Talk:The Washington Times/Archive 2

Pro-church bias

Cut for quick repairs:

Several critics have said that the Times is unfairly biased towards the Unification Church, noting that the paper's op-ed pages are often sympathetic to Unification movement concerns.

If it's several critics, that would be more than a few. I'd like to see a minimum of 4 different critics to support the word "several". Anyone want to help me google thes?

We need to separate op-ed "bias" from "news bias". Is the New York Times "biased" because their op-ed pages are often sympathetic to left-wing or liberal concerns?

The article should clarify the newspapaper's editorial views, so that people can see where it falls on the political spectrum relative to other major newspapers:

• New York Times left, liberal
• Washington Post left, liberal
• Washington Times right, conservative

As for news, are there critics out there saying that any of the above newspapers has shown a bias in their news reporting? If so, perhaps we can list the names of critics making this charge. Better yet, give an example or two from each critic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Post's article it's moving rightward (the Post that is). Steve Dufour (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Post chief competitor?

Who says that the Post is the Time's "chief competitor"? Its critics often say that the purpose of the Times is not to make money but to promote neoconservatism and/or help Rev. Moon establish a world-wide theocratic empire. Is the purpose of the Post to prevent these things? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. If the Washington Post is a competitor, what is it competing for? Circulation, influence? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'd bet there are about 7 times as many Democrats as Republicans in DC, so that might have something to do with the difference in circulation. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lesson plans recommended by the NEA

I read the Spinsanity account of the media flap over the NEA's endorsement of a "do not blame any group" lesson plan developed by Lippincott. This account says that after the Times criticized them, they removed the Lippincott link from their web site. I think this action on NEA's part speaks for itself.

The article was published by Salon, not "spinsanity"...

Now, we need to be neutral here. We can report the objections of WT critics who say that Sorokin misrepresented the NEA position. But it would also be interesting to readers to know whether NEA had ever endorsed any of the lesson plans their website linked to. Also, what is the NEA position on who's responsible for 9/11? Have they ever come right out and said that US foreign policy justified the attacks (the root causes theory)?

Neutral does not mean giving [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight] to Limbaugh, who has a COI as he also writes for Insight.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see any articles about media flaps or root causes.

See links I posted above.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if the NEA has clarified its position (as Will Smith did after being blatantly misrepresented about Hitler), then this would also be of interest to readers.

Fair enough, I'll add their response.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We also need to clarify whether this was a front page "story" or a column or editorial which happened to have been placed on the front page. News is judged by one standard, editorials by another. If an editorial claims the NEA is soft on terrorists and tough on America - and in response NEA changes the way it expresses its views, then maybe this is a good thing. (Either they didn't mean to say that - or they decided to change their position.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nyhan linked to the front page story in his articleriverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed, your edit is factually incorrect as written WRT the Limbaugh "chime in", please read carefully Limbaugh's sixth paragraph, "invariably led to" were weasle words Limbaugh used to "imply" that the other websites Limbaugh cited, which had NOTHING to do with lesson plans, were somehow presented by NEA, which they were not. Please catch up with me on the topic before doing damage control, OK? Thanks...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just found and posted the original essay in the article, and I'm glad visitors here will now be able to read it and compare for themselves. If anyone here wants to read the entire essay and still defend Sorokin (and the Times for running that travesty on page one), then feel free to restore the NPOV tag. Personally, after re-reading Sorokin's Times piece alongside the essay, I'd say the critics were kind. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Section renamed and content deleted

I'd like to understand why this content was deleted and the section renamed. The cited references clearly identified the Times as the source of frequent highly political and long-lived "Urban myths" and legends. Was there a good reason for muting this well-known criticism, rather than simply tagging those statements that were thought to be insufficiently supported? The idea (given via the edit summary) that the Times "has no control" over the myths it creates doesn't ring quite true, and itself is unsourced. Given the history of the Times organization specifically and Moon's media in general (especially in the case of the "Obama madrassa" smear perpetrated by Moon's Insight Magazine), the well sourced criticisms of Moon's "Washington Times" as a "myth making apparatus" are well founded and notable, I think.

Thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, here is, per WP:GOOGLE, a "Google Scholar" search to provide a large number of "hits", (albeit including spurious hits) from reliable published sources that refer to the mythmaking machinery. Do we really need more evidence than the existing cites already provided? WNDL42 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of this section reads "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives", citing just this Washington Post article. The article doesn't back this statement up at all: it refers to a single article in the Washington Times, which appeared in the news and not the editorial section, and there's no mention of neoconservatives.

I don't understand your "doesn't ring quite true" comment. You think the Washington Times does have control over chain e-mails sent out as a result of an article it printed? How exactly does that control work, may I ask? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times is self-identified and strongly associated with neoconservatism, but I agree that the reference needs support other than what's there. Would the sentence be better for now if it was "conservatives" instead? WNDL42 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When Sorokin (a) intentionally distorted Lippencott's essay, and then (b) attributed it to the NEA, she knew damn well that she was feeding the "Echo Chamber". Are you suggesting that Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times does not know when they are feeding the "Echo Chamber" with distortions? See...

