Talk:The Washington Times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
Please discuss further on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since March 2008.
A significant amount of this article's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject.

See coatrack articles and content forking for details.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Out of Date

The article is out of date regarding the paper's editorial leadership. Wes Pruden has left. See this piece from a former employee commenting on the activities of the current leadership.

Not true. As of Oct. 30, 2007, Pruden is still the editor. He has been saying for years that he intends to retire in 2008, but despite longstanding rumors of his impending outster, he remains in charge and appears set to retire as scheduled. staff directory Seanibus 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owners

Moved from article, because it was the name not the paper that was purchased.

The Unification Church purchased it from its original family owners.

In the late 1970s and early 80s, Washington, D.C., had only one newspaper, the left-leaning Washington Post.

Please correct me if I am wrong, as pride in my church might bias me toward inflating its achievements. Ed Poor

IIRC, there was a Washington Times, which then went bust, and your church bought it. I don't know whether they just bought the name, or the whole paper, or what they did... -- SJK
In fact, the original Washington Times had merged with another paper (presumably the Washington Herald) to form the Times-Herald, which in turn got bought by The Washington Post. The Post was published for a while as The Washington Post and Times-Herald (with "and Times-Herald" in very small type). So I wonder if The Washington Post was the owner of the name "Washington Times" from which the Unification Church purchased the rights to the name! --- BRG

In the interests of accuracy, as far as I am aware, despite the statements implying the contrary by Moon, the Times is not actually owned by the Unification Church itself (or any affliliate or successor), but rather by a group of businessmen who are members of the Church. LeoO3 03:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Star

While we're at it, someone should do an article on the Washington Star, the last rival to the Post.

The Times, when it's good, is very, very good, and the rest of the time it's mediocre -- GABaker BTW, I wonder how many other pages have a now-obolete "/Talk" link in the article body? User:Ed Poor

Lot's of pages, I try to remove those links when I find them. Would be great if it was possible to search for /Talk or [[talk: -- Peter Winnberg

[edit] Skeptical links

Added skeptical links. There are probably too many external links relative to the article content now, but that just means that summaries of the linked content should be folded into the main article. k.lee

[edit] Discrediting the Times

Hey, thanks for trying to discredit the Washington Times, but including an Associated Press story that the Times picked up will hardly accomplish that goal. "Gore raised eyebrows when he said...I took the initiative..."

[edit] Misleading wording

the Unification Church has been willing to run the paper

This wording is misleading, as it suggests that the church dictates editorial policy. The church and the current editors say not. Some former editors say yes.

Also, it makes it sound like money comes from the church to the paper. I'd like to see some back-up for that information. The UC of America, anyway, doesn't finance the Times. Where exactly does the money come from? And who says so? --Uncle Ed 17:55 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Almost all media owners influence editorial policy; this is a widely-accepted fact. Furthermore, Moon founded the paper and the paper's foundation largely with his own money, and he continues to fund it with various activities,[1] since it can't turn a profit on it's own.[2] I worked there briefly, and witnessed financial problems and mismanagment.Zmbe 01:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political voice?

run the paper at a loss to provide a political voice

A political voice for what? I'd like to know. Aside from digging out stories "spiked" by the leftist New York Times.

a political voice for sun myung moon's world domination cultist agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.248.94 (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the 2003 figure of one billion dollars is at least 10 years out of date: the loss was at least 1.2 billion dollars by the early 1990s. --Uncle Ed 20:37, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Have taken out a phrase

I've taken out the following phrase. It needs a citation or real numbers:

They also note that the Washington Times proudly funded Oliver North's Iran-Contra affair -- an unusual action for a newspaper. Fuzheado | Talk 01:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This Article is Too Biased

Someone needs to clean this article up, it seems to be heavily biased against the Times. I personaly don't know much about the paper, but just reading this article gives a very negative impression.

I agree. For example, what do others here think about the term "controversial" when applied to the Unification Church? While personally I think it's accurate, isn't it also at least implicitly pejorative, and therefore not NPOV? LeoO3 03:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The term "controversial" is quite accurate as applied to the Unification Church and I think that it is NPOV to include it. However, the lead paragraph is not the best place for it. It should be moved down to the ownership section, where the relationship to the Unification Church is discussed. -Willmcw
I agree that there is controversy, and there has been for what, 30 years now? However, I think it is fair to leave it in the opening paragraph. I used to live in Washington DC, and in fact worked for the Washington Times briefly. It is not a generally well-regarded newspaper. Articles are routinely slanted to the right, praising the president when no one else will. If you think the Times is a balanced newspaper, you probably think the same of Fox News. Zmbe 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree too! Biased against conservatives, just like the rest of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.96.98 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive re-write

I am working on a complete re-do of this article, making it more neutral and informative. It will retain, mostly in a dedicated section, much of the charges made by critics, as well the information they have used, but the full article itself will be much more. LeoO3 22:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still working on a complete re-write of the article. The one posted now is so fatally flawed that I am starting from scratch, using the Washington Post article as a template of sorts. I have heard no objections to this project yet. This will not be a whitewash of the Times by any means, but will remove the heavy bias and negative POV of the existing article, although I will incorporate some text and information from the current article. If interested in what I have so far, drop me a line at my talk page or send me an email. Perhaps, rather than simply wiping the current contents, I'll do an alternative article first so people can see it. LeoO3 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've done it. I'm sure it needs work. I've drawn on the Washington Post article and used it as a template or skeleton to flesh this one out. Please note that while it may seem like I simply deleted critical links from the bottom, I actually incorporated the Daily Howler and Salon.com critical links from the old article into the body of this article. Weeks of research has not led me to solid answers on exactly who owns News World today. Help on that would be especially welcome, as well as good-faith NPOV edits. LeoO3 30 June 2005 05:08 (UTC)
Efforts to edit and add to the article in good faith are welcome. Efforts to drag it back into its past as a negative screed gleefully and myopically focusing on Moon and the UC at excessive length are not. I included or linked to most information about Moon ties. The old article was universally panned here in the Times discussion page. I gave anyone interested a full month to state their case defending it or object to a full relaunch; no one did. Shoving in long chunks of the old discredited text back in, wholesale, is not constructive. And detail and information describing Times history and operations should not be dismissed out of hand simply because they flesh out the paper as a living and more "normal" institution rather than a conveniently bizarre caricature. I welcome a response to these remarks. Failing any, I will revert most of the changes by RD232. LeoO3 30 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)
Details are fine, but they shouldn't be unencyclopedic. More details on what exactly it's won awards for would be fine, but what font it's printed in or what the editor had for breakfast last Tuesday is a waste of space. As for overemphasising UC - the revised page (since your last comment I've had time to edit my cut-and-paste) doesn't even mention that Moon is foreign, or his bizarre 1991 comment "Look at the Washington Times. No one in America helped to create that."[3]. When a daily newspaper is owned by a foreign religious nut, subsidised at vast expense, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss exactly what this entails. Add other things by all means, such as more info on the significance of the Times (eg Bush administration is pretty keen on it), and suggest redrafts of the material. But don't think you can inappropriately minimise the UC connection - which, deliberately or otherwise, is what your rewrite initially did.Rd232 30 June 2005 13:52 (UTC)
HAS it actually won any awards? And if so, awarded by whom? I can't find anything about this. I would be truly, deeply surprised if a well-regarded organization actually awarded anything to this poorly-run, slanted newspaper. Zmbe 02:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Science Monitor

Can/ought comparison be made (at least in "See also") with the Christian Science Monitor, as another newspaper established by a religious organization/church yet not explicitly a mouthpiece of that church's beliefs? --Dpr 07:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] racist sources

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170001

[edit] A nod

  • The Washington Times[1] is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. On Sundays its masthead reads The Sunday Times, a nod to The Sunday Times of London. The paper also calls itself America's Newspaper.

