Talk:Sun Myung Moon/Archive 4

Where is all the discussion???
This is bizarre. I come to this article which is obviously biased and find out that the discussion of this major and highly controversial figure (for over 40 years) only goes back to September 2011? What happened to all the previous discussion? What is going on here?Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC) --- I have noticed the same. It looks as if some moonies have been infiltrating this article and erasing information. The criminal cases are not discussed in the article but they are mentioned in the Bio pic.

Western and Korean age
Could the infobox include his age? He is currently 104, as we reckon age here in the West. But his Korean age is. People are always asking me how old he is, and it's especially confusing in winter.

First he turns another year older (by Korean age reckoning on the lunar new year. Then on Feb. 25th his Western age also goes up by one.

To make matters worse, most Westerners get confused about when Korean age increases; they don't know that it's on the lunar new year, which falls on a different Gregorian date each solar year! Also, True Family typically don't observe their Western birthdays. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Korean age increase just like everybody else's, at roughly one second per second?88.110.125.172 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup
Just took a weed-wacker to the lede with extreme prejudice. This article will never get past stub class without a lot MORE cleanup but only had a few hours to give. The timeline/bullet layout needs to be replaced with coherent, relevant paragraphs. See L. Ron Hubbard or even Elias Abraham Rosenberg for examples. Bios of living people tend to gather a lot of extraneous stuff because it can be hard to see during the subject's life what the critical highlights will be - it just needs some focus and judicious editing. :) EBY  (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Borovv - I just glanced at your editing history and see that you have put a lot of work into this article. The lede - that opening paragraph(s) - is really only meant for that important 10% you mentioned. (Manual of Style/Lead section) It is supposed to be a balance between concise and clear. The article itself goes on to detail everything else. Keeping the lede clean and inviting is one of the biggest challenges of any article, especially a biography, and this one just wasn't well built. It was full of trivia but didn't leave the reader with an understanding of the really most important things about the subject. If you have an issue with something specific that was cut (or left in) then please edit to that point without just hitting "redo" - which obliterates not only the lede work but also some painful infobox and cite coding that needed doing. Thank you! EBY (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the most important thing about the "subject" is that he and his followers think he's the Messiah. So we need a very long section on the controversy over whether he is or not, for one thing. But getting past that, we also need to know what he and and his followers have been doing to "save the world".


 * This other (even larger) section should not only be from the viewpoint of the Unification Church, of course. It should detail activities, and also give feedback from inside and outside sources on (a) whether these activities are consistent with the Unification Movement's declared goals as well as (b) whether anyone else feels they are helpful/harmful (from their perspective).


 * Just listing dry, isolated facts - "He did this. He went there. He said that." - is even more boring than the history courses I hated in grade school and high school. Don't tell me in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Tell me whether he (or his crew) thought they might fall off the edge of the earth (or whether this was a Myth of the Flat Earth invented later to discredit medieval Christianity). Tell me how big he thought the earth was, and also why nobody remembered the Viking expeditions that already had discovered a continent "in the way". Tell me about his motivations: did he want to spread "civilization", i.e. European culture; find gold; win fame; or what?


 * If the admins will unban me from contributing to this topic, I'd be happy to edit the article directly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, how can you "tell about someone's motivation"? Can you put the shoes of Moon or Columbus on? It's not a deal of an encyclopedia editor to write about something immaterial like "motivation"; on the other hand, a motivation can be guessed through the results, as a picture reflects the nature of its artist, and yeah, that's the deal of a reader to guess a motivation, not being imposed with an opinion of someone else. The more "dryer" facts, the more accurate reader's impression on the subject. Moon has managed to become a big shot regardless to his minority/marginal race and religion, and that fact has made him face a bunch of opposition from a second party interested in demonizing him and putting him into biased image. The religion-related topis themselves have been always very sensitive for all the parties. That is why third-party-only sources are insisted on, in order to prevent facts manipulation like withdrawal out of context, or another, both from first and second interested parties, and this is pretty fair and this follows the rules and the spirit of Wikipedia. If you do not like the writing stile, give your attribution, in case if admins will give an approval, but without an original research, no need an "motivation" research and other detailing of delicate things like "One son died after suicide, another from the train accident, one from carcrash, another died during her infantry", OR contradictions kinda "Moon is good guy but he's even more bad guy", or vice versa. If Moon funneled billions on something social, or met a head of state being a non-govt activist, or told something which is in a third-party source, this is worth to be described as a notable FACT reflecting his nature: please show this, don't pass over in silence. On the other hand, if you find something critical, feel free to open criticism section and put an information there, after suggestion of good intentions. Stay impartial, please, don't forget WP:BLP.Borovv (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thrilled when consensus agreed with you that the timeline approach to articles was no-one's idea of a good encyclopedia entry - and this is such an egregious example! Don't know much about the issues you mention with the subject, research for another day because there was only time for cursory research to work the lede (and even so just got it to barely-par). Dreams of featured status remain like sugarplums on this article. EBY  (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Borovv-related talk
No sarcasm was meant. "Former" was a mistake based on reports from strong sources (including an article by the BBC ) that the subject has stepped down from church leadership - and I quickly fixed it. As for "Moonie" - this is (whether the subject likes it or not) one of the most notable things about the subject. It is disingenuous for an encyclopedia to ignore it. That the subject may consider it derogatory is ALSO mentioned, which is what makes the sentence neutral. Neutrality, if you read about the Wiki BIO:LP, is not about withholding things that appear negative but in providing a balanced article. At the end of the day, I can guarantee you that there is no tone or insult in anything I write. Feel free to check my editing history - all 4 years of it:) That said, please check some of your edits - you are moving the language into passive ("weasel") territory. EBY  (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. EBY, i appreciate your track record and your eforts to improve the article, i really do. Could you do that without throwing away the sourced countent, even though it's in Korean but still reliable, many of them are the official papers from the governmental official web-pages? It's tons of time wasted for an editor who put it. Why did you put the prison stuff (he was indicted but not convicted which means de-jure innocent) right in the intro? That's can be very sensitive and unpleasant for the subject of the article: what if the man will have an heart attack after that, in his age, will you take the responsibility for consequences? You are very professional writer but i beg you to respect the subjects of your work at the appropriate level within the journalism ethics (not only within the rules of WP) and hope your bonafide. Borovv (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Links removed were redlined. It's possible I broke them in the first place, but that didn't show in the sandbox and so I blitzed them ahead of the bot. The subject's prison record is very much a notable aspect of his life. Notable, in fact, to the point of warranting its own Wiki article. The best way I can show my respect for any subject of any Wiki article is to ensure to the best of my ability that the information is well-balanced, covers all notable aspects of the subject's life in a verifiable and clear manner, and is (perhaps) ultimately written well enough to garner "featured" status - bringing millions of curious readers to the article. An article written so unbalanced, or that hides away anything that may appear negative, does a disservice to its subject. See Joseph Smith and Nelson Mandela - who both were convicted of crimes and that changed their lives, and thus are key factors in their biographies. L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia, and that fact is very pertinent to understanding how the US Government viewed him (glance at the infobox (NOT the lede) for the template I used here.) For a better understanding of the issues with biographies of religious figures, I suggest Requests for comment/Muhammad images where there is an active discussion on how to handle images of Muhammad, which Muslims feel are heretical. Your investment in this subject and the Unification church can help bring these articles up in quality, which will lead to a higher ranking and (more critically) a reliable article available to the free world (how that for paragraph ending hyperbole?) Best of luck, EBY  (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * i'm ok to balanced article even with a big portion of criticism from a third-party. i hope your bonafide but how can i be assured in your impartial interest in editing the article? It's not my bussiness, but why are you interested in modern religious leaders? To which faith are you belonging to?

