User:Wndl42/TalkArchive1

Talk Page - Sun Myung Moon
Here is an archive of a discussion that got fairly heated in which I failed to "assume good faith" and went off on what I saw as an example of Tendentious Editing on the part of some Unification Church members with respect to the BLP for Sun Myung Moon. I'm placing this here "for the record" and (as there seems to be a developing consensus around solving the issue), removing my "rant" from the talk page at Sun Myung Moon riverguy42 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section removed
I removed this whole section, some of it could be put back however if the information is cited:

Other criticisms: theocracy, anti-semitism, anti-gay, views on women

 * Moon, perhaps one of the most controversial religious leaders, has been widely criticized. Some civil libertarians consider his call for unity between religion and politics is contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.


 * There have been objections toward his saying that the Holocaust is partly an indirect consequence of some important Jewish leaders, especially John the Baptist, not supporting Jesus which contributed to his murder by the Roman government (see Unification Church and anti-Semitism).


 * In a speech to church members in 1997, Moon said: "What is the meaning of lesbians and homosexuals? That is the place where all different kinds of dung collect. We have to end that behavior. When this kind of dirty relationship is taking place between human beings, God cannot be happy." and referred to homosexuals people as "dung-eating dogs".


 * Rev. Moon's views on women as "objects" in a subject-object relationship with their husbands generated further criticism. In 1996, Moon summarized these views;


 * "'American women have the tendency to consider that women are in the subject position. However, woman's shape is like that of a recepticle. The concave shape is a receiving shape. Whereas the convex shape symbolizes giving. When water is poured into a container does it fill from the edge of the container, or from the deepest bottom? (Deepest bottom.) Since man contains the seed of life, he should plant it in the deepest place. Does woman contain the seed of life? (No.) Absolutely not. Then if you desire to receive the seed of life you have to become an absolute object. In order to qualify as an absolute object you need to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to your subject.'"


 * I have never heard of any civil libertarians criticizing Rev. Moon on the issue of church and state. Mainly because their interest is to protect individuals against the powers of government. In fact the ACLU in New York supported him in his tax case vs. the US government. Also uncited.


 * The statement about the Holocaust is uncited. It is a legitimate criticism so could be put back with a cite.


 * The speech cited was not mainly about homosexuality, so it is misrepresented. There is also no cite that says it caused controversy or criticism.


 * The inclusion of the quote about women is original research. The cite from Robert Parry's site does not show that this "generated further critism."  Mr. Parry certainly has the right to criticise as much as he likes but he is motivated by his own political ideology, not by anything Rev. Moon says. To say otherwise is also original research.


 * Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you have been asked politely and repeatedly to stop blanking content. In this case of your latest section-blanking, you apparently have not read or are being intentionally obtuse regarding Wikipedia's definitions and policies on OR in general, and also in the BLP context. The reasons you gave for blanking this entire section resemble a smoke screen to cover your apparent COI-POV driven motives for blanking this section.


 * Is he going to listen to you, if you start off with personal remarks? Let's just stick to the issues: in other words, I won't question your motives if you don't question mine, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Each criticism/controversy in the section you blanked IS cited, and IS supported by Rev. Moon's own words (and this IS the section where controversies and criticisms are supposed to go).


 * Well, I see no reason to delete Rev. Moon's words on any issue that he himself considers important. Perhaps these could be retrieved and placed in a "views of" section. For example, views on women, views on exposing corruption, views on being nice to people who hate him? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

On "what is controversial?", outside of your Unification Church, Rev. Moon is MOST notable because he is controversial. This is why the section you blanked is critical. If you or anyone else here doubts this, an explicit news archive search (NOT a general web search) on "Sun Myung Moon" and either "controversy" or "controversial" should put that notion to bed conclusively. More than 1,270 hits from Google's archive of recognized NEWS SOURCES yields a 30 year history (and a nice bar-graph by year of publication) to show strong evidence that Moon among the most controversial figures on the planet, in religion, politics, media, etc. (FYI, the distant second place award (at 763 hits) goes to Scientology leader L. Ron Hubbard

As a Unification Church member, your well known COI and POV, and your long history of tendentious editing has generated many polite requests for you to stop blanking content.

Because of your COI you are unqualified to be the final judge of whether Rev. Moon's statements and the criticisms of them represent "controvery" or not.


 * I would define a controversy as a dispute between two sides which disagree with each other strongly. Especially if facts or principles are involved. I have to agree with you that in any case where Rev. Moon has stated his position on an issue, and there is significant disagreement from others then there is a controversy.