Should the second sentence of this three-line summary really spend a clause on an unrelated newspaper? I'd say we should move the entire second sentence down somewhere else. The intro would be better if we included more about why the paper is notable. Conservative voice? Unification Church? Circulation? Something like that. Thoughts? -Willmcw 09:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A note from the Washington Times

I have moved the following out of the "Notes" section of the article, and have incorporated (as best I could) the information that it contained into the appropriate sections of the article. John Broughton 05:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


EDITING:
The Washington Times did not buy the "equipment and plant" of the Washington Star. The Times purchased part of the Star's computer system, which it replaced soon afterward. The presses and plant were purchased by The Washington Post. The Washington Times employed several members of the staff of the Washington Star; nearly all of these had died or retired by 2005.
The editors-in-chief of The Washington Times have been James R. Whelan (1982-1984), Smith Hempstone (1984-86), Arnaud de Borchgrave (1986-1992), and Wesley Pruden (1992 to the present). Your description of de Borchgrave, Tony Blankley, Wes Pruden and Tony Snow as "executives and editors" is vague and misleading. Tony Blankley is the editor of the editorial page. Wesley Pruden is the editor in chief, with authority over both the news and editorial pages. The editorial independence of The Times is guaranteed by contract with the editor in chief, none of whom are, or have been, members of the Unification Church. Wesley Pruden estimates that no more than a dozen of the editorial staff of 230 are members of the Unification Church.
This is submitted on December 15, 2005, by Wesley Pruden. My telephone number at The Washington Times is 202/636-4863.

[edit] Political viewpoint

The infobox currently refers to the political viewpoint of the Times as neutral on news coverage and center-right on opinion. Having lived in DC for three years recently, I think it would be far more accurate to refer to the news coverage as center-right - the local coverage is generally politically neutral, but the political coverage is fairly openly right-wing (an above-the-fold banner headline proclaiming a study that explained the beneficial effects of pollution on fish population on an otherwise busy day is one memory) - and the opinion page is fairly strongly right-wing. I don't want to start any edit wars if I change things outright, so does anyone disagree? --DMG413 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view that's fair. That caught my eye too (the labels, not the article). LeoO3 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Zmbe 02:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. And will make the change. Eleemosynary 08:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Since nowdays "right-wing" seems to cover the more conservative 50%, or more, of the American public it's fair to call the Washington Times "right-wing".Steve Dufour 04:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
wtf is that nonsense?Zmbe 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree and the NYT, LA Times and many other magazines are obviously Liberal and should be labeled as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 05:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Compared to the Post

Fair enough. At least the people with dwarfism will no longer be offended.Steve Dufour 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the Times is compared to the Post in the introduction the same information does not have to be given again. Steve Dufour 05:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced criticism

I took out the following paragraph:

The Times has often portrayed itself a rival of the Post. Most established journalists [4] do not view the Times positively[5] and would not wish to work there in light of its ownership,[6] underlying religious posture (see below), and potentially negative[7] impact on a journalist's career. On the other hand, conservatives in the media have greatly welcomed the publication as an alternative to mainstream news.

Interestingly, thought the first sentence is chock-full of reference links, none of them actually seem to back up any of the statements being made. Please tell me if I'm wrong. And, of course, the second sentence is unreferenced. Korny O'Near 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Independence

I took out the following line (proposed by Dpr back in 2005, above): "(Compare the Christian Science Monitor.)" (from the 'Editorial Independence' section.) While I understand the point trying to be made, it's not appropriate for an encyclopaedia to directly address the reader. If anyone thinks they can rewrite that sentence in a more appropriate tone, feel free to do so. Also - does anyone have a source for the Wesley Pruden quote in this section? Terraxos 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grafitti Artists

Removed the following comment after "The Times is widely perceived as maintaining a strongly right-leaning editorial stance"

"so much so, in fact, that grafitti artists have been known to deface Times boxes with the words "Neo-Nazi Rag""

"Grafitti artists", of course, gives away the writer's point of view. Otherwise, they would be just "vandals", right? And what relevance does vandalism against its boxes have in an article about a newspaper, or the opinions of vandals, for that matter--even if they are, as may reasonably be guessed, motivated by politics rather than artistic expression?

Robert 2007 Aug 14 209.226.237.170 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to get into cyclical revisions, but my edits were undone without comment. I have reviewed my version and believe it is better, in terms of NPOV. If anything, the sentence in question should be moved to a later section, rather than the History section.
Robert 209.226.236.20 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan's Paper

Anyone have a source on this? That sentence needs a citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.82.17 (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Times logo.png

Image:Washington Times logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third-most widely quoted newspaper

  • By its second year of publication, the Associated Press listed The Times as the third most widely-quoted newspaper in the nation. [8]

The Times says that AP made this assessment. So which is the source:

  1. AP
  2. AP, according to the Washington Times
  3. The Times itself

I'm uncertain about how to source this. Is there a guideline for situations where X says that Y said Z? --Uncle Ed 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My sense was that, absent direct sourcing to the AP, we should specify that "According to the Times, the AP listed it as the third-most-widely..." The link to the Times site that you give above is a bit peacocky - is it really a must-read for Clinton and Bush43? I'm not denying the veracity of the claim, just that it's probably best to clarify who's making it. And is it up to date? When did the AP make this determination? Anyhow, that's my 2 cents - I think the claim looks a little iffy stated as bald fact, but I'm open to other input. MastCell Talk 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, MC. That was my sense as well. Without a direct quote from AP, it's a "she says they say" kinda thing.
Where can we get some hard data on "who's being quoted" or who considers which newspaper an authoritative source of news? --Uncle Ed 23:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I wasn't aware of "quotation indexes" till now. Perhaps there's something on the AP site? Ideally, there would be some third-party sources - clearly, the Washington Times is a relatively influential newspaper, but finding hard documentation to put in the article may be a bit tricky. MastCell Talk 05:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-church bias

Cut for quick repairs:

Several critics have said that the Times is unfairly biased towards the Unification Church, noting that the paper's op-ed pages are often sympathetic to Unification movement concerns.

If it's several critics, that would be more than a few. I'd like to see a minimum of 4 different critics to support the word "several". Anyone want to help me google thes?

We need to separate op-ed "bias" from "news bias". Is the New York Times "biased" because their op-ed pages are often sympathetic to left-wing or liberal concerns?

The article should clarify the newspapaper's editorial views, so that people can see where it falls on the political spectrum relative to other major newspapers:

As for news, are there critics out there saying that any of the above newspapers has shown a bias in their news reporting? If so, perhaps we can list the names of critics making this charge. Better yet, give an example or two from each critic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Post's article it's moving rightward (the Post that is). Steve Dufour (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post chief competitor?

Who says that the Post is the Time's "chief competitor"? Its critics often say that the purpose of the Times is not to make money but to promote neoconservatism and/or help Rev. Moon establish a world-wide theocratic empire. Is the purpose of the Post to prevent these things? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. If the Washington Post is a competitor, what is it competing for? Circulation, influence? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question. I'd bet there are about 7 times as many Democrats as Republicans in DC, so that might have something to do with the difference in circulation. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson plans recommended by the NEA

I read the Spinsanity account of the media flap over the NEA's endorsement of a "do not blame any group" lesson plan developed by Lippincott. This account says that after the Times criticized them, they removed the Lippincott link from their web site. I think this action on NEA's part speaks for itself.