The reason of my questions-related concerns are that you hided recently notable things like a religious Moon-orchestrated ceremony in the UN HQ, his a largest IN HISTORY gathering of 1.2 mln people, largest Asian heli plant ownership, U.S. presidents as Moon's patrons, Nobel laureates (nut just Nobel Peace Prize winners but laureates in physics or another) presided or participated in Moon's events, his top Asian ballet company, KOSPI, Expo 2012, Winter Olympics and many other things. You could put it down but you didn't, you undid my edits twice but you told me not to undo. You were asked to rewrite the article with the inclusion of removed content which took weeks to write, but you just said you won't. It took a day to put the information back in. i feel mistreated: what is this, power abuse in Wikipedia or yet another excuse among many? Am i not a peer in Wikipedia to enough extent? i beg a pardon if i didn't got you right, and i am really flattered by your lengthy respondings to "an unworthy newbie" (my own citation), but please, do not put obviously-negative and "weasel" (not my phrase) things which are considered from YOUR point of view as "nothing to be ashamed" things: for example, Moon is not Mandela -- that's very different things, Moon wasn't a prisoner of conscience on political grounds who later became a head of state with his power to make any of his opponents become a prisoner; Smith, as well as Muhammad, is not a living person and can't sue Wikipedia for possible libelling and therefore harm Wikipedia. Not to teach you, but please, stay impartial and be socially responsible. By the way, thanks for wishes of luck, i liked it, same to you, sincerely. Borovv (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Moonie"
"Moonist" probably can't be considered as derogatory as an adherent of an ism like Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, Darwinist, etc. Other endings like "-ian" do not fit. The ethymology of the word "Moonie" is unknown, but "-ie" ending sounds like an ending of nickname, which is "a usually familiar or humorous but sometimes pointed or cruel name given to a person or place, as a supposedly appropriate replacement for or addition to the proper name." There is no other reasons except for derogation and ostracism, certainly out of no-good intentions, which occured because of probable religious bigotry and racism in 1970-s in USA at the beginning of Moon's activity there. For the nickname, see the main page Moonie (nickname). i guess it's not appropriate to dub encyclopedists Borovvie or, God forbid, Ebie (i am not addressing to someone, just as an example, sorry if offenced). Reuters' Handbook of Journalism recommends to avoid the use of the word publicly, a professional encyclopedia editor is nothing worse, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Borovv (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

moon as second coming of jesus
Why isn't there anything in the article about Moon's assertion that he is the second coming of Jesus? If someone adds something, will it just be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.142.108 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence
The opening sentence, and most of the introduction, makes it look like Rev. Moon is mainly known as a businessperson. Actually he is mainly important as the founder of a new religious movement, whose members incidentally have done a lot business-wise. Also he does not necessarily deserve to get credit (or blame for that matter) for everything church members have done. Big parts of the article are more about that than about him and his life. Borock (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias
This is the worst wikipedia article that I have ever read! It is biased, the sources are biased and everything that could sound critical is omitted. What about his claims to hear and receive support from dead Presidents? Or accusations of being a cult leader? Or the fact that he is banned to travel to Germany and Japan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertlberman (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed certain bias towards Moon's completely unfounded claims. I ask the Wikipedia community to remove said bias.78.177.48.119 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you be a little more specific in what you'd like to remove, and why? Keep in mind that just because you disagree with Moon's claims would not be grounds for their removal. 38.109.88.218 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This reads like a biography. Less decade based, please.--84.13.206.207 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It "reads like a biography" because it is a biography. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Making the sections based upon dates instead of themes ("Personal" "Public Image" "Teachings" etc.) is unsupported by any Wikipedia Manual of Style, but also it makes it difficult to read. I don't want to read through 90 years of this man to perhaps learn about how he is perceived by his followers and people outside of his church, or the personal journey he went through to form the church.  Instead I have to read a lot of other extraneous details.  Very poorly formatted article that, in its current state, would never pass Wikipedia quality reviews for a good article.  I've never seen a biography laid out like this on Wikipedia, or in any encyclopedia. 167.230.38.120 (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that Rev. Moon is over 90 years old and has done and been involved in many things in his life. A good step might to be expand the introduction so that it's a mini-article for people looking for basic information. (I'm a member of his church BTW.) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve's right about writing the biography of a 90-year-old man. Just try wading through our featured article on W. E. B. Du Bois. Even the lede is long!

I'll try to help with comments, now that my "Moonie-talk" ban has been lifted; but I still can't edit the article itself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is rife with bias. I read the first two paragraphs and had to remove biased language. The footnotes I researched were ABSURD. Why hasn't anything been done to clean this up? How does one flag this for bias? I challenge the neutrality of this article. (HELP doesn't help a bit in telling one how to do this.) Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Starting with 1995 and lasting till 2006 the German Ministry for Inner Affairs has banned Sun Myung Moon and his wife from entering Germany. The Ministry then counted Moon's society to the youth-cults and psycho-sects, bearing the possibility to endanger the young. On November 2006 this ban has been lifted citing the freedom of religion as the cause. The ban got recommitted to the "OVG Rheinland-Pfalz" (a German court). The OVG lifted the ban in May 2007 stating, that only great dangers for the public or national security could justify such a prohinit of entry." (please see (one of Germany's big newspapers): Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5. Mai 2007, S.9 - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon#cite_note-12) Also, this article seems to be bare of any critics. It resembles more the praisings by members of a personality cult upon their leader. Just look at all the photos, that show him with important people from the world of politics and economy. One may feel to be in the families' photo album. There is a lot of people who call this man simply a right wing cult leader.84.0.205.183 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Albertlberman that certain issues should be covered by the article.
 * It should mention the church's announcement that (deceased) former U.S. presidents made supportive statements from the spirit world to a (living) church member. This is a claim of channeling.
 * Some people have accused Rev. Moon of leading a "spurious" church (see Cult). A representative sample of these accusations should be mentioned and/or summarized. If the accusers give a list of reasons, even better.
 * I think the travel ban to Germany expired or was revoked. The travel ban to Japan is still in force, though (last I heard). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the travel ban to Germany has been revoked, indeed. From the German Wikipedia (I translate, but I am not a professional, so if you would be so kind as to rephrase this in better English. Thank you.):

I agree completely, what the hell is happening with this article? It is completely bias by moon followers and admirers. Please do something about it now! Thank You

Family information and extramarital children
Though we have a page on Moon's True Family, Moon has an extended family that includes his first wife and at least one child out of wedlock. This is all neutral, well-sourced information that is typically included in a biography. The fact that a familial distinction is made makes this more notable. This article overall feels like it glosses over numerous controversial matters. I don't know much about this topic, but it feels to me as if it has been written primarily by his adherents. Jokestress (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this dispute has now been escalated to a noticeboard, I will continue discussion here about Moon's sexual activity outside of marriage rather than continue editing the article. A 1998 60 Minutes interview discusses allegations of a child born out of wedlock and raised by another Unification Church family. Other sources include:
 * Conason, Joe (2004). Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth. Macmillan, ISBN 9780312315610
 * Parry, Robert (2004). Secrecy & privilege: Rise of the Bush dynasty from Watergate to Iraq ISBN 9781893517011
 * I believe this family information is worthy of inclusion, given the Unification Church's positions on such activity amd the disctinction made regarding who is a True Family member. It's standard to list someone's children in a bio, even if they are estranged, dead, or outside of marriage (all of which are the case here). Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At one time the article did include this information, mainly presented in a fair way. My objection to the recent way the article has been going is, as I said above, it has become more about the organization than about the person. Borock (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