 * How about a section on "controversial views"? We can start with "dirty dung eating dogs" who won't get into heaven. There's even a Bible quote from the end of Revelations 22 we can throw in: "Outside the gates are the dogs and fornicators." --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the most disturbing tendency exhibited in your pattern of tendentious edits  is that you appear intent on making the Wikipedia entries on Rev. Moon and many other UC pages more closely resemble (in content and structure) the parallel Unification Church-owned wiki "New World Encyclopedia".


 * Is Steve doing that? What a waste of time. We should just link to that article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think something is improperly cited (and IMO you are flat wrong here) then, given your COI and POV you should  TAG things that you think are improperly cited and CEASE BLANKING content and sections.

Wikipedia is not your forum for de-controversializing Rev. Moon by censoring criticisms and controversies that you personally don't like or disagree with. That function is handled quite nicely by the Unification Church's own wiki). Just because YOU PERSONALLY "have never heard of any civil libertarians criticizing Rev. Moon on the issue of church and state" does not mean that he has not been so criticized, and it does NOT justify your blanking the entire section. With your COI and POV problems, the burden of proof is on you. Suggest you READ the sources that have been cited. And in case you didn't know, (1) criticism around "civil liberties" does NOT need to be sourced back to someone that YOU judge to be a "civil libertarian" in order to be valid and notable, and (2) the fact that "The speech cited was not mainly about homosexuality." does NOT mean that this citation "misrepresents" Rev. Moon's views, and (3) your statment that the critic "is motivated by his own political ideology, not by anything Rev. Moon says" is blatently and absolutely false. Indeed, the speeches cited contain the EXACT WORDS that generated the criticism and resulting controversy. For example, how do you arrive at the idea that the speech cited on the "dung eating dogs" controversy must be "mainly about homosexuality" in order to be a valid citation? Steve, that's either (a) just plain silly, or (b) a smoke screen tactic.


 * I think we went over some of this before, and I still agree with you! :-)


 * There is no way to de-controversialize Rev. Moon, and Wikipedia is not a place for hopeless quests. (Other than to write about a hopeless quest, as in "Man of La Mancha". Steve, can you back off on this please? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Question - if you don't like the fact that someone attributed the criticism around church and state to "civil libertarians", then why didn't you just change it to "critics"? Given your history, your COI and your POV pushing through tendentious editing, I would suggest that you were just looking for another ostensibly valid reason (smoke screen) to hide behind and justify your blanking the entire section.


 * This is a good suggestion: "critics" is a good, neutral word. If it turns out that some of them ARE civil libertarians, we can find a way to mention this fact. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have been working hard to make sure this article is balanced in it's presentation, and I have invested much effort in adding balance (including a generally complimentary overview of Rev. Moon's Basic Beliefs so that some of these criticisms can be taken in context of the basic teachings), and I have been commended by at least one UC member (Ed Poor) in this regard.


 * Steve, I think he's got a point here. Wikipedia is about balance. Let's not delete; let's add more about his teachings or accomplishments. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You on the other hand have displayed a single-minded tendency toward censorship of criticism and controversy surrounding Rev. Moon, here and on MANY other UC related pages. Now, I have just invested (wasted) an hour dis-assembling your smoke screen - time I'd hoped to spend supporting Ed Poor in his request to me to help add some context around the "subject-object" relationship.


 * Steve, I think River is sincere. Let's work together, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now...do I need to seek to have you blocked from UC related entries on this basis, or are you going to lay off on blanking content?

Ultimately I think (hope) you might just have some good things to add, -- and so I hope you will choose the latter approach. I'm out of patience.

riverguy42 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're out, have some of mine? ;-) Doctor Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * O.K. Here is a suggestion. How about making a "criticism" section to Divine Principle and moving the "subject/object" "controversy" over there?Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. River, do you agree? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the controversy and criticism that have been generated (from what I see) are based more on Rev. Moon's post-Divine Principle speeches and talks. "Dung eating dogs" is not (I think) in The Divine Principle. I think the criticism is leveled at Rev. Moon himself, so I'm not seeing the reasoning behind taking it out of the bio and putting it into "Divine Principle". For another example, see my reply to Ed on "subject object" below.riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, as we appear to be in dialog here, I will (next edit) tone down (delete) some of my more incendiary language, and let's keep talking...riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to enable your email. -Exucmember (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to self...here

Consciousness causes collapse
If anything, the onus is on the authors of this page to provide a single example of any light shed on any point in physics (not the amateur philosophy of Wigner etc.) by this idea. To be consistent, I suggest you remove the phrase "... is an obsolete scientific theory" from the entry on phlogiston. There is no citation for that one either.