Media Echo chamber, from Echo chamber

Metaphorically, the term echo chamber can refer to any situation in which information or ideas are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an enclosed space.

For example, observers of journalism in the mass media describe an echo chamber effect in media discourse. One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.

References

Due to this condition arising in online communities, participants may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, and in doing so reinforce a certain sense of truth that resonates with individual belief systems. This can create some significant challenges to critical discourse within an online medium. The echo-chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their "preferred" world view. Another emerging term used to describe this "echoing" and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is "cultural tribalism". The Internet may also be seen as a complex system (e.g., emergent, dynamic, evolutionary), and as such, will at times eliminate the effects of positive feedback loops (i.e., the echo-chamber effect) to that system, where a lack of perturbation to dimensions of the network, prohibits a sense of equilibrium to the system. Complex systems that are characterized by negative feedback loops will create more stability and balance during emergent and dynamic behaviour.

So, are you suggesting that the Washington Times cannot be held acountable? WNDL42 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions: "conservatives" wouldn't be any better than "neoconservatives", since there's currently no evidence provided to support the sentence in either case. And no, I'm not suggesting the Wash Times can't be held accountable, I'm saying it - note that nowhere in your essay about echo chambers does it claim that the original source is responsible for the "echo chamber effect". Korny O'Near (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and the first kid who shouts "food fight" in the cafeteria is also not responsible? He's a kid, so he's generally not punished for it, but the Washington Times? You need to make a better case.WNDL42 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's a criticism section, and if the critics (per WP:Google and Google Scholar) say this, who are we to argue? WNDL42 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed. Someone who yells "food fight" is explicitly encouraging inappropriate behavior; there's no such encouragement, either explicit or implicit, in publishing a newspaper article. Also, I don't know what your web search is trying to prove - as far as I can tell, not a single one of the results states what it is that you want the article to state. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Google Scholar search I provided above was an explicit database query on:

• [Washington Times] AND [Myung Moon] AND ([myths OR propaganda OR lying])

If you clicked it and looked at the search results, maybe you just missed this first page hit that links to this particular RS...

Presidential Studies Quarterly; Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying; Volume 37 Issue 4 Page 622-645, December 2007; doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2007.02617.x

"Likewise, cult leader Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who owns the right-wing Washington Times and strongly supports the Bush family, preaches a doctrine "called Heavenly Deception. Religious recruits are told that the ‘non-Moon world’ is evil. It must be lied to..."

The reliable source Google Scholar hits like that one are, of course, just a small subset of the thousands (more than 50,000) similar hits that can be seen by clicking here. Is there something more I can show? Oh, yeah, to the question whether "the original source is responsible for the 'echo chamber' effect", well, when the echo chamber itself (Insight magazine and United Press International) are also owned by Unification World Communications, I think you can see why reliable sources say that the Washington Times is responsible for feeding the echo chamber it created. WNDL42 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested in getting familiar with this might want to click here and construct your own query. WNDL42 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, I think you're confusing "database query" with "search engine query". Second, for all the criticism you're pointing to, you still haven't found a single source to back up the statement under contention, which is: "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives." Third, criticism of Rev. Moon belongs in his own article - if criticism of the Washington Times is so easy to find online, why would you need to resort to quoting such a roundabout, guilt-by-association statement? Fourth, I think you misunderstand the usefulness of web searches in Wikipedia; they can be used to establish notability of a word or phrase, but not to establish the veracity of a statement. As proof, let me pick another web search to try - how about, say, jewish bankers control the world. Hey, what do you know, 90,000 results - even more than yours! And the even-more-reliable Google Scholar has 24,000 results for the same query; compared to about 35 for your Google Scholar query. I guess that's a fact that could be added to Wikipedia then, right? Fifth, the article talks about chain emails and web pages - for all your assertions about the Rev. Moon's media power, I don't think even you would argue that he controls what people email to each other or put on their blogs. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Criticism of the Times based on it's ownership is perfectly appropriate for the article on the Times, indeed this is the right place for it, especially as so much of the criticism of the Times is on the basis of it's ownership. (2), you are incorrect, "Google Scholar" and "Google News" are special purpose databases, they are NOT general purpose web indices, and "database query" is exactly the right term, and (3) therefore the statistical inferences drawn (commonly known as "data mining") are indeed 100% valid ways of "characterising" the opinions, notability and frequency of various forms of criticism of the Washington Times. FYI, "guilt by association" is explicitly established by Rev. Moon's own on the record statements about how he explicitly uses the Times, or haven't you seen those? Try a Google search on, lets say "I used the Washington Times" along with "Myung Moon" if you need convincing. WNDL42 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, here's just ONE example, right from the horses mouth, and it's on the church website here.

