organizations he started which have had an impact on society: businesses he inspired (whether church-owned or member-owned); schools and colleges; hospitals; newspapers, magazines (any cable TV channels or videotape distributors maybe?); theological and scientific conferences; peace-building activites like MEPI and international diplomacy (like meeting Gorbachev and Kim Il-sung).
Did Moon's visit to Kim Il-Sung have any effect on North-South Korean relations? Did the Gorbachev meeting merely foreshadow the renaissance of religious freedom and private property onwership in Russia, or did Moon stir Gorby to action?
Let's create an outline and get to work. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed, Communists didn't want to give up their power, and neither do the neocons.... Let's make room in the outline please for a section on Moon's accomplishments in helping establish neoconservatism, ok? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, WRT: "Apart from these concerns are legitimate worries (even of mainstream Americans) about what Rev. Moon's real plans are." -- Actually, I think the more legitimate concerns are (based on historical precedent) that the political 'leaders' Team B have "used" Rev. Moon's anti-communism to recruit him and his followers to an agenda he (they) probably were not aware of. History teaches that it's not the 'church' that uses the state to meet it's goals...history teaches that it's the other way around. I doubt that Rev. Moon has ever read Leo Strauss..., so he'd have had no way to know who his "friends" were or where thier plans would lead us. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we say this about Rev. Moon's political views?

Rev. Moon has a strong preference for democracy over Communism. He also holds in common with most other Christians a hope for the Kingdom of God over any manmade system.

I wrote this myself (see above), and then forgot that I wrote it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the source. If there are good sources, I think we can say "publically expressed a strong preference...", but, in the only speech I've seen in which he explicitly referenced both systems together, he expresses neutrality - no preference on "communism vs. democracy" as long as whatever system has the "headwing" monarchy in place. I've also seen statements where Moon is openly hostile to American-style democracy, so I think we'd need to see a fair number of sources pretty strongly and explicitly expressing Moon's preference for democracy (as most people interpret the term) to counter what he's said to the contrary. Also, language that says Moon "holds a hope in common with..." is a bit of a stretch. Most Christians I know quote Jesus on "government" (the Romans) as saying "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's". Jesus explicitly and repeatedly rejected the idea that he or his followers would get involved in government, and not one of his disciples ever made any attempt in that direction. Your statement has some technical merit, but (intentionally or not) contains an underlying message comparing Moon's highly political theology to "christians", while downplaying the fact that Rev. Moon is "The King" in his scenario, and his children after him. Honestly, I do want to allow for the possibility that Rev. Moon's ambitions may have "mellowed with age", but let's see some evidence.I think a better comparison would contain an explicit reference to a christian belief. Personally the one I think fits best is that "Moon sees his mission as an attempt to establish, in the form of the "True Parents", a monarchy that fulfills the prophesy of The book of Revelation, "Lord of lords, King of kings...has returned to lead His children home." Ever listen to "Supper's Ready" by Peter Gabriel? Oops...I'm showing my age -- that was the album "Foxtrot" from 1972. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cult leader"

For one thing Moon has not done a single thing to prove he is the messiah. In fact he has through his followers in Japan ruined countless Japanese lives. He will most likely die of old age in the 5-15 years and this will furthur prove that he is not the messiah. If he is not the messiah, yet claims to be the messiah then his is a fake, con artist or mentally insane. This is the common beleif of everyone in the world except for his followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.71.134 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there to say that either Moon is a con-artist (as his daughter and daughter-in-law believe) or that he is mentally insane? It is common belief in society that a person who beleives he has spoken to Jesus directly or is himself the Messiah is in fact insane. The following definition is from Webster dictionary 1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) 2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility 3 a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable

The leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il, believes he is god and most people feel he is insane.

If Moon is not insane by definition then he is a fake and a con artist. It has all ready been well documented that he has not lead the True Family. He has squandered millions of dollars on his childrens drugs and abuses. he has cheated on his wife etc. A UC member may deny these facts, but it is a fact that his eledest son cheated and used drugs. It is even in the official record that he failed numerous drug tests and was arrected for drunk driving. Another Moon son died from jumping off a building and was on drugs. These facts alone contradict Moons teachings and excludes himself and his family from being a True Family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.167.87 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people do not think Kim Jong-il is insane (not a good example of insanity) but he does appear to be treated as a God by many North Koreans. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