David Icke
User:Borovv repeatedly inserts material] that is supported by a political website run by David Icke. Putting aside that Borovv doesn't even cite Icke properly (several of the citations are malformed), the material is unacceptable as Icke's website is not a reliable source. One editor reverted him, and Borovv reverted back. I have now reverted a couple of times, but Borovv persists. I've run out of reversions. I've warned Borovv about edit-warring, but he's a very stubborn editor (many of his other contributions to this article are inappropriate for a variety of reasons).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issue, citing www.Segye.com articles that are hidden verbatim within Korean government promotional materials
I agree with Bbb23. Borovv seems very much willing to engage in edit war and mud slinging including just randomly saying "vandalism warning" without valid reasons. There is something really wrong with the way he insists in inserting materials that clearly violate NPOV. For people who are not familiar, www.Segye.com is tabloid publication owned and operated by Unification Church. It's not a news publication objective and reliable in their reporting. Borovv cites Korean government promotional materials regarding Korean War's 60th anniversary that copy verbatim from www.Segye.com tabloid articles that are not neutral in of themselves. I am guessing he attempts this to lend a veneer of legitimacy to his citations and to stealthily insert NPOV materials. As for citing David Icke, Bbb23 has outlined perfectly well why this is unacceptable. I'm not willing to get into an edit war with Borovv, but someone's got to talk to Borovv about his behavior regarding this article. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No newspaper is NPOV. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Template Tag - News Release
This article has been consistently positive in content and promotional over time. It needs a bold overhaul to bring it in line with an encyclopedic entry. The bulleted list formatting, the sourcing, the content - all needs addressing. EBY (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. However the tag is not exactly the right one since it is intended more for "spam" articles. Rev. Moon is clearly notable and there is a lot of well-sourced information on him. BTW I am a Unification Church member since 1974.  Having said that, most articles are going to be positive since their main purpose is to tell us about the article's subject and that's mostly going to be positive.  The article is not (despite probably some people's wishes) about: "Why Rev. Moon's theology is wrong" or "anticommunist activism was a bad thing" or even "cult-like devotion to a leader is harmful."  So what I would like to see is an article giving factual information about Rev. Moon and his life, source mostly from neutral sources.  If people want the UC view there are sites for that already linked, as there is for people who dislike him. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you stating your bias (meant in the neutral definition of the word). I found a better template tag. The subject of this article - like L. Ron Hubbard, John Smith, others - is rarely written about neutrally. For whatever reason, source material is divisive. But Wikipedia articles on those other topics have, over time, become encyclopedic, informative, and fairly balanced. It's doable. I can help, but I am a better editor than writer so it will have to be a group effort. Luckily that would be Wikipedia's oeuvre. EBY  00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have started to make some changes in the article. I'm actually shocked to see how much has been left out about his life, including his imprisonment by North Korea -- which just about everybody agrees is vital to understanding him. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve - I looked at the history of the article & all of the subject's life has been added/removed many, many times. Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia - no article stays the same, is ever finished, ever stays well-written, ever keeps the same information... that said, I am going to suggest you go look at perhaps the L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or 14th Dalai Lama articles to see how other primarily religious figures in modern times are written,formatted, and edited for salient content. Adding information on a subject with no context (and ALL context should be prioritized according to how 3rd part sources suggest, not by the "everybody agrees" non-rubric) is adding bad information onto an already poorly organized and sloppily written article. Reverting edits with bias can't improve the situation. If something gets cleaned up, work within that formatting. EeBee (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than "just about everybody" I should have said "almost all people who have written seriously on Rev. Moon's life, including supporters, critics, and neutral scholars." Steve Dufour (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Importance of US v SMM?
Certainly this should be covered in the article, as well in its own article as a notable event in Rev. Moon's life. But it is really not all that important in the long run. His notability is that he claims to be the Messiah, not that he always follows all the laws. In his own autobiography he tells how he sent missionaries to Japan in violation of its immigration laws and later to communist countries in the same way. I could also add that US tax laws are often violated. In most cases (and I happen to know something about this since I work in the field) when a person leaves income off of his tax return the IRS sends a letter, the person pays it plus penalties and interest and nothing more is said or done. And of course if the US government held a trial to determine of someone is or is not the Messiah or a legitimate religious figure this would be a serious violation of the principle of separation of church and state. These are some of the reasons that so many legal and religious groups protested the government's treatment of this case. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * About the notability of the case - I googled it (admittedly a cheap and easy, non-scientific method of establishing notability but it works as 'finger in the wind' test at Wiki) - NYT et al ran like 10 articles on it and the case appears in almost every in-depth article on Moon himself. It seems to have been a cause celeb of its time, with many non-Unification clerics rallying. So my take is that it deserves a paragraph here, and that the information should eventually be balanced (it is very-pro Moon currently, there are 2 sides to everything) and also put in perspective of Moon's life. Autobiographies are not weighted well as source material - certainly they should be noted, but they are famously biased by the subjects. Your arguments about taxes and tax law, I agree but we are editors here - not writers - so our opinions on the information itself shouldn't be the decider of notability.EeBee (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fairness. I'm happy with the section now. I don't think you will find many sources defending the government's case on its legal merits.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW the case, besides its own article United States v. Sun Myung Moon, is at least mentioned in Unification Church, Unification Church of the United States, Laurence H. Tribe, Carlton Sherwood, Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, In Jin Moon, Unification Church and mainstream Christianity, Moonie (nickname), and probably others. It is also linked on the Unification Church template. So it is not being ignored on WP :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Biography?
"A biography is a detailed description or account of someone's life. It entails more than basic facts (education, work, relationships, and death), a biography also portrays a subject's experience of these events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of a subject's personality." -Wikipedia

Is it possible, if people agree, to move the article more in this direction? There are other articles, Unification Church List of Unification Church affiliated organizations etc., which list Rev. Moon's projects and the doings of his followers. How about making this article about the person? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm relatively new to this article, but I couldn't agree more. There's way too much information about things other than Moon himself in the article. Some, of course, is unavoidable, but it's significantly out of balance.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. A more narrative account, preferably based around one or a few biographies by respected historians, would be far better than the current scattergun. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

and why is there nothing controversial about Moon??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.111.162 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a biography. Look at this sentence: "Moon travels worldwide in his private jet which cost $50 million, and he does not believe in the literal descent of Christ from heaven to Earth, according to his own words." What is the relationship there? Poor writing! I'd say this entry is maintained by his followers - the Moonies - not by objective writers. There is little mention of the controversy surrounding this man over the years. GTGeek88 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic based rather than event based
I agree with EeBee, if I understand him/her right, that it would be better if the article was organized more in terms of topics than by decades. For instance some could be "church leadership", "business interests", "political involvement", etc. This would make it easier for the readers to follow. And what decade something happened is not so important. BTW relevant criticism should be mentioned under each topic, rather than having one "criticism" section. Borock (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about leaving the decade headings for now and using them for events in the person's life itself? Info on projects and so forth could be moved to the new sections. I gave this a start with a section on Moon's famous weddings.Borock (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There obviously should be a section on the Unification Church itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Currently reads as a hagiography
There's currently a big NPOV problem with this article, which currently reads like a panegyric, and gives the impression of having been very carefully maintained to preserve only one point of view.

It's based almost entirely on the enumeration of events, reads like a list of lifetime achievements, with very little critical analysis, and, very notably, no criticism whatsoever of Moon, who comes across, if this article is to believed, as a person entirely without flaws. I can't believe that there's not any criticism of Moon that needs to be integrated into the article.

Now the restrictions of WP:BLP have been removed, there's a real oppotunity to turn this into a balanced and detailed biographical article. -- The Anome (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopefully at least some of these difficulties can be more easily resolved now that this is no longer a BLP; there is always more difficulty in the case of living cult leaders. I think some of the perceived cultishness of the Moonies has been a little overdone - they are primarily a psuedo-Christian outfit and run along those lines with Korean and Moon's personal touches; however, it is true they attracted a lot of attack down the years along the usual brainwashing and love-bombing lines and this needs coverage in the article. Also of course the extent to which the whole thing is just a business operation or a genuine NRM, shades of the debates that surround Scientology. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, portions of the article seem to contain lists of events, such as:


 * "In 2000, Oscar Arias, who is the President of Costa Rica and Nobel Peace Prize winner, attended one of international scientific conferences, organized by Moon."


 * "In 2000, one of the [sic] Moon's front organizations, launched activities in China and opened an office in the Health Ministry of China in Beijing."


 * "In January 2001 Moon sponsored President George W. Bush's Inaugural Prayer Luncheon for Unity and Renewal."


 * "In 2003, Congressman Danny K. Davis testified before Speaker of the United States House of Representatives about Sun Myung Moon, praising Moon's commitment to world peace and interfaith harmony."


 * "In 2003, the Polish President and the Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa attended one of the events hosted by Moon."


 * "In 2006, the President of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapakse, fourth President of Sri Lanka Dingiri Banda Wijetunga, twice Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Ranil Wickremasinghe and the Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka W. J. M. Lokubandara were guest speakers in the one of Moon's events."


