Talk:Sun Myung Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Korea (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Cult" & Lede[edit]

Cult is what the reliable sources write (see: NYT, USA today, Washington Post, PBS Newshour, Reuters, The Guardian, et al.) so that is the word that should be used. That is the policy of Wikipedia. Removing cited information is NOT the policy of Wikipedia: There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. - EBY (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The word "cult" should be used, as well explain a bit about the "anti-cult movement." Steve Dufour (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am going section at a time, but be bold by all means. Now that I've started, my goal is Good Article status - it could even be a FA with a better narrative, RS cites and fewer POV edits. EBY (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That would be great. BTW thanks for including the picture of my wedding. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

add to lede?[edit]

Could this sentence (now in the life section) be added at the end of the lede?: "By 2010, Moon had given much of the responsibility for the Unification Church's religious and business activities to their children, who were then in their 30s and 40s."[1] Also maybe a more well-cited version of "receded from public view"? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The NYT obit supports both statements so I will boldly include. For now. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I reverted Tongil Group from lede because NONE of the big sources - NYTimes, USA Today, NPR, Washington Post or Associated Press - mention Tongil group. Putting it in that first paragraph doesn't represent the importance the cites put on it - even if it was the largest holding. EBY (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • International & global are certainly synonyms, but why drop 'vast'? EBY (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It sounds more opinion-like than fact-like. Otherwise nothing wrong with the word. Something can not be international or global without also being vast. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Predictably going to look to RS for descriptors: 'Church Head who led business empire' (BusinessWeek), 'Korean evangelist, businessman and self-proclaimed messiah' (NYT), 'the controversial self-proclaimed messiah figure who founded the Unification Church and built a business empire from scratch' and 'Religious Leader, Media Mogul,' (PBS NewsHour), 'Founder of the worldwide Unification Church who presented himself as Christ’s successor but whose influence waned in later years,' (The Times/London), 'a self-proclaimed messiah who built a global business empire,' (USA Today). OK, seems like global works. Vast was taken directly from one RS, would 'empire' work as an appropriate replacement? Global/International indicates geography, but neither really speaks to size - which seems to be a major point of legacy. EBY (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Why not? 'Vast' is used to describe Moon's business holdings by his own newspaper, as well as Reuters and International Herald Tribune. It is used in dozens of WP articles. But if a better word is used by sources, please indicate the synonym - extensive, far-flung, immense, mammoth, large? As for empire-building, there doesn't seem to be any synonym that means quite what it does - especially considering this word wasn't just used in articles, it was part of the headlines. EBY (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The article on Bill Gates, whose vast business empire reaches into almost every home and business on the planet, gets through its lede with only the adjectives "wealthiest" and "largest."  :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Also "richest," and about the amount of money he has donated to charity "large."  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, I am only saying that I would prefer more sober, conservative language in an encyclopedia. Like in these other articles on vast business empires: General Motors, Walmart. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
GM, WM and Microsoft are corporations with an identifiable brand and core products. I've never read an RS that said that Moon created an identifiable brand or any core products (outside of himself or the Unification Church itself). According to Business Week, the Economist, WP, & NYT - he collected businesses and brands and plowed the profits into initiatives that aligned with his priorities and that legitimized (and that is the word used) his profile and that of the church.
Like Rupert Murdoch or Aristotle Onassis, Moon's legacy that is painted is that of a person of great wealth & influence, with a vast portfolio of businesses, but uncertain public perception. Unlike Bill Gates or Oprah - who also have vast business holdings and great wealth but who are strongly associated with specific products and philanthropies and a very defined public perception. The obituaries range from studiously neutral to outright vilification, and they lead the WP article - replacing their word choices for 'sober, conservative' language is to misrepresent the sources. If vast is the argument, then - as already offered - let's run with a synonym used by a different RS. Global for international? Fine, too. EBY (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
How about "extensive" or "far-flung"? Not that "vast" is bad in itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on sources[edit]

The NYT calls the UC "mysterious." Yet the church's US headquarters are within easy walking distance of the Times' office. They could have sent a reporter over sometime. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Never seen the NYT disallowed as a RS, but if you want to toss this up for a RfC - stranger things have happened. At the Elizabeth II article, an editor is fairly successfully lobbying to have her title NOT be Queen of England. EBY (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to challenge the Times' status on WP. However in the area of "Unification Church controversy" they are really a primary source. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The other article they did, interviewing couples, was actually very sentimental.EBY (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The Washington Post also did a very good article on "second generation" church members, and recently a mention of UC members as victims of persecution in Japan. I teased my friends with the Washington Times on Facebook by saying the Post was now the most pro-UC paper. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Washington Times in first paragraph?[edit]

Washington Times says this newspaper never made any money. It seems a little odd to use it as the first example of Moon's business holdings. -BayShrimp (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

- It is among the most notable aspects of Moon's business holdings as a cornerstone of his media group and key to his efforts to mold his image. Agree it didn't look profitable, according to the reliable sources, he poured almost $US 1 Billion into it in order to keep it going. I would have thought that the UPI ownership was more visible but that isn't where the sources pegged his legacy. See headline: Washington Post, and first paragraphs of Biography, NYT and mentioned as a key in Boston Globe(which has the same reporter as NYT, I think?). EBY (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And also the Washington Times seems important to the reporters for the other newspapers.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Politics section?[edit]

Most of the politics section is about NGO's and ceremonial meetings. The few things that are really political could be moved up to the biography section. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

--Cautious agreement. EBY (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

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)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).