There is a lot of proof, documentaries, and belief around the world that the UC is a cult. In fact 6 billion people in the world feel it is a cult. members in the US have stabalized relations by sucking money from Japan. in Japan things are a disasater and it has more cult status now than ever. It may be true that many members in the US feel they are not in a cult and are trying to promote a revamped direction for the organization which would make it more mainstream, but that does not exclude its cult status in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.167.87 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It matters not to wikipedia whether he is the messiah or not, indeed whether such a concept would even exist int he real world. Him not being the messiah and therefore must be a cult leader is not an argument for us as we are only interested in writing an encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are dead wrong. Everything the man does proceeds from his professed belief that he is the messiah. If you want to understand the man, you must know this fact. Indeed, upon close examination it is really difficult to conclude that he doesn't actually believe it himself. He simply wouldn't have done a lot of the things he did if he didn't sincerely believe it in some form. Of course, that's just my opinion. The fact is that he publicly says he is the messiah, and it's clear that the bulk of his actions conform to what he says that means. It is the single most important statement of Unification beliefs that could be in the article. If you don't think beliefs matter, I suggest you nominate the Bible for deletion. -Exucmember (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
100% agreement here. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree with all that too, and his belief that he is the messiah is absolutely necessary. I guess I should reframe and say wikipedia editors mustn't take a stance on whether he is the messiah or not or whether such a concept is meaningful or not. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I will try something. I hope it makes everyone happy. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't have a name but I seem to agree. Saying he and followers beleive he is the messiah is enough for people to decide on their own if they agree or think he is a fake or insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.167.87 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Rev. Moon would not be offended if people think he is insane. He said himself, "We leaders should leave the tradition that we have become crazy for God." -The Way of God's Will Chapter 1-3. Leaders -Steve Dufour (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If he thought he was a fried egg, he'd be insane (as C.S. Lewis famously said of Jesus). If he thinks he was asked by Jesus to carry on his unfulfiled mission, then he might be a heretic or very boastful, or just indulging in wishful (grandiose) thinking -- if he's wrong. But if he's right, then guess what? We few people here are writing the modern Gospels of the new Messiah!
Either way, let's make Rev. Moon the best documented messiah (or messiah wannabe) in history. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some recent edits were made that do not conform to the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia's policies directed at the development of encyclopedia articles. I have sifted through these and restored a lot of information but have also added more, so I hope others will not carelessly revert what I've just done in the process of fixing whatever similar poor-quality edits may be just down the road. -Exucmember (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve, for clarity and transparency's sake, will you kindly post diffs so we all know what is is that you believe "does not conform to the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia's policies" as regards "fixing whatever similar poor-quality edits" you are hoping we will avoid? IMO, your editorial comment above paints editors and their edits here with an overly broad brush. WNDL42 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Moon's second (common law) wife Myung Hee Kim

Let me say again, I don't think the Unificationists who keep changing Hak Ja Han to Moon's second wife want to argue that Moon's second (common law) wife Myung Hee Kim was not really his wife; in that case he would have been committing adultery. And I'm sure they don't want to pretend that she didn't exist. -Exucmember (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with the approach you are suggesting. I've personally always thought of Han as Father Moon's third wife.
I think the problem US members have with it, is that they don't like to mention the "gossipy" (or "tabloid" stuff) because (1) it embarrasses them or (2) they don't know how to explain it to their witnessing contacts.
A similar issue is the number of Mrs. Moon's children. I've heard members refer to 13 or even 12 children, although Rev. Chung Hwan Kwak clearly points out that she gave birth to 14 children: 7 of each sex. He even quoted a poem Rev. Moon wrote, based on the Chinese characters of each child's name. This is an article in Today's World magazine from 5 or 10 years ago.
It becomes a public relations issue. However, this article is not church PR. It is for reference. When people want answers, they should be able to find them here. And if any facts or interpretations are in dispute, both sides of every dispute "should be described fairly" in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Marriages

I think the article would be better if the information about his marriages was presented as a narrative, not that the first one is mentioned in passing. Thanks for considering this. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A very good idea. The marriages are central both to church teaching and in news reports, where they often take center stage. Do you think they would be better as a list (where some of the content would probably have to be in a footnote or in "see main article" because there's just too much information) or sprinkled throughout the article, following the chronology of the middle sections? -Exucmember (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A list seems like a bad idea. I was thinking of a section about his family life. It also could be covered in the sections about various time periods in his life as you suggest. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of Moon's infidelity

We need to explain why this is important. Is it just gossip, or is there a point to it?

If there is a church critic who says that Rev. Moon is violating his own teachings, then we can quote them like this:

  • Heeza Cheetah called Moon's integrity into question in the matter of sexual purity, asserting that he had "affairs" with several women while he was married. Cheetah's claim is mentioned in a book by Moon's ex-daughter-in-law, Nansook Hong, who says Mrs. Moon told her that .....
  • Cheetah says that it is inconsistent for Moon to call adultery the greatest sin, while indulging in that sin himself.