 * I'm not sure that this kind of material belongs in an encyclopedia article. Famspear (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably that entire section needs a rewrite, with the decade splits taken out and the obvious PR material from the UC subjected to analysis and commentary - it's going to be a task. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I get the feeling that the event-list stuff currently functions as filler that prevents the addition of real biographical material. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and refactor it into its own article, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, modeled on articles like Timeline of Lord Byron. -- The Anome (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've now moved all the blow-by-blow stuff into Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, arranged purely chronologically, and trimmed much of the irrelevant laudatory material from the main article. Hopefully this will now have created sufficient breathing space to put in a proper article structure, by making the article small enough to be refactored. -- The Anome (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Messianic or God Claims
It is interesting that while a search for Messiah turns up nothing in this article, yet a link at the bottom of the page goes to a Wikipedia page that lists self-appointed Messiahs with Moon's name included. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Then put it in! See WP:SOFIXIT.-- The Anome (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the one who should put it in is the editor who put Moons name in the Wikipedia list of self-appointed Messiahs or the editor who put the link to self-appointed messiahs at the end of the article. But thanks for the invitation. However, I think you have already done the job.  (EnochBethany (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

NPOV Boilerplate
Is this not useless. I mean how would non-moonies & moonies agree on the life of this guy? In fact, I think one great pretense of Wikipedia is that NPOV exists. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC))


 * See the WP:NPOV article for a description of how the process works. The short version: if everyone, including reliable sources -- preferably multiple reliable sources -- can agree that something is true, we just report it as fact. If they can't agree, then we say "A says this, and B says that," providing relevant attributions to reliable sources that merely report the fact of them saying it.-- The Anome (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If everyone had to agree, what would be left on Wikipedia? (EnochBethany (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Well, here are some examples of how can Wikipedia deal with disagreements about what consitutes "truth".


 * At one extreme, we can all agree that atomic number of Carbon is 6, and the Earth goes round the Sun (with the rider that a very, very tiny number of people believe otherwise). More contentious is that the Universe is 13.5 billion years old and that life evolved from very simple beginnings, beliefs which are pretty much universal among scientists and very common among the well-educated, but doubted by large numbers of people, some of whom take these beliefs as a personal affront.


 * Other beliefs, such as the belief in dark matter or string theory are matters of realistic dispute, with the hope that eventually scientific progress will answer each of these questions in a satisfying and authoritative way based on sound theories which accord 100% with experimental evidence.


 * At the other end of the scale, whether capitalism or socialism are better economic systems, or whether each is better or worse for particular activities, on a case by case basis, is an issue which can only be viewed subjectively: attempts to provide evidence-based answers for these questions are simply ignored by believers on either side. And at the very furthest extreme, which religion is true -- or whether none of them are -- or whether that is even a meaningful question -- is also, at the moment, and possibly forever, a matter of opinion.


 * And so on. -- The Anome (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Another obvious way in which disputes can be settled is by who has the power at the Wikipedia computer, codes or whatever to impose the will on others! IMHO, that is precisely what Wikipedia does!   Note how dogmatic your statement is about religion.  Now how would you hope to prove that such a statement were true?  And whose secondary sources would be affirmed as reliable to establish that POV?  That very POV is hardly NPOV.  The guy or the religious group (secular humanism) with the biggest computer gun wins, IMHO.(EnochBethany (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Err, he said any religion could be true, or none, or the question of which religion is correct could be nonsense anyway. How on earth is that dogmatic? What other options do you think exists that he is excluding? --81.149.74.231 (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Life Section
The last paragraph in the Early Life section describes how he was in prison for 5 years. Nowhere does it say what he was arrested for. Someone needs to fix that. Mylittlezach (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Of course communist governments don't really need to give a reason to arrest someone. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But they usually do provide charges -- just for appearence' sake. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Meeting with Argentinian President
In 1995, Moon met with the Argentinian President Carlos Menem.[95]

Shouldn't this either be cut from the article, or something in the sentence should explain why this meeting is notable and worth mentioning? --81.149.74.231 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ You're right - duly chopped - one of a series of "events" in the article that are actually just puff-pieces for the Unification Church, the whole thing needs much revision, all help welcomed. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of death
I corrected the date in the info box to 9/3/2012. Although in the USA it is still Sept. 2, he died in South Korea, which time for them is Monday 9/3.Mylittlezach (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is in en.wikipedia.org, not ko.wikipedia.org, the date of death is September/02 in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.237.55 (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the date back to 9/3/2012. The language of the encyclopedia has no bearing on where and when he died. Chris the speller   yack  01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the date of death should be based on local time. The location of the Wikipedia servers is irrelevant, and there is no "English" timezone -- there's not even a single US timezone. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the language of the encyclopedia has no bearing on where and when he died, I agree. So it must be September 02, not September 03. In ko.wikipedia.org it should be September 03. The question is not where he died, the question is where the article will be read. Korean people will access ko.wikipedia.org, not us.wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.237.55 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

some people read English outside the US! Even some in England! Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Australia and New Zealand too.
 * Dates of death are ALWAYS based on the location of death, and take into account local time zones at that location, including summer/daylight saving time. People in 200 other countries can read about the death, but not a single one of those other countries is remotely relevant when it comes to the correct specification of the date and time of death.  He died in the early hours of Monday 3 Septemnber, in Korea.  What date/time that precise moment happened to be in the USA, Germany or Timbuctoo has nothing to do with anything. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)-  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "What is us.wikipedia?" Kelapstick asks as he reads the English Wikipedia from Mongolia...--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of death should be local time where the person died. But since UTC is universal for clarity and universality we can say day and local Korean time followed by, in parenthesis, different day using UTC time. I am appalled of how Americo-centric some people get. English Wikipedia is read by many people other than the States, and by people whose native tongue is not English. I also object to quoting months first for international materials. The correct order is day month year, so 3 September 2012, not September 3, 2012.. If in doubt, just look at the time stamps we have just besides our user names here.. werldwayd (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * He was born in Korea, and he died in Korea. That makes it easy to subtract his date of birth from his date of death to get his exact life span in years and days.


 * For what it's worth, his death was 12:54 p.m. New York time (EDT), which is 13 hours behind Korea time. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "church"
The word "church" is capitalised when it refers to the official religious corpus in BEng. This isn't done in the article. I'm not sure if this rule is also true of American English: thoughts? Nyxtia (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a native American English speaker and when I see "the Church" I read that as being either the Roman Catholic Church or the whole of Christianity (less common and only used by Christians addressing other Christians.) When it is about some church that was already mentioned by name (as in this article) it's "the church." Steve Dufour (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't a matter of religious legitimacy or sect, it's a simple matter of "Unification Chruch" being a proper noun: "Roman Catholic Church", "Church of Scientology", "Unification Church", "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", "Church of the Subgenius", all are named according to the same principle, and in the context of this article, the term "the Church" is simply an abbreviated form of "the Unification Church" used to avoid inelegant repetition.


 * However, given that this might be jarring for some readers, as above, I think it's probably best to spell it out in full for each use. -- The Anome (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Anome is obviously correct here, despite his name being such an obvious ripoff from one of Jack Vance's rather better novels. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of children
There appears to be difficulty about how many children he leaves precisely according to his obits today; the Guardian quote AP on the figure of 10 ; Washington Post gives a more detailed breakdown and puts the figure at 11 ; the Washington Times, who given its Moon / UC ownership should know the facts (or at least, the official UC version of the "facts" about Moon), confirm the 11 figure. The article currently says 14 and has a list, so presumably some on the list are bogus. I propose removing the list of all ones not article-linked and changing it to say 11. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to say how many children Moon had. No source is reliable that gives a number like that.  The source would have had to be with Moon all the time when he was alone with a woman or women.   Then you would also need DNA tests.  A reliable source might say that Moon claims X children as his.(EnochBethany (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Unfortunately WP can only go on reliable sources - most of the quality sources say he had 11 kids, so that's what we are going to have to go with, unless you can come up with quality sources that say otherwise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I missed this discussion but had put in much of the original info and came back to see why it had been deleted. Here's what I've put together:

"[H]is first marriage ended in divorce. A relationship with another woman resulted in a child but no wedding. In 1960, he married Hak Ja Han, who bore 14 of Mr. Moon’s children ...."

