Talk:Sun Myung Moon

Bias

The author of this article clearly goes out of his way to tie Moon to conservatives. The statement in the opening paragraph about 'right wing causes' is not professional, since such a term is quite relative and often used to poison the well or induce emotion and lacks objectivity. I checked the sources for Moon's "right wing causes"...and could not verify this. THis source here, for example: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/sun-myung-moons-groundbreaking-campaign-to-open-north-korea/262057/ talks about how Moon wanted to "open up" the Korean peninsula, with talks with Punyang. How is this "right wing? I thought a lot of college students (who are generally not right wing at all) were in full harmony with this idea? I dont see any mention in the sources that Moon was advocating a right wing cause when it came to North Korea? I don't know why so many ariticles on Wikipedia do this "ring wing" tactic. It really makes it seem like this website is hawked by a lot of young 20 something white males who have a socialist/anti-capitalist and anti-religious bent. Why not just be neutral and let the chips fall where they may? Using terms like "right wing" is loaded. There is no intellectual dance around it. And lastly, there is not enough emphasis on this article of this being a cult. There is nothing 'mainstream' Christian about the cult led by Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.153.76 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Right-wing simply means he held stereotypically conservative viewpoints. His "reaching out" to the DPRK isn't surprising in light of the fact that, as a Korean and as a man who spent the first 30 years of his life in the north, he was not fond of the idea of reunifying the country through war. It doesn't actually contradict a conservative approach unless you think the default conservative position is to invade the North. He also financed Inchon (which praised the anti-communist side of the war) and pretty much every other political endeavor in his life was tied to conservative causes. The article should probably change the term "right-wing" to conservative though. --Ismail (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And this line looks like a sly, liberal POV which seems to assume that conservatives are racists: "Although conservative on most other issues, Moon took a strong stance against racism and racial discrimination." Not up to Wiki's standards, this.

I suspect that clause was put in to keep readers awake more than to propagandize. It is true that anti-racism is usually thought of as a liberal issue, so introducing it that way adds interest and helps to tie the article together. Borock (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is a very biased statement; I propose an edit of the sentence to remove political inferences Diraphe (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

AMENNEWS

I deleted amennews.com as reference. This is a biased news website. -Nellyhan (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversial Conviction?

"...and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison in a controversial case.[4][16][17]" it says, and the three footnotes lead one to expect two or even three different views on this controversy. To my disappointment I found than none of the three does.

Thus we are left with the impression that the guy cheated on his taxes and got caught. No controversy.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• David Lloyd-Jones - then go ahead and be WP:BOLD and change those refs to the ones used in the section about the conviction in the article itself: (87-89) NYT, Chicago Tribune, etc. These articles discuss the controversy better than the USA Today article, which just touches on it. It's nitpickery to me but every editor is free to work their priorities.EBY (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article continually policed by followers of Sun Myung Moon?

Looking back through the Talk page discussion I see MANY complaints that followers of Sun Myung Moon are continually whitewashing this article to water down or delete criticism and add in lots of material that looks like what one would expect from their own literature. The current abysmal state of the article reflects this bias. Just this week BayShrimp brazenly deleted two important, central facts at once, which he also dishonestly labelled a "minor" edit:

"Followers, who were then sometimes called "Moonies", considered him their True Father while..."

He also made other edits deleting material that might be considered unfavorable by followers of Sun Myung Moon. Shouldn't such people be banned from Wikipedia? DrSocPsych (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The main point of the sentence is still there and now there is a new paragraph about him as a controversial figure, the third paragraph of the lede. What some people called some other people does not seem to be such an important thing to be in the lede. BayShrimp (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I probably was a mistake for me to label the edit as minor. But still what the removed part was saying is: 1. What some people called some followers, only some since most do not live in English-speaking countries. 2. Speculation on what followers "considered." This information is well covered in more depth in the article itself but, to me anyway, seemed awkward in the lede.BayShrimp (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I should have expected a thoroughly dishonest (self-deceptive?) response from BayShrimp. 1a. This is English Wikipedia. 1b. The term is not limited to English-speaking countries anyway. 2. The reference "True Father" is documented in the church's own literature, and has been reported hundreds of times, including in the reference BayShrimp deleted. Other dishonest deletions by BayShrimp were not justified. DrSocPsych (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeminty

The long section on "indemnity" is better covered in Unification Church where church doctrine is covered in depth, and where Divine Principle redirects. I will try trimming it down. Please feel free to put some back if I go too far. Borock (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I also added some more criticism to the intro. Borock (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)