We can also give the church side of this, if we can find it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much Unification Church POV on this page from COI editors -- tagging

This is a years long running battle. Enough is enough. Moon is the most controversial "religious" leader on the planet and no encyclopedia (other that the Unification Church's own wiki) would present an article like this.

Tagging article and talk page as COI and NPOV, I'm thinking WP:COAT as well. WNDL42 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question whether there are controversies about Rev. Moon, his movement, etc. The obvious split is between (1) his supporters and (2) his detractors. Steve Dufour, are you saying he's not controversial? If so, by controversial do you mean something other than "regarded differently by various groups of people"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I was a little surprised by Wnd142's tags. There is a lot of POV, but I don't know if you can get around that. As long as all the facts are allowed to be present so readers can decide for themselves. My concern has always been that Unification Thought, because of its literalism and fundamentalism, has very concrete political implications that are very important to illustrate. In that regard the article is better than it was before. Moon's anti-communist political activities were documented here, but my question was: would he make the same righteous moral stand against fascism? -- especially when his own political philosophy and actions seem very autocratic and fascist like. I'm sincere in this. I'm not trying to use the word "fascist" as a pejorative. Again, it might be a good idea to see how other Wiki articles on religious groups are written. For your reference here is Wikipedia's definition of fascism:

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism."

Marknw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Marknw, you hit the nail on the head. Moon's "anticommunism" has some basis in sincerity I'm sure, mostly because the communism Moon opposes is explicitly atheist, and Moon's agenda is based on moontheism -- fundamentally a theocratic facism, exactly as you say. The truth is (in my own humble opinion) that the "anticommunism" stuff is propaganda. If you go to see the "anti-ideologies" entry at Propaganda model, I think it's pretty clear that Moon has been leveraging "anticommunism" for propaganda value, see specifically Propaganda_model#Anti-Ideologies.3B_substitutes_for_anti-communism, Now...consider how Moon's media have been "pumping" the new fear of "evil" by being "anti-islamofacist". From that perspective you can see how Moon politics exist to create fear and hatred and division, and Moon sows his seeds in the discord he creates. Creepy stuff...but for more info, see Power of Nightmares. WNDL42 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Wndl42
I am concerned about the unintended suffering that can come from any unexamined religious belief system used for political purposes -- Islamic or otherwise. I believe the Unification Church can mature and go beyond this time in their history just like many other denominations have (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). I would caution against being too zealous one way or the other. Most Unificationists I know are wonderful people just trying to do what they think is right. I saw that film you referred to and don't know if I buy into the conspiracy theory nature of it. Fear mongering can come from many directions. What I would hope is that this article on Moon could be balanced, respectful and trustworthy from all points of view.
Respectfully Marknw (talk)
I think the article is more than respectful, even with the recent change to the intro. Is there (in the article) something that seems unbalanced in a way that is unfair to Rev. Moon? Feel free to reply inline. WNDL42 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

UC POV overdone here

Now, my opinion (having watched this article since September) is that this article reflects a "unduly favorable, church-centric POV" that is otherwise not found in nature. For example, if you examine and compare three separate samplings of (a) www hits, and (b) "Google News" archive hits and (c) scholarly and literature references from "Google Scholar", you will find that all three show that the world of reliable sources reflects back to us a view that is overwhelmingly critical and negative. Meanwhile this article looks more like the Unification Church's own New World Encyclopedia, for which at least two UC members commenting and editing here are also writing.
If this article accurately reflected, in (a) balance and (b) tone and (c) weight, what the world of reliable sources actually says about Rev. Moon, it would be far, far, far uglier than it is. If an article on Wikipedia looks ugly, that does not mean it's, "unbalanced", "disrespectful" or overly "zealous". Our job one at Wikipedia is to "get it right", as regards BLP, "do no harm" and simply refect -- without distortion, without exageration, and without mitigation. There is no "harm" done if "getting it right" (reflecting the world of reliable sources both in tone and balance) just happens to result in an article that is unflattering. Our job is not to "avoid being unflattering".
Now, how can the Unification Church "mature", if it's fundamental theology is inextricably linked to an explicitly theo-facist doctrine? That this organization can "mature" is unsupported by any reliable sources I have seen. Maybe there's room for a section in the article for discussing the views of ExUCmember and others who are looking for this organization to mature? I'll go for that. WNDL42 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wnd142, I agree that someone who is dispassionate about the subject needs to come in and clean up the article and remove the stuff that is too superlative and the stuff that is "potentially libellous." This is suppose to be an encyclopedia. My experience has been that there are those that don't see the superlatives and there are those that don't see the libellous stuff. It appears to me that you have very strong feelings on the subject. I have strong feelings too, so I don't feel qualified to do it. I don't want to stumble into the "propaganda" trap myself. I just try to add my two cents here in the talk section. By the way the article on the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might be a good historical example of how a church can mature out of a theocratic kingdom to participate in our democracy. Their history was very violent compared to the UC. A good example resource may be the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Sun Myung Moon. I love this quote. It seems like what the country needs now:

"With malice toward none and charity for all, let us bind up the nation's wounds." -- Abraham Lincoln

respectfully Marknw (talk)

Inline response to veiled accusations

"Dear" Marknw, don't condescend please, it's insulting and dickish.
(a) Who is this mythical "someone who is dispassionate about the subject" who will magically appear to "come in and clean up" and replace the "unbalanced", "disrespectful" and overly "zealous"? Who indeed. Hmmmm, Moon likes to quote "jesus the failure", so...oh wait. Whoops! Jesus won't work because he says "Call no man your father upon the earth", so we can assume Jesus (having already been called a failed messiah), would be pissed off at Moon too. If he were here I suggest that Jesus would be about as dispassionate about Moon as he was in the temple with the money-changers. If Jesus were here he'd probably be quoting revelation and reminding us (loudly) that Moon's real name is "dragon word".
(b) Let me give you "dear", a small lesson in what tendentious moonie editing looks like in the real world.
  • (1) I make this edit, pursuant to a previous "agreement" with Ed Poor about sourcing from the Unification Church owned and operated New World Encyclopedia, a propaganda wiki that both Poor and DuFour write for (OBTW). (Can you spell COI? Yes, I knew you could.)
  • (2) Now, as I (personally) recognized that that the entry I made, which was taken 100% verbatim from the moonies' own "New World Encyclopedia", did not reflect well on the beautiful tradition of the Korean dragon, I then went off to research Korean dragon so that I could present this "dragon" in a balanced encyclopedic context, and you will note that one hour and four minutes later I made this very "nice to Rev. Moon" edit here, adding balance and context in Moon's favor.
  • (3) But in the mere one hour and four minutes between my two edits, my former "friend" Ed Poor goes on a wild tear frothing-at-the-mouth moonie freak-out and and makes twelve edits in 32 minutes, slaughtering weeks of other editor's work as Poor blatantly re-moonifies the article. Any talk page entries from "Uncle Ed" during this wholesale POV pushing slaughter? Not ONE.
Get the picture now, my "dear" Marknw?
While you are at it, GET THIS "dear", if you ever again imply, assert, editorialize, insinuate, opine or otherwise give me the slightest reason to interpret your comments as meant to denigrate me or my contributions here I will bring you and every moonie that ever POV'd this article up on every wiki-charge I can think of. Have I made myself utterly and unambiguously and absolutely crystal-friggin clear..."dear" Marknw?WNDL42 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