Those are the relevant lines from web p. 5 of the cited WPost obit. The first child, by the first wife, is not mentioned by the Post but is in the Signature Books extract (whose link had lapsed in the article but is now updated); but the Signature book doesn't mention the out-of-wedlock child. So I knit the "15 or 16" together from the two sources.

The 10-11 numbers are obviously way lower than the Post obit but they refer to surviving children, not total, from all I see. The above 20:56, 2 September 2012 Post citation is just misquoted, as I show. It clearly includes children who predeceased Moon. The Guardian says only 10 surviving; has nothing about totals. Interestingly, the WTimes says 11 but again surviving. The difference could well be the out-of-wedlock child. It also says several have died, no number given.

The editor said, in removing my edit, that the sources didn't support what I'd gleaned and removed the "15 or 16" and all reference to the out-of-wedlock child. I do not want the out-of-wedlock child left out. I also don't see why we'd eliminate mention of children who've died. They're all part of the story, I'd think. I also like having the "surviving" number(s) in ... but that gets complicated again.

I'm not pushing a specific new wording yet. Any thoughts? Thanks. Swliv (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Admittedly the sources we have that were published at the time of his death only talk about "surviving" children - the only source you have for the others is the Signature Books one? That doesn't look like a quality source - it's not even clear what it is, is it just a Mormon website? It is badly written and garbled in places. I've done some searching just now to see if the numbers of children are mentioned in more detail in any non-UC book source on Moon and haven't found anything so far. If there is some kind of reasonably reliable book, newspaper or journal (not the Washington Times) that has evidence, we can certainly add the referenced material. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the Washington Post that gave the fourteen and the out-of-wedlock. And yes, I've also considered that the Post has a particular reason to "dig dirt" and in general look askance at the subject given UC having brought the "new kid" conservative Times into the DC market. And Signature is certainly self-identified as a Mormom operation but the webpage is clearly labelled as an excerpt of Channel 2 of a published book. "Bad writing" sounds pretty flimsy reason for dismissal of the contents. Garbled? I'd feel better if you cited what you think is garbled. And dismissing UC sources and scrubbing them from (this part of) the article (they're clearly cited as UC, after all) seems extreme, too. Three "Ands ...". Well, I sure don't see where you're going though I appreciate your responding. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Solo photo, please
I usually don't like that somebody shares the main photo in the infobox with the subject of the article. After death, even more so! Surely we can come up with a photo showing Sun Myung Moon all alone, rather than with his wife. Frankly she is just taking all the focus herself away from her dead husband with her insanely colorful dress and totally out-of-place smile, rendering the photo not dignified for a just-deceased spiritual leader. Please replace the photo with a more appropriate solo portrait. werldwayd (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a photo of just him would be better. However her dress color choice is normal in traditional Korean fashion. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk)
 * ✅ -- The Anome (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Badly formatted references
Most of the references in this article are badly formatted, some extremely so, and many have awkward parameter-laden URLs that are unlike to stand the test of time. They need to be improved by re-casting them using cite web, cite book and cite news templates, as appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Divine Principle publication date
What's the source for saying 1957? The article on the book itself says it was published in 1966. Or is it a different book (despite being linked to from here) as that article gives a different transliteration of the Korean. Lovingboth (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a UC member. This article also says: "The beginnings of the church's official teachings, the Divine Principle, first saw written form in 1946." To us members this is the most important date, although it means that they were handwritten on paper (not by Rev. Moon himself incidentally.)  Also the teachings themselves are what we see as important, not their publication in various printed books.  The church itself was founded in 1954 so the Divine Principle was obviously being taught before the 1957 date, which is probably the first printed book for Korean members.  I'm guessing the 1966 date is the first English translation.  All editions were published by the church itself.  I'm not sure why the article "Divine Principle" is about the book, not about the doctrines and theology of the church. (Or anyway its focus is, if not so much the bulk of the content.) -Steve Dufour (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that Divine Principle gives other dates, like 1973 for the first book in English titled "Divine Principle." There were other English books before that of course since the church started in the US in 1959 and we mostly don't read Korean. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that he's supposed to have had his thoughts written down earlier than the official publication date of the printed version. But a book's publication date is supposed to be verifiable (e.g. by inclusion in the country's national library catalogue) as well as having implications on copyright etc. So it's odd that there's no agreement as to when it is. Lovingboth (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Should this be mentioned in the article?--68.9.119.69 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would probably be possible to get exact accurate dates from church sources. Secondary sources mostly do not go into so much detail since they are mainly interested in other aspects. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is Moon still considered the messiah?
Has Moon's death affected claims by the Unification Church to the effect that he is or was the "Lord of the Second Advent"? What precisely is the Moonie belief--that there were two messiahs, Jesus and Moon? Please clarify. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been Unification Church member since 1974.  Rev. Moon's death did not change his status as the return of Christ, nor was his death unexpected to church members. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the phrase "return of Christ" supposed to be universal; as in the sense that mankind thinks Mr. Moon was Christ even though he died? Or does this phrase only mean that Unification Church members think he is Christ? Tossa Cromwell and others in the Church have serious doubts about this issue....and William Haines remarks on this subject are accurate and germane... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Illegitimate child
There is a post on WP:BLP/N here about the inclusion of this bit in the article. a13ean (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I still have not heard anything here, and since other news sources state the same as a matter of fact, I am restoring it. a13ean (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And in addition to the New York Times the LA Times and The Washington Post also state that he had one child out of wedlock as a matter of fact in their obituaries. a13ean (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They might have gotten the information from WP, this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW the information in the last "Family" section is already given in other parts of the article (except for the names of their "non-notable children." Steve Dufour (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the whole family section since the information on his two marriages was given in the sections on his life, with the number of children mentioned. If it's decided to mention his illegitimate children that could also be in the appropriate time. BigJim707 (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The family section was a bit awkward anyways, but this is clearly notable enough to be mentioned in both the main article and timeline. Currently the number of children in the infobox is set to 15, but only 14 are mentioned in the article.  One sentence is all it needs.  It is unreasonable to suppose that three major newspapers would make such a major mistake.   a13ean (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the information on his illegitimate children (or child) could be added, either in the section when it happened (or maybe was first known), of else in a new family section which would also have the information on both of his marriages.BigJim707 (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued
I finally got around to adding this material in, but another user removed it with the edit summary "not actually what the source says". As made clear above, this is exactly what the sources say, but if there is any concern that I'm missing please bring it here. a13ean (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You should say full story or nothing. It is easy to blame a person by half of the information, subjective selected by sensationalistic media. This is a POV. You did remove second half as well... so you do suport the POV. It is correct to include second half of what S.M.Moon says to that or not to say anything. Do not catch me wrong, I do support to mention both information, as I think that truth should come out.--DeeMusil (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The proposed edit says " Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954." -- How is this at all sensationalistic or half the information?  I live in a country where 40% of children are born to unmarried women, and it has long ago ceased to be a sensation when it happens.  If you can suggest a more neutral way of conveying the same fact, I would be glad to hear it.
 * You want to put in that this woman "was later seduced or raped in Japan and did not come back to him until his next marriage" -- I'm having difficulty understanding the logic chain that would make someone want to include this, but in any case it's a moot point because tparents.org is not a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source that says anything similar we can discuss that.  a13ean (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a common 40% stuff, it is not necessary to mention it at all. Actually, media rumours are not reliable source as well. If you have difficulty to understand logic chain, try to read what that source says and rethink why. Maybe you will be able to understand it and then reformulate text to be more understandable. Self published sources are acceptable to get the article subject position to that. By starting an reverting edit war, without reaching consensus here, you are not helping to the article at all.--DeeMusil (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are three reliable sources for this. Obituaries in the NYT, WSJ and LAT all agree, and these are in no way "media rumors".   This was previously brought up at WP:BLP/N and the only response was that it was an obvious include.  If you still have an issue with the sources, why don't you take it to WP:RS/N and see if anyone agrees?  A brief mention such as this is not undue, and it's almost necessary since otherwise only 15/16 of the children in the infobox are explained (and this number was incorrect before I updated it).  a13ean (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These obituaries are reliable sources. tparents is not. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Media repeating one after another same half-truth news agency message. Nothing new. Ask news agency from where they have it, probably would be the very same (one) source. Important is, that this "fact" is often misused to accusation, that there was some relationship outside of marriage. Just lets see A13ean summary on the article: "Rumors of sexual relations ... is an exact quote" gives no doubts about purpose, why this should be included without explanation of the other side. To express position of the article subject is important. Please read what source says. If second part is not mentioned, whole section is NPOV template candidate, because is about spreading rumours and half-truth (lie) trough Wikipedia. And if I should be hard to you, I would request exceptional evidence about this exceptional information as mother is always clear, but father is not. So, prove it or let's delete it. Originally I supported to keep both parts of the true, now, as I see the primary concern is to spread rumours, I support exceptional evidence or delete. Regards, --DeeMusil (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: found some supporting (and not heavy biased) sources to information which was deleted here. Use translator from Danish. --DeeMusil (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about WP:VERIFIABILITY, and we do this using reliable sources. This fact is reliably sourced and neutrally phrased.  That particular source states that rumors followed him, but also, like the others, that he had a child as a matter of fact.  a13ean (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the Danish source is using the True Parents Organization. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For sure, media use this source as well, there is no other source, so maybe they have a crystal ball in the news room and therefore are more reliable? We are coming closer to a conclusion, that it is not possible to publish it as a simple fact, but it is what New York Times wrote: a rumor. Therefore is necessary to Write A says B about C or to delete it.--DeeMusil (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also parse the NYTimes obit sentence as supporting that he fathered a child in 1954. The fact that the same concept is echoed in two other obits from respected newspapers should resolve it.    14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All 3 obits echoed the message. Media works like this This does not mean it have a greater relevance or reliability because of this. It is just more important.--DeeMusil (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: This does not mean it have a greater relevance or reliability because of this--Yes it does, actually, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.    15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Listen, we repeat it in circles, so i quit, If there will be just half of the story, and if this will be presented as a fact, and not A says B about C, this is an NPOV tag candidate. --DeeMusil (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