Do you have any credentials to judge any scientific theory? If so, perhaps you would like to edit your user page to that effect.

Dave Kielpinski (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I asserted none, and made that clear at your talk page. I wonder why you ask, as it seems irrelevant in the context of WP:RS. Nevertheless, any credentials I may or may not have pale in comparison to Mikhail Lomonosov. I merely point out that here on Wikipedia any claims of scientific consensus around contemporary controversies must be cited, as per WP:RS, specifically:


 * "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."


 * Certainly if there is such a consensus, it should have been as easy for you to cite a reliable source for that consensus as it was to find and reference and post here about phlogiston.


 * Also, WRT your suggestion; "To be consistent, I suggest you remove the phrase "... is an obsolete scientific theory" from the entry on phlogiston. There is no citation for that one either."


 * Sure there is, maybe you missed it. It's here. Whatever controversy there once was over phlogiston is long dead and well buried, but you knew that.


 * riverguy42 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I way don't understand that. Someone didn't like calling phlogiston an obsolete scientific theory? Why? Or am I confusing phlogiston with aether? Pete St.John (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The commentary began with the editor's lame attempt to discredit my knowledge of the topic area by comparing my defence of the Penrose-Hameroff model of consciousness in the context of Consciousness causes collapse with someone who would attempt to assert scientific support for the long discredited phlogiston theory. In other words, the editor dropped by my talk page to call me an idiot because he couldn't justify himself in the debate, and was being a "sore loser". You are reading my response to this editor's condescending personal attack. WNDL42 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Still a bit confusing :-) but I'll take it as nobody actually endosoring phlogiston as an extant scientific theory; apparently someone was making a rhetorical point that I just didn't get. That said, regarding your comment at my Talk, the content issue seems to be labelling CCC as "generally derided as pseudoscience". I can see that the wording could be improved; e.g., "the overwhelming majority of physicists acquainted with the idea of CCC diride it as pseudoscience" or "...deride it as a confusion among nonspecialists", etc. I think the way to reach consensus would be to find good wording for that idea. It's important that readers not be confused by any presentation of CCC as an alternative theory to any actual physics. Perhaps the lead should be "CCC is a misunderstanding of quantuum mechanics" followed later by "some people believe that CCC is a viable alternative scientific theory". The main thrust of the article should be consistent with contemporary science, as we are a secular encyclopedia, but we should acknowledge public perceptions, as they are politically and socially germane. I don't at all mind people believing in CCC, but people who believe that CCC is conventional science are mistaken, and people who believe that it is self-evident are fools. Pete St.John (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Truth is that you can't say that about the ideas that consciousness is associated causally with wave function collapse -- because the only thing that every major scientist in the field agrees on (consensus) is that it's unfalsifyable from either end. True -- we don't need consciousness to support current research in QM, but that's only because current research can't really "model" consciousness in the first place to test it. That's a far cry from "pseudoscience" (whatever the hell THAT is). WNDL42 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The current model of consciousness is in cognitive neuroscience, not physics. Generally phsycists regard unfalsifiable hypotheses as bad science. You may wish to pursue a nonstandard theory, but I urge you to admit that conventional science does not respect CCC as scientific. Pete St.John (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Penrose-Hameroff model of consciousness is the leading candidate for a more complete theory and it's gaining steam, and it does explicitly includes physics. The scientific method begins with (a) a theory or a conjecture that provides a new or better explanation for something not yet fully undertood (like gravity), and then (b) attempts to devise experiments to test the theory. It often happens that a theory exists for many years before technology exists to test the theory, for example we build and fund superconducting supercolliders (to the tune of billions of dollars) to test certain theories that have been untestable (thereby unfalsifiable) for 50 years or more. There is no "admitting" that conventional science does not "repect" something that it can neither prove, nor disprove. As David Albert says on the topic, emphatically..."We don't KNOW that."


 * Anyway, as I said...the reason I supported deleting the CCC article was because it was a POV fork for attaching allegations of "pseudoscience" to what can properly be called an untested theory. By the way, Victor Stenger (the biggest "Bleep" critic of all) just this week issued a restatement and clarification of his previous dismissal of Orch-OR, and it looks like a careful and stepwise capitulation, an olive branch to Hameroff and Penrose because I think that maybe Brian D. Josephson gave him a little "dressing down", or perhaps he's wising up on his own. I believe that Stenger is the last remaining staunch opponent...but he's moving in the direction of softening his stance on CIC, from what I read.


 * While you're at it, take a look at this...stuff WNDL42 (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)