End inline response

(sorry for the interruption) WNDL42 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree that the article has some bias in places that favor the church. But I have no intention of trying to balance it by adding/changing things that are biased in the opposite direction. (I'm not saying you did that, WNDL42/RiverGuy - I didn't really look carefully at your edits yet.)
I did see one edit I think I would change: It seems to me more encyclopedic to report the specific claims Moon has made rather than to presume what members believe. Members might believe more than has been claimed anyway, but in this case grandiose claims have been made publicly, so there's no need arguing what (most/all/some) members believe - let's go with something concrete and referenced, like was in the intro previously on this point.
Also, we should strive for accuracy. Just because some false portrait of some aspect of the Unification Church has been repeated in newspapers and/or magazines (there are such cases) is no reason to give it preference over something that can be shown to be true with references that are even more reliable. There's no point in giving much weight to attack pieces.
I think it would be constructive to tag the places that are biased and say what the bias is. It's often difficult for the church members to see their bias (this is also true of devoted opponents). One such instance is "Ownership of vast enterprises", which I tagged, and someone (Ed?) illegitimately untagged. The solution is to cite the specific examples of vast ownership and Moon family "opulence." Especially in the criticism section, we need to say what the criticisms are, and we don't need a church defense for every one. (In the case of "Ownership of vast enterprises" there is only a church defense!)
WNDL42/RiverGuy, you should say exactly what you mean by the coatrack problem here.
Btw, I hold out very little hope that the Unification Church will reform or mature in the near future. Moon could have taken the "True" theology in the direction of saying that anyone who inherits his "victory" (say, his claimed life if service) is "True" regardless of physical lineage or organizational membership. But the "True Family" (Moon's family) has not really been expanded to include the whole UC membership or the family of humanity, and the Moon family is treated as the royal family. What "church historian" Michael Breen calls "formation stage culture" (Korean traditional culture with its authoritarianism/sycophantism and other patterns that Divine Principle claims have been superceded) has taken precedence over "growth stage culture." So the next generation of leadership will be from the Moon family rather than because of external capability or internal Godliness. But the UC will either reform and mature, or wither.
-Exucmember (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, (a) my heated inline response to Marknw will answer the essence of your question, I think, and (b) I support your "tagging" idea. WNDL42 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Exucmember, My feeling is that if one were to study the history of religion as a whole, you begin to see that a strict literal interpretation of any belief system can lead to all kinds of problems -- and it has. If the UC can go beyond their literalism they may begin to focus on the "connotations" of their beliefs rather than the "denotation." Looking at any belief system can seem crazy to someone outside the faith. But if you can think that the "strange" narratives are primarily symbolic of universal ideals, then the need for actual and literal "royal families" disappears. I guess that is what I mean by maturing. Sorry if this seems too pedantic. Marknw (talk)
Dear WNDL42, I have to apologize for not paying attention the edit history well enough. Thank you for all your hard work. I do think that Wikipedia does have a policy of being respectful to other editors. From my understanding, the goal is to make Wikipedia a high quality, rational, trustable, and fair resource. I don't think that strong emotion and threats makes for good science. In the past I also had edit battles with Ed Poor and others. I would hate to see Wikipedia used for "PR Fluff" or for any one person's personal vendetta either. I think readers can smell POV from both sides and would not trust something that was obviously pro-Moon or obviusly just more Moon bashing. That is why I think that the writing in this article should reflect a sober encyclopedic tone. What makes encyclopedias valuable is that they give precise definitions to things that people can trust and use. It is our only hope against the bambosaling abstractions that ideologs of every variety use to confuse the public. My prior comments were only entended to try to encourage calm and clarity. I do not think that partisans on either side make good encyclopedias. I question your impartiality when you use pajoritive epithets like "moonie freak-out." Respectfully Marknw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming I have made my point sir, and hoping you will forgive me for using your comment as a "springboard", I would remind you...your use of loaded language (including, but not limited to your reference to "zealous", "libel", etc.) in the context of my work is highly inflammatory -- though you might not have intended it to have the effect it does. I am (a) 100% proud of the wiki-quality of every edit I've made, and (b) resentful of characterizations that paint a "false" impression, and (c) very much "done" with pissing in the wind trying to assume good faith here. Editing against the relentless "erosion" of this article's entirely appropriate and NPOV characterizations of "Moon as the rest of the world sees him" is a difficult job...UC elbows are thrown at me constantly...and I have and will continue to throw an elbow back when I take one, and I generally give as good as I get...albeit I am less "subtle". Please be more careful with your characterizations. "Propaganda", when practiced well is a subtle art, but it has an unmistakeable "smell" to it, as you rightly point out -- and I have a good nose for it by now. WNDL42 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor issue - User:Marknw talk page edit storms

Marknw, somehow a single comment you made here resulted in 37 edits, which serves to (a) really mess up the talk page history, making it nearly impossible for other editors to identify what and where and to whom you were speaking, and (b) makes it similarly difficult/impossible to compare edits on the article to discussions on the talk page, and (c) would seem to be an unecessary load on Wikipedia's database hardware and software. I've never seen this problem on Wikipedia before, are you using an off-wiki editing tool perhaps? It also happened here (12 edits - one comment), and here (32 edits - one comment).

Informative edit summaries are always good, as well, and all of these 81 edits lack any edit summaries.

Anyway, just to let you know that this does present a problem, though I'm sure it's not intentional. Please advise. WNDL42 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry All, My bad -- I'll try to get it right before I hit "Save Page." Marknw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe use the "show preview" button...I sometimes do several proofreads that way before hitting "save page"...thx WNDL42 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Windy's right, Mark, but don't take it bad. I've been told endless times to use the preview button; not using it is a hard habit to break. (See? We can all agree on some things, like not troubling one's fellow editors! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience Uncle Ed and Wndl42. Marknw (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How other encyclopedias and sources treat Moon and UC subjects

Let's compare ane contrast the current article with other reliable sources:

Britannica online entry for Unification Church

Unification Church... (75 of 556 words)

Members of the Unification church are often called “Moonies” because the organization was founded by the Korean evangelist Sun Myung Moon. The name, which is considered derisive and insulting by the group, has been used because many people consider the church to be a cult. The official name of the organization is the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of...

Note that at Brittanica, "Sun Myung Moon" has no separate entry, but merely redirects to "Unification Church" WNDL42 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wndl42, I was thinking of this article: Encyclopedia Britannica article on Sun Myung Moon. Respectfully Marknw (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wndl42, Again I want to apologize for speaking before I knew all the details and for being "dickish." I didn't mean to criticize, only to encourage calm. In my wanderings I found this statement of values on a progressive think-tank site that I thought might be valuable. For what it's worth here it is:

"Our work is even-handed, fact based, reliable, and not over-dramatized. Our commitment to mutual respect means that in our work, we do not caricature or demonize the followers of right-wing organizations, and we recognize the abilities of the movement's leadership."

