Talk:Sun Myung Moon

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


NPOV[edit]

The article seems to be about half criticism and half positive or neutral information. I don't see why the NPOV tag was put back.Borock (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I made a few tweeks, but nothing major.Skylark777 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It's hard to believe that even Unification Church members, who probably shouldn't even be editing this article because of WP:COI, could make a statement like "The article seems to be about half criticism and half positive or neutral information." Most of the article is just what Unification Church members would want to be included, the article is far out of proportion to what has been reported about Moon, and some of the most damaging information is wholly missing. The NPOV tag should stay until these massive problems with the article are fixed. DrSocPsych (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The consensus now seems to be to have a controversy section, which I am also contributing to. Skylark777 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Separate controversy sections are not really the WP ideal. I took some poorly sourced items out and moved some that were not really controversy to the main body of the article. BayShrimp (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the POV template.[edit]

With the addition of a Criticism section is seems appropriate to remove the template header at this point. However, this is on the condition that Unification Church members respect Wikipedia fairness policies and do not engage in dubious editing. --Novoneiro (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sun Myung Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Business interests[edit]

From the lede:

  • His business interests included News World Communications, an international news media corporation known for its American subsidiary The Washington Times,[8][9][10] and Tongil Group

Who owns (or owned) "his business interests"? Does the lede mean to imply (a) that he himself had personal ownership of these mega-dollar corparations? Or (b) that he held them in his name (as in the Catholic Church method of corporation sole)? Or (c) that these were church businesses which he founded on its behalf, but did not own? If it is (b) or (c), then we might note when or if he ever transferred ownership to the church.

This is important, because SMM is famously known for saying that "not one penny" belongs to him personally - and complaining that the media makes him sound like he's personally getting rich off the church or its members. Our readers would be interested if he has contradicted the facts on such an important issue; or if it's the other way around. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

News stories at the time of his death gave a lot of prominence to his businesses, or those connected to his church. Maybe the best thing is more neutral wording that doesn't say they were all "his" which, as you point out, implies personal ownership.BigJim707 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a small change in wording in that direction.BigJim707 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

New Republic criticism[edit]

These points are a grab bag of undisputed truth, unsubstantiated opinion, and a couple of points that the church vehemently denies. It might be better to point them in some sort of order, and to follow each with the church position.

  • Appointing his own children and in-laws to leadership positions in the church and related businesses.
  • Misusing the church for personal gain at the expense of his own followers
  • ... making millions by the selling of objects which were said to cause the liberation of customers' ancestors from hell.
  • Appointing his daughter In Jin Moon to the presidency of the Unification Church of the United States against the wishes of many church members.
  • His support of right-wing elements within the government of South Korea.
  • His harsh treatment of his wife Hak Ja Han.
  • Using American church members for political activism.
  • His lavish indulgence of his children.
  • Supporting anti-communist causes through The Washington Times and other church-sponsored projects.
  • And failing to promote unity between Christians and Muslims after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City.
  • Annie Choi... said that she and six other women engaged in numerous ritual sex sessions with Moon.
  • Choi and Moon have a son, who was adopted by Moon's assistant Bo Hi Pak.[185]

For example, there is no question that Moon appointed his daughter In Jin Moon to the presidency of the Unification Church of the United States. That is a matter of public record. (What proportion of church members disagreed with this is an interesting question, though.)

There is no doubt that Moon supported anti-communist causes through The Washington Times and other church-sponsored projects. He said quite publicly that Communism is one of "God's three major headaches".

But was it was Moon himself (or the church in Japan) which made millions by the selling of objects which were said to cause the liberation of customers' ancestors from hell? (This perhaps depends on whether one believes that Moon owned church assets or merely controlled then, like the Roman Catholic pope.)

And is education the same as activism? That is a legal distinction, especially important in the USA. He's certainly spoken out on political issues (chiefly saying democracy is better than communism). But violating federal laws on political activism is another thing. Or "using" people (which sounds awfully selfish.)

As for failing to promote unity between Christians and Muslims after 9/11, I'd like to see more in the article about this allegation. My impression is that Frank Kaufmann was "used" (to borrow a word :-) for this - not to mention the American Clergy Leadership Conference. But I'm getting old, maybe I'm just remembering what I want to remember. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I just checked out the New Republic story and it is presented as a factual report of the state of the Unification Church just after Rev. Moon's death. It does not say that it is an opinion piece or that what it reports are criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.213.17.98 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Will remove at least the last point, which seems like hear-say. Especially since from only one source.70.213.16.50 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)