The article was published by Salon, not "spinsanity"...

Now, we need to be neutral here. We can report the objections of WT critics who say that Sorokin misrepresented the NEA position. But it would also be interesting to readers to know whether NEA had ever endorsed any of the lesson plans their website linked to. Also, what is the NEA position on who's responsible for 9/11? Have they ever come right out and said that US foreign policy justified the attacks (the root causes theory)?

Neutral does not mean giving [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight] to Limbaugh, who has a COI as he also writes for Insight.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see any articles about media flaps or root causes.

See links I posted above.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if the NEA has clarified its position (as Will Smith did after being blatantly misrepresented about Hitler), then this would also be of interest to readers.

Fair enough, I'll add their response.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We also need to clarify whether this was a front page "story" or a column or editorial which happened to have been placed on the front page. News is judged by one standard, editorials by another. If an editorial claims the NEA is soft on terrorists and tough on America - and in response NEA changes the way it expresses its views, then maybe this is a good thing. (Either they didn't mean to say that - or they decided to change their position.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nyhan linked to the front page story in his articleriverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed, your edit is factually incorrect as written WRT the Limbaugh "chime in", please read carefully Limbaugh's sixth paragraph, "invariably led to" were weasle words Limbaugh used to "imply" that the other websites Limbaugh cited, which had NOTHING to do with lesson plans, were somehow presented by NEA, which they were not. Please catch up with me on the topic before doing damage control, OK? Thanks...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just found and posted the original essay in the article, and I'm glad visitors here will now be able to read it and compare for themselves. If anyone here wants to read the entire essay and still defend Sorokin (and the Times for running that travesty on page one), then feel free to restore the NPOV tag. Personally, after re-reading Sorokin's Times piece alongside the essay, I'd say the critics were kind. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section renamed and content deleted

I'd like to understand why this content was deleted and the section renamed. The cited references clearly identified the Times as the source of frequent highly political and long-lived "Urban myths" and legends. Was there a good reason for muting this well-known criticism, rather than simply tagging those statements that were thought to be insufficiently supported? The idea (given via the edit summary) that the Times "has no control" over the myths it creates doesn't ring quite true, and itself is unsourced. Given the history of the Times organization specifically and Moon's media in general (especially in the case of the "Obama madrassa" smear perpetrated by Moon's Insight Magazine), the well sourced criticisms of Moon's "Washington Times" as a "myth making apparatus" are well founded and notable, I think.

Thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, here is, per WP:GOOGLE, a "Google Scholar" search to provide a large number of "hits", (albeit including spurious hits) from reliable published sources that refer to the mythmaking machinery. Do we really need more evidence than the existing cites already provided? WNDL42 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section reads "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives", citing just this Washington Post article. The article doesn't back this statement up at all: it refers to a single article in the Washington Times, which appeared in the news and not the editorial section, and there's no mention of neoconservatives.
I don't understand your "doesn't ring quite true" comment. You think the Washington Times does have control over chain e-mails sent out as a result of an article it printed? How exactly does that control work, may I ask? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Times is self-identified and strongly associated with neoconservatism, but I agree that the reference needs support other than what's there. Would the sentence be better for now if it was "conservatives" instead? WNDL42 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
When Sorokin (a) intentionally distorted Lippencott's essay, and then (b) attributed it to the NEA, she knew damn well that she was feeding the "Echo Chamber". Are you suggesting that Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times does not know when they are feeding the "Echo Chamber" with distortions? See...

Media Echo chamber, from Echo chamber

Metaphorically, the term echo chamber can refer to any situation in which information or ideas are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an enclosed space.
For example, observers of journalism in the mass media describe an echo chamber effect in media discourse. One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.[1]
Due to this condition arising in online communities, participants may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, and in doing so reinforce a certain sense of truth that resonates with individual belief systems. This can create some significant challenges to critical discourse within an online medium. The echo-chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their "preferred" world view. Another emerging term used to describe this "echoing" and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is "cultural tribalism". The Internet may also be seen as a complex system (e.g., emergent, dynamic, evolutionary), and as such, will at times eliminate the effects of positive feedback loops (i.e., the echo-chamber effect) to that system, where a lack of perturbation to dimensions of the network, prohibits a sense of equilibrium to the system. Complex systems that are characterized by negative feedback loops will create more stability and balance during emergent and dynamic behaviour.