You can find it here.Marknw (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Theocracy section removed

I took out this section:

To many people Rev. Moon's statements about the Kingdom of Heaven sound like a demand for theocracy. Church critics such as Steven Hassan[5] and Rick Ross[6]
Rev. Moon said,
  • "I established the Women's Federation, Religious Federation, Youth Federation, and all these federations to work with the United Nations for world peace. The day that the United Nations declares True Parents' Day to the world, the entire world will celebrate. Also United Nations should invite True Parents to take the position of Secretary-General in eternity."[7]
His position on the First Amendment prohibition against any law respecting an establishment of religion is unclear. Rev. Moon has frequently relied on First Amendment protections in various legal matters relating to himself or the Unification Church, but he also teaches that religion and politics are inseparable entities. Some consider his call for unity between religion and politics contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.[8]

I don't think this can stand up to criticism based on WP's policies about what we can say about living persons. The opinions of two critics are only sourced by their own websites. Then there is a quote from Moon himself. To draw a conclusion from that would be original research, unless a reliable source does first. The last section is sourced by a New York Times article. That is a good source, however the NYT article in question doesn't make the same claims that the paragraph does. Redddogg (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Redddogg, I disagree with your removal of this section all together. Can't it be improved and not totally removed? Something in this article needs to be said about Moon's overwhelming call for a theocracy.
In his own words:

"The democratic world has come to a dead end..."

- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Creation Of The Fatherland, January 1, 1984

"America's intellectual establishment is liberal, godless, secular, humanistic, and anti-religious. We are declaring war against three main enemies: godless communism, Christ-less American liberalism, and secular-humanistic morality. They are the enemies of God, the True Parents, the Unification Church, all of Christianity, and all religions. We are working to mobilize a united front against them."
- Rev. Sun Myung Moon, August 29, 1985

"Through True Love our family shall accomplish the True Family of the Filial Child, the Loyal Subject, the Saint and the Holy Child of the Cheon Il Guk (God's Kingdom on earth.)"
- Church Motto, Sun Myung Moon, January 1, 2003

"There is no doubt that this kingdom is one that the children of God's direct lineage can reign over by upholding the heavenly decree. In other words, it is a nation in which they rule on behalf of God's commands and kingship.Democracy and communism cannot exist in such a kingdom. Once established, it will remain as an eternal state system. Considering these things, isn't it mortifying that you have not yet become the citizens of that kingdom?"
- Sun Myung Moon, March 4, 2005

Call for Theocracy from Moon's "Divine Principle":

"How can democracy accomplish its purpose?...We need to understand that democracy was born to undermine satanic monopolies of power for the purpose of God's final providence to restore, by the will of the people, a heavenly sovereignty under the leadership of the returning Christ."
- Divine Principle Section 7.2.6 Democracy and Socialism

"...Thus, in the ideal world, people of God led by Christ will form organizations analogous to today's political parties..."
- Divine Principle, Section 3.2 The Significance of the Separation of Powers

"If we are to realize the ideal world of one global family which can honor Christ at the Second Advent as our True Parent, surely our languages must be unified...then he will certainly use the Korean language, which will then become the mother tongue for all humanity."
- Divine Principle, Section 5

Recent Moon speeches calling for a theocracy: June 13, 2006, February 12, 2008

Wikipedia's Definition of theocracy

"Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government."

Moon's words again from March 2 2003

"To unify Korea we must unify church and state. We must establish a political party and then unify church and state. We must be able to unify the UN and deal with the Cain type countries. The current administration in America must be guided by the religious leaders. If you follow Rev. Moon, you will not go down. In the future those who hear my words and believe will go to heaven, those who don't will not. Even if you have to take the skin off of your body and offer it to God. It is worth it. Once everything is offered to God then that nation will be able to come into the kingdom of heaven."