RSN
Now at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I was in a rush but still should have linked it here. a13ean (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen the thread at WP:RSN and I've restored the information. Three obits from three reliable newspapers pretty much seal the deal as far as sourcing is concerned; this would be more than enough for a BLP, let alone a non-living person article. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
final version seems to be POV as just half of the message from sensational media is in the article and it is presented as simple fact. This is a POV, so correct is to add NPOV template until problem is solved. Is someonoe against?--DeeMusil (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Review the documentation at POV for the prerequisites that must be met before the tag can be used.  The prerequisites have not been met.   18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * i mean it as discussion, not a voting. What are the process reason which "is not met" ? Discussion above shows clearly it is about WP:BALANCE, there are no other prerequisities necessary. If the article subject position is not mentioned, it is just a part of rumours and therefore unbalanced. Consider, that there are no two contradictory opinions, but article subject's position comply with and extend the media viewpoint. But the media viewpoint alone is possible to misuse to spread rumours and hate speech and therefore alone is unbalanced. --DeeMusil (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant part of the POV template documentation is The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. so it is correct to discuss the concern here first. What is the exact article content change you feel needs to be made to resolve the perceived POV issue?  Please provide proposed content and sources.    19:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This was already done.--DeeMusil (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it the "rape" content? For clarity can you re-supply the complete proposed content change and source.   19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see this is actually an article about sources, with DeeMusil and a blocked editor arguing that the New York Times isn't a reliable source. Having lost that battle DeeMusil is now taking another tack. The NYT was not reporting rumours. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected. WP:NPOV is based on emphasis given in reliable sources. If the proposed content isn't found in reliable sources it isn't a NPOV issue but a V issue.  Looking at the discussion referred to above, this was never a BALANCE problem as suggested.  Consensus is that the suggested source isn't WP:RS.  Is there a useable source for the suggested content?    22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV TAG
I tagged this article prior to seeing much of this on the talk page, and glad I did. The article is bereft of the controversy of the subject's life and simply does not reflect subject the way notable, reliable sources do.
 * One note: it is NOT for Wikipedia editors to second-guess reliable sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN unless the reliability of one of their reports is actually questioned by another reliable source. In other words, whether an editor agrees with what the NYT says or how they sourced it does NOT matter unless another reliable source specifically challenges the article in question.

Selected Specific POV issues:
 * Early life: ...the Divine Principle, first saw written form in 1946. The language is flowery (for lack of a better word) and reverent. It's a book. Call it a book. If he write it, say he wrote it. Is it scripture? To certain people, it is. Cite that. Also cite that reliable sources say otherwise - one called it a treatise, several point out it was revised more than once. None of this covered
 * Early life: Tangentially a POV issue but certainly puts a lot of weight and focus on the speicifics of Moon's birth with multiple possible birth facts (Lunar vs Gregorian time, redlined locations, Korean characters) - this is the English Wikipedia and the details should adhere to the English format (see Mao Zedung for example). If there isn't a RS source for a fact, leave it out. If the location doesn't exist, don't redline it.
 * Early life: First Marriage. The fact that this subject, notable for marriage blessing ceremonies, is divorced is glossed over and the puff "Today, Sun Kil Choi and her son are members of the Unification Church and have received the Blessing..." included is unbalanced. The NYT obituary says of the first marriage; "In 1946, leaving them behind..." & "Despite the centrality of marriage in his developing theology, Mr. Moon divorced Ms. Choi in 1952," The LA Times, CNN, and Economist obits don't mention it at all, USA Today gives it passing mention, "After divorcing his first wife, he married..." If this article is going to include it, it should make sure that reliable sources consider it notable as part of his life story, and ensure that the ex-wife and child are both public people to have their names mentioned. The UK Guardian wrote; Moon is variously reported as having been married twice, three or four times and his children, including those allegedly out of wedlock, are put at anything from eight to 16.
 * Second Marriage: Again, none of the controversy that exists in the reliable sources exists in this article and what is in the article is written "in universe" - meaning the viewpoint reflects what Moon's followers believe, not what the reliable sources state. NYT reported, somewhat critically (And the Boston Globe echoed), "Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954. In 1960, Mr. Moon married the 17-year-old Hak Ja Han, who would bear him 13 children and be anointed “true parent.” Economist is closest to what is written in the current version of the article; ...by their high-crowned True Father and their equally unsmiling True Mother, Hak Ja Han. The UK Telegraph was possibly the most critical; Jesus would have married the ideal wife and begotten the perfect “pure” family. Moon would complete the task with the aim of unifying all religions and societies under his personal rule, liberating them from the sinful condition caused (Moon claimed) by Eve’s illicit sex with Satan. To this end, an early marriage was put aside, and in 1960, aged 40, he took a second bride, 17-year-old Hak Ja Han, with whom he ruled his flock in the manner of a medieval monarch. 
 * Breakthrough to world fame (1970's-1982): This entire section censors non-flattering events. The NYT called this era of Moon's life "A Litany of Scandals,, CNN pointed to the controversy of this era in the evolution of Moon as a religious leader with a quote, ""Rev. Moon demanded a lot of members -- a lot of (them) left their families and they lived very sacrificially, especially in the 1970s". Boston Globe: In the late 1970s, Rev. Moon came under scrutiny by federal authorities, mainly over allegations that he was involved in efforts by the South Korean government to bribe members of Congress to support President Park Chung Hee. The Guardian: But Moon's business practices had aroused suspicions and in 1978, after the Koreagate bribery scandal, the congressional subcommittee on international organisations issued a damning report on the Moon church, which it described as "a multinational corporation … a paramilitary organisation … and a tightly disciplined international political party".
 * PRIOR TO Consolidation and expansion: There is a huge gap in the timeline here. Most notable sources describe the presidency of Ronald Reagan as a flourishing era in Moon's life and in his ventures. Then a decline in the 90's (NYT) As his church’s fortunes declined in the United States, Mr. Moon revised his pro-American views. In a 1997 speech, he said America had “persecuted” him. He also attacked homosexuals and American women.
 * Consolidation and expansion: Reliable sources call the era from the late 90's to his death as a time of decline for Moon, marked with controversy: (CNN)From 2003 to 2005, the British government prohibited him from traveling to that country, according to a U.S. State Department report. And (USA Today) One of the more bizarre chapters in Moon's relationship with Washington came in 2004, when more than a dozen U.S. lawmakers attended a "coronation ceremony" for Moon and his wife in which Moon declared himself humanity's savior and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons." Some of the congressmen later said they had been misled and hadn't been aware that Moon would be at the event.
 * Blessing Ceremonies: There's a quote in this section applauding arranged marriages but no balance given to reliable sources who report differently, which is egregiously unbalanced. Also - USA Today doesn't SAY anything. Just use the quote and cite it properly - "Moon teaches that romantic love leads to...
 * Death: The facts of Moon's death should NOT be taken from the obituary written by his own newspaper when there are dozens of more reliable neutral sources available.
 * Activities with the UN: Almost all of these are taken from the UN itself, which is Original Research and not acceptable. If reliable sources didn't write about these activities and their notability, then the details don't belong here.
 * This is the basics, as far as I can tell on a single pass, to getting this article closer to NPOV. - EBY (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No complaints here, feel free to start making these changes. a13ean (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hung the arrows, hopefully other editors with time margin can connect up the dots. EBY (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Improvements