So, are you suggesting that the Washington Times cannot be held acountable? WNDL42 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions: "conservatives" wouldn't be any better than "neoconservatives", since there's currently no evidence provided to support the sentence in either case. And no, I'm not suggesting the Wash Times can't be held accountable, I'm saying it - note that nowhere in your essay about echo chambers does it claim that the original source is responsible for the "echo chamber effect". Korny O'Near (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, and the first kid who shouts "food fight" in the cafeteria is also not responsible? He's a kid, so he's generally not punished for it, but the Washington Times? You need to make a better case.WNDL42 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's a criticism section, and if the critics (per WP:Google and Google Scholar) say this, who are we to argue? WNDL42 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Your analogy is flawed. Someone who yells "food fight" is explicitly encouraging inappropriate behavior; there's no such encouragement, either explicit or implicit, in publishing a newspaper article. Also, I don't know what your web search is trying to prove - as far as I can tell, not a single one of the results states what it is that you want the article to state. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The Google Scholar search I provided above was an explicit database query on:
  • [Washington Times] AND [Myung Moon] AND ([myths OR propaganda OR lying])
If you clicked it and looked at the search results, maybe you just missed this first page hit that links to this particular RS...
Presidential Studies Quarterly; Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying; Volume 37 Issue 4 Page 622-645, December 2007; doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2007.02617.x
"Likewise, cult leader Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who owns the right-wing Washington Times and strongly supports the Bush family, preaches a doctrine "called Heavenly Deception. Religious recruits are told that the ‘non-Moon world’ is evil. It must be lied to..."
The reliable source Google Scholar hits like that one are, of course, just a small subset of the thousands (more than 50,000) similar hits that can be seen by clicking here. Is there something more I can show? Oh, yeah, to the question whether "the original source is responsible for the 'echo chamber' effect", well, when the echo chamber itself (Insight magazine and United Press International) are also owned by Unification World Communications, I think you can see why reliable sources say that the Washington Times is responsible for feeding the echo chamber it created. WNDL42 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested in getting familiar with this might want to click here and construct your own query. WNDL42 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, I think you're confusing "database query" with "search engine query". Second, for all the criticism you're pointing to, you still haven't found a single source to back up the statement under contention, which is: "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives." Third, criticism of Rev. Moon belongs in his own article - if criticism of the Washington Times is so easy to find online, why would you need to resort to quoting such a roundabout, guilt-by-association statement? Fourth, I think you misunderstand the usefulness of web searches in Wikipedia; they can be used to establish notability of a word or phrase, but not to establish the veracity of a statement. As proof, let me pick another web search to try - how about, say, jewish bankers control the world. Hey, what do you know, 90,000 results - even more than yours! And the even-more-reliable Google Scholar has 24,000 results for the same query; compared to about 35 for your Google Scholar query. I guess that's a fact that could be added to Wikipedia then, right? Fifth, the article talks about chain emails and web pages - for all your assertions about the Rev. Moon's media power, I don't think even you would argue that he controls what people email to each other or put on their blogs. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) Criticism of the Times based on it's ownership is perfectly appropriate for the article on the Times, indeed this is the right place for it, especially as so much of the criticism of the Times is on the basis of it's ownership. (2), you are incorrect, "Google Scholar" and "Google News" are special purpose databases, they are NOT general purpose web indices, and "database query" is exactly the right term, and (3) therefore the statistical inferences drawn (commonly known as "data mining") are indeed 100% valid ways of "characterising" the opinions, notability and frequency of various forms of criticism of the Washington Times. FYI, "guilt by association" is explicitly established by Rev. Moon's own on the record statements about how he explicitly uses the Times, or haven't you seen those? Try a Google search on, lets say "I used the Washington Times" along with "Myung Moon" if you need convincing. WNDL42 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, here's just ONE example, right from the horses mouth, and it's on the church website here.
Complaints about "guilt by association"...seriously? In the context of media ownership?? You've got to be kidding me. Ok...more famous words from Rev. Moon "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda. Read it yourself, here on the church's website. If the moonie chickens are finally coming home to roost at the Washington Times (as Doug Kellner's excellent December 2007 paper I added to the criticism section points out), complaining about it now isn't going to help. By the way, the whole shebang was all over NPR today, which clearly shows it's gone 100% mainstream. WNDL42 (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your hatred of this newspaper and its owners might be blinding you to the topic of discussion here. The original point of contention is two parts: the sentence "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives", which you still haven't found a single source for, and the idea that discussion of chain emails is somehow worthy of inclusion in this article. All this talk about Rev. Moon seems to be a separate matter entirely.
Also, Google Scholar and Google News are websites, not databases; you can read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me. But that's a minor issue. So, you agree that Jewish bankers control the world? If not, what's the difference between our two "100% valid" sources of information?
Finally, please don't wait until I revert the page to respond - otherwise, you're forcing me to keep reverting just to get a response from you. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I re-opened the discussion in the section below. Your revert there removed massive content and neither your objections above nor your edit summaries justify the wholesale revert. Suggest you start editing rather than reverting, the former is collaborative and the latter is edit warring. Let's start by discussing the heading. WNDL42 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Google Scholar and Google News are websites, not databases" No, you are utterly incorrect. You need to understand the "client-server" relationship between a webpage that functions as a database client and the database server that is the "back end" database. Google Scholar and Google News are databases and the web-page is the user (client) front end from which database queries are performed. Would you like the explict architecture documents from Google for proof, or do you want to quit the topic now? WNDL42 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now on to your other points. (1) I have (temporarily) changed the heading back so we can discuss. (2) We need to agree on how WP:SET should be used here, and it's NOT going away, so I insist that you examine my queries and comment with something other than a wholesale dismissal of the technique, see the entire WP:SET document, especially WP:Search_engine_test#Specialized_search_engines here. Finally, I AM EDITING A CRITICISM SECTION, and I've said this repeatedly. If your passionate defense of the Washington Times and it's ownership so motivates you, then please find and cite specific (secondary source) rebuttals that refute the views of the critics, but again bear in mind that the section we are editing is a criticism section, and is not a coat rack upon which to hang either the Times or Rev. Moon's "spin" on the criticism, and as a criticism section the weight is given to the critics...because editors here have reached agreement that the criticisms will be sectioned off in this manner...that is the consensus here on how to handle criticisms. If you want to change that, then please see WP:Consensus can change for some ideas on changing consensus without getting into counting up reverts...ok?

Hi, my responses:
  • I don't think you understand the difference between a database and a database-driven website; feel free to ask any computer programmer and I'm sure they'll back me up. But that's not really relevant.
  • You changed the sentence to read "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths." As I noted originally, there's no evidence provided to back up even that much; that's why I want the sentence removed entirely.
  • I haven't made any defense of the Washington Times or its owners, and certainly not a passionate one. I just want whatever criticism is presented to be cited, and in the right section. If you find a source criticizing the Times that notes those chain emails you mention, then that section can stay in; otherwise it seems irrelevant (and looks like original research). As to your Rev. Moon quotes, those most likely belong in the "Editorial independence" section, not in this one.
  • Coat rack for spin? I haven't tried to add in any spin - maybe you're thinking of someone else.
  • I'd respond further on the whole search-engine matter, but now that I think about it's pretty irrelevant. In the article a search query is used to show that people are still talking about the "Blame America" article, but, as I said before, it looks like original research for you to call that an example of criticism. Who's the critic here?

Korny O'Near (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Korny,
I can assure you that I do understand my use of the word database. What is relevant is not your opinion that it's "not really relevant", what is important is that you are repeatedly dismissing the results the analyses provided, which are relevant according to WP:SET. Please don't avoid the topic anymore.
I've asked you repeatedly to discuss and gain consensus before reverting, to no avail. Your recent reverts are not supported by a consensus of non-conflicted editors. This is now my third request.
Your reversions and tendentious edits that remove or mitigate well-sourced critical views...from the CRITICISM SECTION have the effect of shifting the article's balance to the POV of the Times and of Moon's News World Communications. This behavior, in the presence of an almost singular editorial focus on the areas of politics represented by Moon and the Times can be interpreted as "POV pushing". Combined this with the fact that an extremely high number of edits to this page are performed by Unification church members (see stats), has the cumulative effect over time of turning this article into a "coat rack" for the Times and Moon's POV. That is unacceptable. WNDL42 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, once again I don't really know what you're talking about. What analysis am I dismissing/ignoring? The fact that you did a Google search on some anti-Washington Times phrases? That search isn't even cited in the article, and in any case I think I disproved its usefulness with my counter-example, which you yourself are ignoring. And how do you want me to gain consensus? You and I are the only ones discussing this issue, so consensus is no more on your side than on mine - I wish more people were in on the discussion, but they aren't. Neither am I pushing POV to any greater extent than you are - I'd say less so, since I'm not the one adding unsupported statements ("The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths") to the article. Finally, please refrain from personal attacks. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See below...article is tagged and posted at the COI noticeboard. I'll be happy to have a third opinion, this way you and I can cool off in a mediated environment. WNDL42 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite calm, thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then we can now return to discuss a comparison of your faulty use of WP:Google and it's ineffectiveness in refuting the utterly different meta analysis I showed. Your "bankers" and other similar results have no meaning, because...

(a) Your search query was non-explicit, and derives no meaning from the hit count. To illustrate the problem, consider that [jewish AND bankers AND control AND the AND world] yields 92,000 hits indeed. But merely substitute the word "christian" for "jewish" and the hit count goes up to 152,000, while the "control population" (which is critical, and which you failed to consider) is 565,000 hits. In other words, you have shown only that "Christian" is a more frequently used word than "Jewish". With an explicit search, the results become meaningful. In an explicit search, you must enclose the statement you are looking for in quotation marks, so, a properly constructed search to derive a control population for "bankers control the world" now yields only 3,500 hits, only 0.62% of the 565,000 above. Next, compare the control population of 3,500 to the explicit search for "jewish bankers control the world", and you only get 384 hits. Divide 384/3,500 and, well you do the math...it equals "nonsense". To further illustrate, consider that the technique you used gives 152,000 for christian bankers but only 92,000 for the Jewish people, indicating (falsely) that the former is a "stronger" view. Nonsense again. However, the power of an explicit search is in the fact that it reveals that the exact opposite is true. The explicit search on christian yields, you guessed it, exactly zero hits.
(b) I explained, carefully, several times -- and also referred you to the instruction manual in hopes that you would understand the difference between a general www index query (like you used) and a Google News or Google Scholar specialty database query. The former is useless because it includes all kinds of unreliable sources, such as the nutjob conspiracy theorists who believe there is a race of super-bankers secretly controlling the world. By the way I find your choice of "example" a bit crude, a tad offensive, and that is why I previously avoided discussing it. I know you were just trying to illustrate what you felt was the absurdity of the results I showed. Can we move on?