Respectfully Marknw (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am restoring the section so it can be improved per above discussion. WNDL42 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against the article talking about the theocracy issue, but it has to be sourced by reliable sources. It's not enough just to quote Moon saying he's going to take over the world. Somebody else has to take him seriously. Redddogg (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Redddogg, I understand your viewpoint, but couldn't Moon's clearly stated and codified political beliefs just be added to the description of religious beliefs that are already in the article? His political beliefs would be much more relevant to the public I would think. Whether he wants to take over the world or not is not the point here. Respectfully Marknw (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be better. As it is it just quotes him and we have to judge for ourselves that what he said was controversial or that it was criticized. Redddogg (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Redddogg, the quotes I added above here in the talk section were just for illustration purposes because it seemed that some editors don't seem the agree that there is a clear political ideology in Moon's teachings. Political ideologies can be very powerful agents of change and even outlive their creators. It is that political ideology that I feel needs to be clearly and soberly illustrated in this article. I couldn't write a biography of Karl Marx without talking about Marxism, etc... Hypothetically, even if Moon's "Godism" political ideology were to be used to set up one little sovereign nation on some tiny island somewhere it would be major news. We owe it to the public to document and describe exactly what his political ideology is. His "religious" beliefs are his own and he is entitled to them. Respectfully Marknw (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But he's not entitled to a political ideology? "In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used."

For those who don't believe in religion - or who think all theology is false because they deny the existence of God (see Atheism), a major world leader's religion wouldn't matter much. They want to know how he plans to change the "real world" of nations and peoples and men and property.

So let's talk about Rev. Moon's "political ideology". Is it a type of theocracy? Some critics say so; the church says no. But if there is a clear political ideology in Moon's teachings, surely we contributors who "know and love the rev" so well ought to be able to articulate it. --Uncle Ed (talk)

Thank you Uncle Ed, Bear in mind that there are totally and utterly religious people in the world that have no concept in their beliefs of the Hebrew, Christian or Moon's God and they also are entitled to their beliefs. The problem occurs when you mix religion and politics together. The UC is entitled to their beliefs both religious and political. It does seem that politics and religion are so intertwined in Unificationism that it is difficult for the group to tell where one begins and the other ends and may be difficult to articulate. The religious beliefs of Moon and the UC were heavily documented here in this Wiki article -- the self-stated political ideology "Godism" was not. I would say that the readily identifiable traits of Moon's "political ideology" are:

anti-communism
corporatism
nationalism ("Cheon Il Guk")
autocracy
adoption of one language (Korean)
opposition to liberalism
religious homogeneity
populism
collectivism
subordination of self to the state
anti-secularism

to name a few. I think in terms of political schools of thought, fascism or theocracy would both work, but theocracy would be the nicer of the two. (see duck test) All of this would be just an interesting intellectual conversation if it were not for the large sums of money that Moon spends on political activism here in the US and around the World. If he is devoting substantial resources to political action the public deserves to know clearly what his political beliefs and goals are in this Wikipedia article and not just his religious beliefs. Respectfully Marknw (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. BTW, I, myself, would consider "atheism" a kind of religion, if you will, because it requires a statement of faith also, that there "is no God." Personally I find that difficult to digest in the light of the wonder that faces us. But, that's just me. Respectfully Marknw (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes all need justification here on talk...

The major undiscussed change found in this series of edits are unacceptable. Roughly 90% of them appear to seek to either advance Unification Church POV or mitigate well sourced and notable criticisms.

FYI to all editors involved, please review those changes you made, and either (a) explain them fully here on talk, or (b) revert them. I am particularly concerned with the anon IP edits.

If not I will be reverting to a previous version and seek administrative help in getting this article protected or semi-protected. WNDL42 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So...I have just confirmed (by examining talk page history during the same period as above) that the deletions and revisions I refer to are all (at least 98%) undiscussed. Please review here. I am sorry - I know that I will be undoing a couple of good edits here, but I am nonetheless reverting to the March 5 version.
Please, editors --TAG AND TALK. The Unification Church POV's are EXTREMELY overrepresented here and unfortunately I find this "bold" move absolutely necessary. WNDL42 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Specifically as regards this example. WNDL42 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Another group of what I feel are very problematic edits -- notable criticism from 60 Minutes and relevanr information about Moon's activities in Japan, all impeccably sourced. WNDL42 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WNDL42, once before when you made an extremely sloppy edit by mass reverting a large number of edits (including many improvements, fixes, etc. that were well-justified by those editors) but only discussed one of the changes, I refrained from editing for several days because I was so disappointed with your style. You may want to try that sometime yourself rather than edit warring (as you seem inclined to do). You also strangely accused me and another ex-member (both critics of Moon) of being Unification Church members who are pushing the UC agenda.

Now you have mass reverted roughly 50 edits, and you give two justifications. The first was a series of very inappropriate UC POV-pushing edits by Ed Poor (which you are right to criticize). But these were made in January, not during the March 5 - March 20 period that you mass reverted! The second was a group of 3 of the edits (in a larger group of edits) by Borock, a "progressive Christian" who has made no other edits to Moon-related articles, and is not a Unification Church supporter (see his user page and edits). He apparently combed through the article and tried to improve it from what looks like a disinterested point of view. His main justification for the 3 edits that you didn't like (which I also didn't like) was that they were not about the subject of the article. His deletion of the criticism from 60 Minutes (I was the one who originally found and added this criticism to several articles, btw) was that it was redundant, appearing in another place in the article. My preference would be to retain it in both places, as it seems relevant. My main point here is that there not only was no conspiracy by Moon supporters since March 5, there was not a single edit from a Unification Church supporter during that period as far as I'm aware. The 3 edits by Borock can be reversed without reverting 50 edits, many of which were corrections, clarifications of references, and improvements in wording that nearly everyone would support.