 * I have been a Unification Church member since 1974. I totally agree with you that the article should be more neutral, as well as a lot of incidental events not mentioned.  I hope that editors also consult some of the many books written on Rev. Moon's life and our church, not just news media reports. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Steve Dufour, certainly. See WP:NOTRELIABLE for guidelines about use of sources. My issue in this article that it's whitewashed, with WP:UNDUE weight being given to Moon's 'official' biography against the most reliable sources available on the topic. EBY (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually almost every controversial point is mentioned in the article, so I disagree with "whitewashed." I just made a few changes to take out poorly sourced and minor items. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing that could be added is that Moon was very much criticized and opposed from various sides during his life, and indeed after. Borock (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On a side note compare Scientology controversies and Antisemitism. Borock (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Could we agree on an "Opposition" section? The fact that Rev. Moon faced a lot of opposition in his life ought to be non-controversial. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm more a fan of an "all sides" approach - weaving together different viewpoints in the narrative instead of presenting one side and then lumping all opposing sides in a different section - that gives more weight to one perception over another. Especially in an article struggling with POV issues' if what you're suggesting is basically present the facts of Moon's life per his official biography and then put information critical to him off to the side? I wouldn't think that would resolve the pro-Moon tone of this article. Maybe I am misunderstanding your proposition. EBY (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be "pro-Moon" or "anti-Moon." But in giving the facts of his life one of the most important things to cover is the amount of opposition he has encountered. And so far this is just barely mentioned in the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by opposition? Can you give a cite off an RS that demonstrates? EBY (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This source talks about "intense social opposition."Steve Dufour (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Intense opposition-Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposition from other churches and the government -Steve Dufour (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiosity and opposition Steve Dufour (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Financial, legal, and religious opposition, although maybe not such a reliable source. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vigorously opposed and widespread opposition -Steve Dufour (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think in each of these cites, the opposition is always defined in regards to something that would be covered in the article organically - for example, the two cites about the anti-cult, and mid-70's, opposition - both are speaking to the strenuous Christian anti-cult fears. See page 171 of Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America - there, the "opposition" is particularly about the anti-cult movement of the 70's and how it, conversely, led to the church's being established as a bona fide religion. My arguments with this included in this article as a separate "opposition" section are many - a) again, culling "opposition" into a single bucket sets up a 'Moon vs. the world' paradigm that casts Moon as a victim of prejudice or persecution. That's unbalanced. b) these cites are about the RELIGION and not about MOON the person. This is a biography of Moon. c) In each of these cites, the "opposition" is a REACTION that is resolved. That is part of the narrative. A church was set up. It became a bona fide church. It believes this. Then over in this separate chapter, Opposition! A bunch of people made life hard for church members and crucified them. They overcame it. this is a very different approach than A church was set up. In the cult-sensitive social atmosphere of the 70's, the new church was targeted as a cult by some radical deprogrammers''. Through near-constant litigation, the church lost a few battles (most notably a tax case) but gained bona fide status." This second approach is more balanced. The more that can be blinded into a single narrative, the more neutral it becomes. My advice is to keep the church stuff (and most of the cites were about opposition to the CHURCH) as much out of it as possible and keep all the strands of each period of his life bound together in one narrative - not split into subheadings. EBY (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks EBU. I was going to make much the same point.  It's better to mention the opposition within the narrative, rather than have a separate opposition section.  Some is already mentioned.  A opposition section would also lump communists, fundamental Christians, and the American popular media together.  That would be unfair, as well as "original research." Borock (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious tags
I've marked some items as dubious, explaining the reasons in the edit. If you'd like to discuss or provide more evidence go ahead here. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Under Construction
Taking the article to User:EBY3221/sandbox2 and going to hammer out some edits, feel free to message me any ideas. EBY (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I should be able to go live in about 24-30 hours. EBY (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your intro and have used one of your ideas here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

'Media mogul vs. proprietor', starting schools, etc
-First of all, I am doing a major re-write of this article, so many of these recent edits will be lost. That's why I tagged it. -Second of all, the difference between "mogul" and"proprietor" DOES matter or else you wouldn't have reverted it, twice. Wikipedia articles are to reflect what reliable sources say, and the Washington Post, and PBS New Hour and Fox News (not sure how RS they are, tho) all call Moon "Media Mogul" - other RS call Moon 'mogul' with other descriptors (business, evangelist). Do you know how many reliable sources call Moon a 'media proprietor'? Not one that I could find. Like with details (like school openings) that can only be found in original sources or in small print, it isn't acceptable to weigh content of this article to one editor's preference over reliable sources. It is called point-of-view pushing. Please stop. EBY (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they were all copying this WP article. Seriously. BTW can you find a source that called him a "media mogul" during his lifetime? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP article has all the notability needed. And it is one of the most neutral (even pro-Moon) of the major obits. Looking at the top 6 (WP, Chicago, NYT, Guardian, CNN, TIME mag.) - Moon is characterized similarly. The New York Times goes as far to list the media empire, by newspaper. NONE call him a 'proprietor'. Using it way past WP:UNDUE. EBY (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * NYT: "At one time or another he controlled newspapers including Noticias del Mundo and The New York City Tribune; four publications in South Korea; a newspaper in Japan, The Sekai Nippo; The Middle East Times in Greece; Tiempos del Mundo in Argentina; and Últimas Noticias in Uruguay. In 2000, a church affiliate bought what was left of United Press International."
 * I was just saying that the expression, as well as some other wording (for instance "multi-billion dollar empire"), was copied from this WP article into the obituaries.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the article's intro from just before his death:
 * Sun Myung Moon (Korean 문선명; born Mun Yong-myeong; 25 February 1920) is a South Korean religious leader best known as the founder of the Unification Church. He is also known as a media mogul and activist.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The church has five to seven million members worldwide and often garners media attention for the blessing ceremony, a mass wedding or marriage rededication ceremony (usually presided over by Moon and his wife Hak Ja Han) which sometimes features thousands of participants.[7][8][9][10] The church's portfolio of global interests has become a multi-billion-dollar empire.[11][12][13][14][15] Three of Moon's NGOs, Universal Peace Federation, Women's Federation for World Peace and Service for Peace, are in consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.[16][17]
 * Compare that with the wording of the obituaries. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The obituaries should lead Wikipedia, that is why I am doing an article re-write. Unfortunate reality - the death of a subject often gives editors a wealth of new reliable source material. While Moon lived, the struggle was often; How does this achievement or that new business factor against the other milestones in the subject's biographical narrative? Now we have up to a dozen of the most reliable sources who have written pages of Moon's biography and provided legacy. Across the board, they are similar - that makes this job that much easier. The debate now will be those who want to add or subtract, represent minority opinion, and work on wording. EBY (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out the most of the obituaries used wording from WP. So basing the article on them would be kind of going in a circle. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just checked out your version and I think it's actually fairly good.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