Now if you will kindly examine this query again, and pay special attention to (a) the Gooogle Scholar interface (that means results are limited to reliable published sources), and (b) the careful construction of the query (by which results become meaningful), and (c) the check box at the very bottom of the page. Perhaps then we can resume a meaningful discussion about how to derive meaningful results per WP:SET, and what my results show or do not show. FYI, here is the web-client query interface for Google News as well, which queries a database that includes only recognized news sources, including the Washington Times. This particular result is very meaningful, and I'd bet at least 95% of the news reports returned would qualify as reliable sources, you think? WNDL42 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for responding to my example. I'd respond further but it all seems irrelevant, since this search is not actually contained in the article. It looks like you used that search to find a few pieces of notable criticism of Rev. Moon, and they're now in the article. So what exactly are we arguing about at this point? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the arguing may be over, but my position is that when WP:SET is properly used, a lightweight statistical meta-analysis of Google News or Google Scholar is, in and of itself, a valid, reliable source.
In the presence of a "strong positive" result, such an analysis can demonstrate evidence that a given media organization is frequently criticized as being associated with "propagandist" activities, and that such characterizations are then shown to be notable and appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. For example, when a long term persistent use of the word [propaganda] in the context of ["Washington Times"] AND ["Sun Myung Moon"] is found in both Google Scholar and Google News, then I'd assert that this is prima facie evidence that the characterizations I support for representing criticism are consistent with WP:RS. So, I assert that "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives" is my attempt to create a fair and somewhat softer way of saying:
"Critics assert that The Rev. Sun Myung Moon's church-subsidized Washington Times is a primary source of political propaganda, myths and lies that have been historically exploited by neoconservatives to attack both Democratic and moderate conservative politicians and other groups that oppose them".
The meta-analysis is constructed from three separate "explicit" searches; (1) general web test; 12,800 hits, and (2) Google Scholar test; 81 hits for the "alternative hypothesis" (neoconservative) vs. a substantially weaker result; 7 hits for the null hypothesis that Moon's propaganda is not aligned with neoconservative politics, and (3) a Google News "notability test" 1,910 hits distributed on a timeline spanning 34 years.
As you review my statement above, note that "political myths" is my attempt at a "kinder gentler" word for "propaganda". Finally, you may be aware that I and many editors before me have been struggling with the Unification Church COI and tendentious editing in favor of pro-Moon POVs for a long time. Me? I'm a cross between a Cato-style paleo-conservative, a Ross Perot republican and a Jeffersonian "liberal-tarian". I think Moon's critics are right with respect to the damage his three-billion dollars of Church subsidized propaganda have done to our democracy and political discourse (to BOTH parties), and that criticism has been "watered down" by and with support of the UC members here on Wikipedia for a VERY long time. WNDL42 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, okay. I'd caution you to try to make sure that your own political views aren't clouding your good judgment as an editor. I'd also note that it's odd, to say the least, that the same editor who added the tag warning that the article "may actually relate to an entirely different subject" seems much more interested in the Rev. Moon than in the actual subject of this article; even to the exclusion of the words "washington times" from any of your Google queries. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
On the one hand, bias is inherently notable in the context of journalism, the category to which this article belongs. To the extent that the Times "bias" has been tied by reliable sources to "ownership" (also inherently notable) and more importantly, the billions of dollars of Unification Church subsidies that have kept the Times afloat since 1982, that bias is extraordinarily notable in the context of ownership. On the other hand, You make two extremely good points.
(a) Yes, these searches can themselves be "biased", and reflect the POV the searcher (me) is looking for (see WP:SET), so your cautionary note is appropriate and appreciated -- this is why our dialog and your suggestion is important. So, adding (explicitly) "Washington times" to the www index search gives 17,100 hits, a substantial increase from 12,800 above; and Google News demonstrates clear support for notability and Google Scholar demonstrates that there are very many reliable sources to back this up.
(b) So, your suggestion to add "washington times" was a good one, and If I had been more careful to include it in the first place, it wouldn't have seemed "odd" -- as the case is actually strengthened by including explicit refs to "Washington Times" in the meta-analyses. WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revert, please discuss

I have just restored this major revert due to absence of any discussion and an insufficient edit summary. Please explain any objections, the material is reliably sourced (impeccably so) and entirely appropriate for a criticism section (which is where it is). What's the beef? WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Washington Times front page.jpg

Image:The Washington Times front page.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coatrack and COI tags added

See recent talk. WNDL42 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See also report filed at the COI noticeboard Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Media_properties_of_the_Unification_Church here WNDL42 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the conflict of interest issue with church members and/or Times employees working on the article. I don't understand what you think is the coatrack issue. The article seems to be only about the Times itself, unless something was taken off that seemed coatracky. Redddogg (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Times ownership and other statements (history, etc.) are coatracks for the Times and the Unification Church's official "position statements" about the supposed non-relationship with the Times on editorial issues, story selection, etc. Nothing about Moon's leiutenant, Col. Bo Hi Pak (ex Korean CIA) co founding it with Moon, Pak's training in "black propaganda", etc, etc, etc, WNDL42 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
But those statements are about the Times. A coatrack statement would be one about something else "hung" onto the article. Redddogg (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason for tagging the article as a WP:COATRACK is shown in example by the watered down "relation to the unification church" section, and the "church selected" quote by Rev. Moon that is found there. Featuring Rev. Moon's comments so prominently there gives undue weight to the "moon spin" and not nearly enough weight to the views of journalists. I've just taken a stab at de-mooning the section, take a look at the diff and see what you think. WNDL42 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racism scandal

I retitled this section from "alleged racial insensitivity" and moved it from the controversy department. The Times itself has admitted that there were racist editors, so I don't think it is "alleged" or a "controversy" anymore. Redddogg (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good, well supported, maybe beef up the cites - there have been a lot of examples. WNDL42 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Propaganda

Ok, here's an classic example of "Heavenly Deception". Recently, the well known 1996 Moon statement:

"That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda."

...was added to the article, after all, with "newspaper organizations" and "propaganda" in the same sentence, it's clearly notable here, and was sourced back to the Unification Church website.

But strangely, when I repositioned the statement in the article today...I went back to check the source at http://www.unification.net/1996/960102.html , which is found by querying Google's index like this the word propaganda wasn't there. Strangely, upon clicking on the UC link, the word "propaganda" had been removed from the document at unification.net, and the newly revised sentence now read:

"That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda disseminate our message."

Now, fortunately -- the pre Feb. 7, 2008 version was still in Google's cache... the "snapshot" that Google took on Feb. 7 remains unaltered in Google's databeses, see here.

But sometime between Feb 7 and today, the document was changed by someone at www.unification.net, and strangely, it was changed coincident with the addition of the "newspaper to make propaganda" quote here on Wikipedia. That's very curious -- document is from 1996, and now, 12 years later it's been "re-translated" to change the phrase "to make propaganda" into "to disseminate our message". I suppose Moon could have been mistranslated, and the original Korean could have been reviewed and translator Peter Kim could have screwed up, but not likely. Hmm...so, did Rev. Moon mean Propaganda when he said it in 1996?