Justifying a simple edit in the edit summary is fine. There is no need, for example, to add a Talk page entry for something as simple (and obvious) as changing "business units" to "organizations," an edit which Redddogg specifically justified because "business units" is not a common phrase. "Business units" is also inaccurate in this case because many of the organizations in question are non-profits. Nevertheless, you have reinserted this phrase as a part of your mass reversions at least 3 or 4 times with no justification (not here or in edit summaries), the very thing you are admonishing people to do immediately above. Is it your position that other people have to present a justification for every change on the talk page, but that you can change content without comment? Your latest mass reversion of roughly 50 edits makes many changes which you don't justify. And, as I mentioned, none of them appear to be POV pushing from Unification Church supporters. I made 7 edits on March 12 for example - all of which you reverted - entirely consisting of [1] corrections or clarifications, especially to references, and [2] criticisms of Moon. Your sloppy and unjustifiable reversion of about 50 edits needs to be undone. -Exucmember (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Moon has started various non-profit organizations but has also founded some businesses. What may be interesting to readers is where the money comes from, to support the NPO's. Also, for businesses that have made profits, where did the profits go?
St. Paul made tents for a living, but we assume he didn't accumulate personal assets amounting to much more than a sword and a notebook - not a personal computer, I mean a big sheaf of manuscript paper.
The burning question on everyone's mind (and the reason Moon is such a controversial figure) is whether Moon is using power and money the way most powerful, wealthy people do: for his own benefit - or not. If he is who he says he is, then he'd have to be using 90% to 99% of his resources to benefit other people, other families. Members and other supporters believe he is sincere; critics call him a fraud; but it's mostly based on their perception of how he uses power and money. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've given WNDL42 a full day's opportunity to reverse the damage he rudely and inconsiderately did by reverting about 50 edits (March 5 - March 20), while obviously not even looking closely at each edit he was reverting. It looks like I will have to clean up his mess myself. (See my long comment from yesterday.) -Exucmember (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate children

It may be true that Moon has fathered Illegitimate children. However, making that point twice in the article is really out of line with WP's policies on living persons, especially when the charge in is based on hearsay. Redddogg (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not really accurate to call it a "charge in based on hearsay." The church has consistently taught for decades that Moon's second (common law) wife was Myung Hee Kim, and that her son Hee Jin was killed in a train accident when he was a pre-teen. Moon was still not divorced from his first wife, so not only was Hee Jin technically illegitimate, Moon's relationship with Myung Hee Kim was a criminal offense in Korea at the time. But this is considered by the church as man's law, and that Moon answered to a higher, "Providential" law. The same is true for the other son mentioned by name (without being asked to name him) by his daughter Un Jin Moon on 60 Minutes (see near end of the video here); he and his mother were never mentioned in the official teachings of the church, but all older members know about that situation too. It would be quite dishonest for current members to try to deny either one, but the first one is part of official teachings about Moon's life, so it's not a hearsay charge. I see just now that the first one is not part of the article! I'm adding it.
Perhaps it would be better, however, in the family section to mention all Moon's wives and "concubines" (Moon's word) without putting undue emphasis on the fact that two children are illegitimate, and save overt criticism for the criticism section. -Exucmember (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning the facts, but the undue weight given to them by the article when the same issue is brought up two times. Redddogg (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I combined the two sections. BTW why isn't the name of his first wife given? Redddogg (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Heretic?

Why isn't the fact that Moon is considered a religious heretic by most Christians even mentioned? This has got to be one of the most common criticisms of him. Redddogg (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Britannica article it does refer to his excommunication:

"Moon began to preach his doctrines in Korea in 1946. Two years later he was excommunicated by the Presbyterian Church..."

but I don't see it here. Or did I just miss it? Marknw (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That information should be added. It's also important to say why the Presbyterians excommunicated him. Redddogg (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I took out this sentence:

Broader controversy over these comments emerged in mainstream publications based on Moon's inclusion of non-homosexual Americans, when he said: "Especially American people, if they truly love such dogs, they also become like dung-eating dogs and produce that quality of life." [9]

The reference seems to be a dead link. Besides that there is no evidence, that I have seen, of a broad controversy in mainstream publications over this sentence in Rev. Moon's talk. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)