New lead
Have uploaded new lead section based on the 15 or so major obits and RS articles, re-sized the lead to reflect the depth of article, and updated infobox. There are new sections coming for the whole article as I go. EBY (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very fair. I made a couple minor changes.  One comment on the last sentence of the intro: "Although Moon and his church largely receded from public view by time of his death, the Unification Church has expanded to most nations of the world."  What really happened was there was an unnatural interest in the church in the late 70s and early 80s when it had only a few thousand members outside of South Korea. After that media and public interest fell down (or "receded") to more normal levels. However the sentence is true enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shooting for neutral over fair, but I take what you mean. Keeping it neutral through the inevitable wordsmithing will be an interesting ride. 'Receded' works, actually reads more neutrally than the cite that bit comes from. University of Bridgeport - sources split on whether Moon owned it or just controlled it. It will need mentioning in article - NYT, Bloomberg, and USA Today all note it in their obits. EBY (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem with receded. I'm pretty sure the article on U of B has accurate information, from reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - That is it for today. Next sections coming later so edits made there will be incorporated as best as possible. EBY (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede 3, Moon's massive business portfolio & its function & its part of his legacy.
(Discussion never engaged. See history to read the long note here in case it is needed in the future.) - - EBY (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Cult" & Lede
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)

Comment on sources
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)

Politics section?
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)

Washington Times in first paragraph?
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)

add to lede?
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." 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)


 * I think both "vast" and "empire" are expressions of opinion, which is fine for newspaper stories. I don't think a WP article List of vast business empires would fly. Steve Dufour (talk)

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)

Korean source used as a reference
I've used the Korean website which is a reliable source since it is an official well-known religious magazine ran by an expert in Korean religions. I have translated fairly since my job is translation. Those of you who oppose the reference please tell me the reason why it is unreliable. I will edit accordingly. Thanks -Salley777 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the website: http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/html/sup01_1.html?Hid=60&Hpopage=1&Hponowblock=.. -Salley777 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you Salley777. That religious magazine has been arousing a lot of troubles and has been committing crimes with false information against many religious groups. Korean Supreme court even fined them for what they've committed. -Bookslover7 (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed one section that was poorly sourced and seemed a bit dubious. I left in the quotes added by Salley777 since they seem to be genuine. Borock (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bookslover7 and Borock, I dont't think so. You should check their site. The site is an official religious magazine which is still popular among Koreans. We also need criticism to make this article neutral. Please point out your reason WHY this is a poorly sourced and a bit dubious material instead of blanking it right away. -Salley777 (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If this was something more than a fringe view it would have gotten much more coverage. Newspapers all over the world printed obituaries of Moon and none of them seemed to mention this topic. Borock (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think "Newspapers all over the world" doesn't seem to clarify your point. Please be specific. Thanks. Salley777 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the major English language newspaper (and other major media) obituaries are used as sources for this article, including the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, CBC, PBS, NPR and others. None of them say that Moon taught that having sex with the second coming of Jesus was the only way to be saved. Which, BTW, if true would mean that the rest of us are now in serious trouble. Borock (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2014 (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)

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)

Actually, Moon's affiliations with right wing causes is well documented. fasting for nixon for example.novoneiro

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)
 * If this article on Sun Myung Moon were 1000 pages long it would still be hard to justify a whole section (or even more than a single sentence) on a single point of theology ("indemnity"). Nevertheless, I've retained two setences in this article. Any additional material belongs in the article on the Unification Church, not here. DrSocPsych (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (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)
 * "With the fullness of time, God has sent one person to this earth to resolve the fundamental problems of human life and the universe. His name is Sun Myung Moon. For several decades he wandered through the spirit world so vast as to be beyond imagining. He trod a bloody path of suffering in search of the truth, passing through tribulations that God alone remembers. Since he understood that no one can find the ultimate truth to save humanity without first passing through the bitterest of trials, he fought alone against millions of devils, both in the spiritual and physical worlds, and triumphed over them all. Through intimate spiritual communion with God and by meeting with Jesus and many saints in Paradise, he brought to light all the secrets of Heaven." 
 * This quotation, from the Unification Church's own Bible (Divine Principle), is quoted in the article. Where is the section on perceptions of Sun Myung Moon from the public: as a brainwasher, charlatan, cult leader, and con man who takes financial advantage of his followers? Again, many parts of the article sound like the Unification Church's own literature, and some are directly from it! DrSocPsych (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
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.
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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2009/08/10/is_it_time_for_japan-south_korea_tunnel/9918

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

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

Business interests
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030429161208/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030429161208/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030429161208/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501125529/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/09/march/print.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/09/march/print.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026025832/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/stories/pdf/nkwitnesses.pdf to http://www.uscirf.gov/images/stories/pdf/nkwitnesses.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606202931/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/02/13622427-sun-myung-moon-founder-of-unification-church-dies-at-92?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/02/13622427-sun-myung-moon-founder-of-unification-church-dies-at-92?lite
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030429161208/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010411094005/http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=48&magtype=1 to http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=48&magtype=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224080317/http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/wigner.html to http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/wigner.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222000000/http://wpherald.com/articles/326/1/Archbishop-launches-married-priests-movement/quotMarried-Priests-Nowquot.html to http://wpherald.com/articles/326/1/Archbishop-launches-married-priests-movement/quotMarried-Priests-Nowquot.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921143920/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1163 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1163
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193448/http://www.maiarc.com/port/read.php?id=228&cate2=&lang=en&page=1 to http://www.maiarc.com/port/read.php?id=228&cate2=&lang=en&page=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528195304/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/16/million.family.march.02/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/16/million.family.march.02/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151112194126/http://iamkoream.com/south-korean-ballerina-hee-seo-dazzles-in-the-sleeping-beauty to http://iamkoream.com/south-korean-ballerina-hee-seo-dazzles-in-the-sleeping-beauty/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729213236/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2012/201209/news07/20120907-10ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2012/201209/news07/20120907-10ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211142618/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=6720&mode=toc to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=6720&mode=toc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725201717/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0604sushi-1-sidebar,0,6972307.htmlstory to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0604sushi-1-sidebar,0,6972307.htmlstory
 * Added tag to http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?sc=50500012&cm=%EB%AC%B8%ED%99%94%C2%B7%EB%A0%88%EC%A0%B8&year=2010&no=535904&selFlag=&relatedcode=&wonNo=&sID=505
 * Added tag to http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?sc=50500012&cm=%EB%AC%B8%ED%99%94%C2%B7%EB%A0%88%EC%A0%B8&year=2010&no=287491&selFlag=&relatedcode=&wonNo=&sID=505

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New Republic criticism
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)
 * WP:Criticism seems to imply that most often material in the criticism section should be merged with the rest of the article.2601:640:A:EDF9:8DCC:3D9C:7971:7315 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A lot of the stuff in the last two paragraphs of the section is already in the article, probably from previous merges.PopSci (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Still controversy is an important part of why Moon is notable in the first place. I agree that a lot of it could be taken out.  Some of it is more gossip than controversy.98.210.59.52 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This section is to make people aware of the criticisms that have been made against Moon. If anyone here disagrees with these criticisms then what you do is post a source that successfully refutes it. Deleting entire sections that someone believes is "hearsay" or so-called "gossip" is censorship and will be challenged each and every time. Let's avoid an edit war here folks. (Novoneiro (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC))
 * I think notable criticisms should remain, even if they are "refuted." PopSci (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See section below titled: "Criticisms Tag." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novoneiro (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms Tag
The Criticisms Tag seems disingenuous. Just because the critics have a voice here does not counter all of the flattering information that appears elsewhere on the page. This page is now neutral BECAUSE of the criticisms section! Also, the tag mentions that these points should be integrated throughout the article. The problem with this is that it makes it more difficult to monitor all of the censorship of criticisms that this page is frequently afflicted with by Moon's followers. Whenever entire criticisms get wiped out it is much easier to simply repaste into what was censored into one section (as I have had to do more than once). Does anyone else agree that the tag should be removed? Novoneiro (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe at least take out some of the duplicated material within the section before you do it. After that removing it is fine with me.PopSci (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)