Better pull out this Moon quote, from 1984 for those who would assert that Moon was "mistranslated" in 1996...

"The means of doing battle around the world have changed markedly. Instead of the conventional warfare of military forces, we have three major types of warfare today. First of all is ideological warfare; secondly is the warfare between intelligence forces; and thirdly, the warfare of propaganda.".

Now, after discussing this "warfare" for a couple paragraphs, Moon concludes:

"In today's warfare of ideology, intelligence and propaganda, nobody can compete with Reverend Moon."

So, in 1984 (two years after founding the Washington Times), Moon describes "warfare" in terms of propaganda, declares that nobody can compete with Reverend Moon, and now we're supposed to believe that when he used the word in 1996 he was "mistranslated"? Whew...that's a stretch. WNDL42 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and presented with wit! (I laughed.) Moon's statement "In today's warfare of ideology, intelligence and propaganda, nobody can compete with Reverend Moon" is ludicrous, and obviously out of touch with reality. But so are many such statements, not only by him but by other third-world leaders trying to play with the big boys. I heard an Islamic scholar say the same thing about most places in the Middle East: Reality is not very favorable, so ideals are set up and people act as if the ideal were reality. At least they are less likely to claim to be the best in the world at something. In Moon's case this is particularly ridiculous when it comes to something having to do with language. He barely speaks English, and many poor - and even flat out wrong - translations persist for years. Damian Anderson probably changed the wording. He may even have been correct in thinking "propaganda" was a bad translation. Whatever reservations I might have had in his shoes about changing it recently, now that the issue has come up, I guarantee you he wasn't thinking that he was engaging in an official or unofficial policy of the Unification Church of "Heavenly Deception". -Exucmember (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, funny indeed -- thanks for your comment Ex; but still...kinda scary to have such an "obviously out of touch with reality" figure pumping $3billion into political propaganda -- in the U.S. alone -- since 1982. WNDL42 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course Rev. Moon's purpose for founding the Times was propoganda, which in its original meaning was the same as "spreading the truth about God to the world." He certainly didn't found it as a money-making venture. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Church propaganda for "spreading the truth about God" is a guaranteed first amendment right for recognised religious speech, and speech so recognized is made by churches that are recognized as churches by virtue of their tax-exempt status. The political propaganda of Insight magazine, the editorial pages of the Times, and so forth cannot be construed as "about God", see for example here WNDL42 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of speech of all kinds is quaranteed by the constitution for everybody. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve, the word "quaranteed" gave me a chuckle -- a fun combination of "quarantine" and "guaranteed", if that's what you meant. Now, of course "speech of all kinds" is not protected, slander, libel and many other forms of speech -- especially where harmful to living persons -- are not in any way guaranteed. WNDL42 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, UC attempts at revisionist history may be clearly identified -- thanks to a dozen or more internet archive sites and "wayback machines" all over the world, all out of reach of Rev. Moon's "helpers" -- for example the unaltered version of the "to make propaganda" quote is preserved, and whomever changed it to "to disseminate our message" has only provided more evidence for the critics. WNDL42 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unification Church ownership

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
Please discuss further on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since March 2008.

Here is the definition of "church" from Wiktionary:

church (plural churches)
1. A Christian house of worship; a building where religious services take place.
There is a lovely little church in the valley.
2. A Christian religious organization, local or general.
The Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534.
The church across the street has a service at 10 am.
3. A group of people who follow the same Christian religious beliefs, local or general.
These worshippers comprise the Church of Christ.
Be shepherds of the church of God (Acts 20:28).
4. A time of public worship; a worship service.
I'll be there after church.

By definition 3 the Unification Church, as a world-wide community of believers, does own and support the Times. However the church organization (definition 2) in the United States does not own it. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense technicalities and obfuscation.
(a) Corporate shell-games and a gazillion confusingly meaningless name shuffles are a hallmark of Moon's PR practice.
(b) Sorry Steve, my tolerance level has dropped since andyvphil teamed up with an anon IP from Reston, VA to edit war over at United States journalism scandals, getting me a BS-block in the process. I'm tired of these talk pages being dominated 80% or more with "church POV's".
(c) the average editor dropping by here does NOT know that you are a Unification Church member with a COI, so as you create a new section here and present an editorial opinion in which your pro-UC COI is "hidden" under a technical argument for mitigating the plain truth that this paper is a $3 billion propaganda mouthpiece for Moon and the neocons, well...as you can tell I'm not happy that all of these articles wind up "drifting" back in the direction of the "Church viewpoint" on who owns what, etc etc etc etc...etc...ad nauseum. Give us a break and go write about UC theology...I can't for the life of me understand how your expertise in UC theology makes your voice important here in an article about a slimy "news" organization, especially when you present ostensibly "innocent" comments like above. WNDL42 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WNDL42, I think your hatred for the Washington Times and the Unification Church is causing you to commit errors that you otherwise wouldn't. One is attacking other editors personally; another is using unnecessary formatting (lots of blockquotes and bolding) to highlight what you see as the sinister-ness of the whole thing; and another is setting unwieldy section titles ("Unification church subsidies, "propaganda" and political bias") when shorter ones would be both more readable and more neutral. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting theory. Please post diffs. All I am doing is representing in an encyclopedic tone, the "notable" facts.
And if you would prefer I use reliable sources (academic and scholarly publications), perhaps you'd prefer to peruse these reliable sources? WNDL42 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What theory are you talking about, and what does this have to do with sources? I'm talking about inappropriate personal attacks, bad formatting and bad section titles. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Your theory about me begins with "WNDL42, I think your...is causing you to commit errors". Wrong.
Now, my theory is that even though the words "propaganda" or "propagandist" are found in 46,000 places here on Wikipedia alone, and (as I have shown you)...propaganda is the good old english (and quite encyclopedic) word...a word that MOON HIMSELF, and the critics use to describe "the Times"...well, my theory is that the "propagandists" here on Wikipedia (you know, the church members with COI's and the tendentious political editors with whom Moon's media POV's are aligned)...somehow want to censor the word "propaganda" from a criticism heading that is about propaganda. My theory is that's just plain wierd. If I've personally attacked someone, post a diff please. 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling people (including me, maybe) "propagandists" is a personal attack, to answer your question. And my and others' edits on Wikipedia are not "censorship", just like your own deletion of content on this page wasn't censorship; it's just differences of opinion on how the article should be structured. I think your section title and formatting sacrifice aesthetics in the interest of trying to make a point. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, did I delete content here? I placed an off topic joke here (the Tax man joke) and then came back later and pulled it - but it was a meaningless self-revert. Unless you are talking about something else. Anyway, my point is illustrated by having a look at the Palo Alto Research Center wikipedia editing stats on this page, here. It is not acceptable that the number one editor here is a Unification Church member, given all the complaints of COI edits by church members. Add this plaininly visible fact to the politically tendentious editors who also act to "help" in censoring (or tendentiously mitigating) Moon-related criticism of this "news" paper, and I think I've made my point. Nobody likes to invoke WP:SPADE, but sometimes speaking the truth of a situation gently (after trying to do so for months) just plain doesn't work. If I'm going to piss in the wind here, I'm going start using a fire hose if I'm forced to do so. WNDL42 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, by "this page" I meant the actual article. Anyway, you seem to exhibit a certain lack of self-awareness here - criticizing Unification Church members for heavily editing the articlee, given the bias they bring to the subject, while not realizing that you bring just as strong a bias, though in the opposite direction. I'm trying to keep the article neutral and readable, but I think because of your strong feelings about the issue you tend to think that anyone who doesn't see things the same way you do is a censor or worse. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I see the "bias" exhibited in a refusal do describe the criticism as what it IS..namely propaganda. The definition of "propaganda" by the way is in the very extended discussion on this topic (see above). Perhaps you can review that discussion and we can continue there. FYI, I am quite aware that I am editing against the heavily pro-church POVs of the Unification church members here, who are perfectly capable of "defending" themselves if they have problems with my criticisms -- namely that they edit here without exhibiting any "self-awareness" of or respect for the impact of their conflict of interest. Shall I post the previous administrator RfC's and ANI's and all extending back over the last two years? Let the Unification Church members defend themselves please. WNDL42 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to describe the criticism as propaganda? I think you mean that what's written in the Wash Times itself is propaganda. In any case, you must recognize that that's your opinion, and it's not even that strongly backed up the quotes cited. Two people are quoted as saying it's propaganda: Rev. Moon, who says, obliquely, that it's propaganda for his church, and the other, the "investigative journalist", who says it's propaganda for the GOP. You'd think, if it were so obvious, that there would be more sources one could cite, and that they would be more consistent. Also, on a related note, I think you're mistaking your own specific views for "consensus". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to characterize the criticism accurately, not couched under the meaningless "editorial independence" heading you keep reverting to, which is exactly the way the "Times" and Sun Myung Moon would like to see it "positioned" (and in fact that is how they DO try to "spin" the issue). Please quit trying to coat rack (sugar coat) the criticism. Allow me to demonstrate (for about the ninth time) that:
(a) [Washington Times] + ["Editorial independence"] + [Myung] = 923 hits, while...
(b) [Washington Times] + [propaganda] + [Myung] = 18,100 hits
This is exactly what WP:SET is for. Case closed. Revert it again and I will take it up the chain, OK? WNDL42 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Really, when have the Times or Rev. Moon tried to spin it that way? I'm quite curious about that. Also, when previously have you done a web search on the phrase "editorial independence"? And how could you possibly think that "coat rack" and "sugar coat" are synonyms, even with a link to the "coat rack" article right in front of you? You leave so many questions unanswered... anyway, you misunderstand the use of the search-engine test; it's no substitute for clear-headed judgment. As an example, let's look for the section of Wikipedia that deals with another controversial subject - the supposed lack of intelligence of the current U.S. president. Here it is: Criticism_of_George_W._Bush#Intellectual_and_psychological_ability. Funny, but a web search on "George W. Bush" "intellectual ability" returns only about 1,000 hits, while a search on "George W. Bush" idiot returns a whopping 830,000 hits. I guess it's time to change the section name immediately, right? Guess what: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a distillation of whatever's on the internet at the moment. And please do take this disagreement up the chain; I think I'd enjoy seeing that. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Questions:
(Q1) "Really, when have the Times or Rev. Moon tried to spin it that way?"
(A1) “I have the editorial independence that Bill Keller of The New York Times or Len Downie of the Washington Post can barely imagine.”; Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden; The American Prospect; July 2, 2005 issue -- http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2005/06/editorial-independence.html -- This is how the "Times" answers to charges of being a moonie paper. How many more do you want?
(Q2) "Also, when previously have you done a web search on the phrase "editorial independence"?"
(A2) The predominance and relevance and encyclopedic basis for the use of the word "propaganda" has been demonstrated several times here, and at Insight magazine, and at Sun Myung Moon, and at United States journalism scandals, and elsewhere. You've seen them. The evidence FOR the use of the word propaganda is more than self evident, and you've made NO case whatsoever against using it, other than that neither you, nor Ed Poor, nor Steve DuFour, nor the Unification Church, nor the GOP seem (not surprisingly) to "dislike" the good old english word. The section is about "church subsidized political propaganda".
(Q3) "And how could you possibly think that "coat rack" and "sugar coat" are synonyms, even with a link to the "coat rack" article right in front of you?
(A3) Using the language and messaging of the "Times" (putting their "editorial independence coat" on the "article as a rack"), in order to soften/deflect the essential nature of the criticism is "sugar coating".
Finally the nonsense over at "Criticism of GWBush" is utterly irrelevant here. For example, (a) no reliable source has ever called President Bush a "moron" according to the strict, clinical definition of the word, and (b) it is easily demonstratable that President Bush is not a moron.
The word "propaganda" is a completely different thing, "propaganda" is explicitly and specifically used by Moon himself and so it is 100% appropriate here. There's no argument you can make to refute it when Moon and the critics BOTH use the word. WNDL42 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the word was actually "idiot", and here's a notable source calling him that, and here's sort-of a second one. I'd argue that the reason the Bush article goes with the wording it does is not due to lack of "sources", but due to a desire for neutrality and professionalism. Also, "coat rack" is a specific term indicating excess information that doesn't belong in an article. Removing information (as you think I'm trying to do) does not fall under that category. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting talk page. I was following the discussion above until I reached the part about "idiot". It seems to me that Bush article is about a person, and this article is about a newspaper; so the use of "idiot" (describing a person) certainly cannot be compared in any way to the use of the word "propaganda", (for describing a newspaper).

Also, as I have been looking around here at wikipedia standards and policies, it seems that the Bush article is a "BLP", and this article is not. For what it's worth, if the critics say "propaganda" and Moon uses the word himself, I don't see why there should be objections to using the word, apart from any political motivations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosk7 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of church teaching of "Heavenly Deception"

I'm a critic of the church and was a member for two decades (from the mid-70s before big media attention), but outsiders have this one completely WRONG. The phrase "Heavenly Deception" was made up by detractors; it was never taught in the church. -Exucmember (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi exuc, the "Heavenly deception" aspect of Unification Church theology is well sourced for a very long time from both former church members, church watchogs and scholarly studies, and is entirely appropriate irrespective of your personal experience.
In a quick meta analysis of the Google Scholar database of reliable, paper-published documents, a "control population" emerges from an explicit search on "heavenly deception" of 60 publications. Of those 60, 50 documents are explicitly associated with Rev. Moon, the Church and his media properties. Meanwhile, a search that excludes words that indicate a Moon association with the "heavenly deception" concept yields only 10 hits. If you'd like to refute this, please use Google Scholar -- query page is is here. Finally, Moon's words of explanation "even G-d lies" extablish context. The "heavenly deception" aspect is extraordinarily relevant irrespective of the experiences of individual church members, current or former. WNDL42 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying a previous conversation from my Talk page for additional context:

  • My understanding is that the "heavenly deception" quote was an insider paraphrase of Moon's "even G-d lies sometimes" explanation, and that it's attribution is solidly connected to previous church members...I didn't make the edit, but have I got this wrong? WNDL42 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was a well-connected, full-time member for two decades, including during the period when the "heavenly deception" accusation was strongest. I never heard it advocated in the church. Only one time (I think it was 1975) did I hear a rank-and-file member (not a leader) advocate something similar, and everyone else disagreed. I've never heard even a rumor that "'heavenly deception' was an insider paraphrase of Moon's [statement]," and I've never heard that Moon said "even God lies sometimes" (although that might be possible). It is pretty easy to check these things because devoted members have been busy putting nearly every talk Moon has ever given online. It was amazingly easy for me to find Moon's rejection of the "heavenly deception" accusation with a Google search. On the other hand: Google: "even God lies sometimes" "Sun Myung Moon" yields no results. (Unificationists don't use "G-d," as Unification theology emphasizes immanence over transcendence). I did find something with a similar phrasing to "even God lies sometimes", but there were three different versions of the same supposed quotation, and no original source quotation (not encyclopedic).
  • It might be a good idea, however, to find a (reliable) quotation by Rev. Moon that reveals the fact that honesty is not his number one most important value, as it is for many Americans. That line of argument has some merit, and has indeed led to conflict with American society in a number of ways. An observer might expect that his rhetoric about building a unified world culture would assimilate this vital virtue so central to Western sensibilities, but it's remarkable how resilient small, third-world thinking is within the top leadership of the Unification movement.
  • Nevertheless, the assertion that the Unification Church teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception" is patently false. The insider paraphrase, even if true, is not sufficient reason to make (or even mention in an encyclopedia, imo) the false claim that the Unification Church teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception". The church already has a persecution complex (which you can even see revealed in subtle ways by the overreaction of Unificationist Wikipedia editors to certain relatively innocuous statements that remind them of spurious critiques of the church). To me it's just not helpful to dredge up the flimsiest criticisms when so many others have a strong case behind them. -Exucmember (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The "heavenly deception" quote is multi-sourced, most recently to Kellner's journal paper in "Presidential Studies Quarterly" titled "Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying". Sorry, "Heavenly Deception" may (in someone's opinion and/or personal experience) be true or not true, but "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth". The sources are numerous, the sources are long established for thirty years, they are reliable, the characterization is notable and is well and fully in context. WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no doubt that the Unification Church has been tarred with the accusation "heavenly deception". I'm afraid that's all the Google scholar searches you did prove. It's a very different thing to assert that the church actually teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception". Such an assertion requires, at the very least, a reliable quotation of something at least related from Moon's vast number of speeches available online. How does it help the reputation of an encyclopedia to repeat an accusation that's probably not true? Even if there were an explicit doctrine of "heavenly deception" in the Unification Church, why would this be used to criticize a newspaper which certainly has a great deal (if not complete, which is in dispute) editorial independence from church officials? Not that it's relevant, but I'm not a fan of the paper or of conservative politics. I just think an encyclopedia should strive to be accurate. -Exucmember (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all references to "heavenly deception" should be sourced to "critics", and/or former church members that are explicitly identified as such. WNDL42 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the deleted quotation from Moon here, in case someone thinks it would be a valuable addition to this or any other article that mentions "Heavenly Deception":

If critics are going to make false accusations, a case can be made that countering them provides appropriate balance. -Exucmember (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex, again, it doesn't matter what any of our individual opinions or personal experiences are, the "heavenly deception" quote is multi-sourced, most recently to Kellner's journal paper in "Presidential Studies Quarterly" titled "Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying". Sorry, "Heavenly Deception" may (in someone's opinion and/or personal experience) be true or not true, but "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth". The sources are numerous, the sources are long established for thirty years, they are reliable, the characterization is notable and is well and fully in context. WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] funding

I noticed that the issue of the Times being funded by the UC and/or by Rev. Moon is mentioned 8 times in the article. Why not just say it one time?Steve Dufour (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point, maybe since it seems relevant in so many contexts, we should work up a summary statement to put into the lead? Somehow, "media arm" just doesn't quite capture the full essence of it. WNDL42 (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrange article

The article on Insight Magazine gives the notable events in the order they happened without a separate "controversy" or "criticism" section. It seems to work well there. How about trying it here? Would anyone object if I tried? Redddogg (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I got bold and did it. What do you think? Redddogg (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think if we'e going to look for wiki-precedent here an "apples to apples" comparison would be to the Washington Post. Insight is (a) a work in progress (no established consensus) and (b) a "different animal". My thoughts.... WNDL42 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Semi-cited quote

Former Times editor and Unification Church member[2] Josette Shiner said, "We are told by the Associated Press that we are the third most quoted newspaper in the world after The New York Times and the Washington Post."[3]

To me this seems to be cited only by a posting on one of the Unification Church websites. I don't think it's well cited enough to include in the article. If the Washington Times was really that important wouldn't a more reliable source have said so? Redddogg (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Google search for "Washington Times" "most quoted": [9] When I get around to it I'll look through it for better sources. Redddogg (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The Shriner quote has been in for a long time (added by a UC member), I just added the UC info on Shriner when I saw that elsewhere in the article was a silly claim that "none of the paper's editors have ever been Unification Church members". WNDL42 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, looky here. See also "Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print - Google Books Result by David Wallis - 2004 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 336 pages "I was further interested when I learned that the paper's deputy editor at the time, Josette Shriner... here and books.google.com/books?isbn=1560255811...
WNDL42 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My objection to putting the quote in the opening section, or maybe in the article at all, is that it is someone's statement about another person's statement and not very well cited at that. I don't have any idea if it is true or not. It doesn't seem likely to me if only 70,000 people subscribe to the Washington Times in the first place. Redddogg (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I will try moving the quote out of the intro section. True or not it is not so important.Redddogg (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family photos...

Hey look - it's Neil Bush and Sun Myung Moon at the Global Unification Church Leadership Ccnference in Japan just a few weeks ago!!!

Now....what on earth was Neil Bush doing at the Unification Church Leadership Council in Japan??? Neil looks absolutely mesmerized doncha think?

Look around at the family photo album -- wait till you see where Neil Bush gets to sit, and where Mr. Bush is placed in the photo ops for the leadership team!!!

enjoy!

[edit] Bo Hi Pak

The intro says: "The times was co-founded in 1982 by Sun Myung Moon and Bo Hi Pak." Is there a source that says Pak was the co-founder? Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. -Exucmember (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
With all fairness, Steven Alan Hassan makes a good living (I guess) as an ex-unification church member who is now considered an "expert" on cult and mind-control issues, so what he says must certainly be taken with a grain of salt. He does have a business (and therefore a conflict-of-interest) regarding the Unification Church. I find his writings to male too much use of loaded language for my tastes. WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I have yet to ever...have never once found Hassan to be factually incorrect. With that disclaimer in place...here is Hassan on Col. Bo Hi Pak, from "The GOP's $3 billion Propaganda Organ":

Intelligence Ties

By the late 1950s, Moon had managed to build a small cadre of loyal followers and was reaching out beyond Korea. By the early 1960s, the church also was pulling in better educated young men, including some with connections to South Korea’s intelligence services.

Kim Jong-Pil and three other young English-speaking army officers became closely associated with Moon’s church during this transitional phase as the institution evolved from an obscure Korean sect into a powerful international organization.

Beyond his association with Moon’s sect, Kim Jong-Pil was a rising star in South Korea’s intelligence community. In 1961, he founded the KCIA, which centralized Seoul’s internal and external intelligence activities. Another one of the promising young KCIA officers was Colonel Bo Hi Pak, also a Moon disciple.

With these KCIA officers, however, it was never clear whether the benefits of the religion were paramount or if they simply recognized the potential that an international church held as a cover for intelligence operations.

[edit] "Racism Scandals" section moved

I moved the "Racism Scandals" section out of the criticisms and controversy section up to its place in the main article. It was a series or events, not a criticism or controversy in itself. I also think that made it easier to follow what has happened in the recent history of the Times.Redddogg (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NEA "blame America" controversy

This section seems a little hard to understand. It could use a rewrite. Borock (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple changes. I hope that helps. Redddogg (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)