Complaints about "guilt by association"...seriously? In the context of media ownership?? You've got to be kidding me. Ok...more famous words from Rev. Moon "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda. Read it yourself, here on the church's website. If the moonie chickens are finally coming home to roost at the Washington Times (as Doug Kellner's excellent December 2007 paper I added to the criticism section points out), complaining about it now isn't going to help. By the way, the whole shebang was all over NPR today, which clearly shows it's gone 100% mainstream. WNDL42 (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your hatred of this newspaper and its owners might be blinding you to the topic of discussion here. The original point of contention is two parts: the sentence "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives", which you still haven't found a single source for, and the idea that discussion of chain emails is somehow worthy of inclusion in this article. All this talk about Rev. Moon seems to be a separate matter entirely.

Also, Google Scholar and Google News are websites, not databases; you can read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me. But that's a minor issue. So, you agree that Jewish bankers control the world? If not, what's the difference between our two "100% valid" sources of information?

Finally, please don't wait until I revert the page to respond - otherwise, you're forcing me to keep reverting just to get a response from you. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I re-opened the discussion in the section below. Your revert there removed massive content and neither your objections above nor your edit summaries justify the wholesale revert. Suggest you start editing rather than reverting, the former is collaborative and the latter is edit warring. Let's start by discussing the heading. WNDL42 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Google Scholar and Google News are websites, not databases" No, you are utterly incorrect. You need to understand the "client-server" relationship between a webpage that functions as a database client and the database server that is the "back end" database. Google Scholar and Google News are databases and the web-page is the user (client) front end from which database queries are performed. Would you like the explict architecture documents from Google for proof, or do you want to quit the topic now? WNDL42 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now on to your other points. (1) I have (temporarily) changed the heading back so we can discuss. (2) We need to agree on how WP:SET should be used here, and it's NOT going away, so I insist that you examine my queries and comment with something other than a wholesale dismissal of the technique, see the entire WP:SET document, especially WP:Search_engine_test#Specialized_search_engines here. Finally, I AM EDITING A CRITICISM SECTION, and I've said this repeatedly. If your passionate defense of the Washington Times and it's ownership so motivates you, then please find and cite specific (secondary source) rebuttals that refute the views of the critics, but again bear in mind that the section we are editing is a criticism section, and is not a coat rack upon which to hang either the Times or Rev. Moon's "spin" on the criticism, and as a criticism section the weight is given to the critics...because editors here have reached agreement that the criticisms will be sectioned off in this manner...that is the consensus here on how to handle criticisms. If you want to change that, then please see WP:Consensus can change for some ideas on changing consensus without getting into counting up reverts...ok?

Hi, my responses:

• I don't think you understand the difference between a database and a database-driven website; feel free to ask any computer programmer and I'm sure they'll back me up. But that's not really relevant.
• You changed the sentence to read "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths." As I noted originally, there's no evidence provided to back up even that much; that's why I want the sentence removed entirely.
• I haven't made any defense of the Washington Times or its owners, and certainly not a passionate one. I just want whatever criticism is presented to be cited, and in the right section. If you find a source criticizing the Times that notes those chain emails you mention, then that section can stay in; otherwise it seems irrelevant (and looks like original research). As to your Rev. Moon quotes, those most likely belong in the "Editorial independence" section, not in this one.
• Coat rack for spin? I haven't tried to add in any spin - maybe you're thinking of someone else.
• I'd respond further on the whole search-engine matter, but now that I think about it's pretty irrelevant. In the article a search query is used to show that people are still talking about the "Blame America" article, but, as I said before, it looks like original research for you to call that an example of criticism. Who's the critic here?

Korny O'Near (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Korny,

I can assure you that I do understand my use of the word database. What is relevant is not your opinion that it's "not really relevant", what is important is that you are repeatedly dismissing the results the analyses provided, which are relevant according to WP:SET. Please don't avoid the topic anymore.

I've asked you repeatedly to discuss and gain consensus before reverting, to no avail. Your recent reverts are not supported by a consensus of non-conflicted editors. This is now my third request.

Your reversions and tendentious edits that remove or mitigate well-sourced critical views...from the CRITICISM SECTION have the effect of shifting the article's balance to the POV of the Times and of Moon's News World Communications. This behavior, in the presence of an almost singular editorial focus on the areas of politics represented by Moon and the Times can be interpreted as "POV pushing". Combined this with the fact that an extremely high number of edits to this page are performed by Unification church members (see stats), has the cumulative effect over time of turning this article into a "coat rack" for the Times and Moon's POV. That is unacceptable. WNDL42 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, once again I don't really know what you're talking about. What analysis am I dismissing/ignoring? The fact that you did a Google search on some anti-Washington Times phrases? That search isn't even cited in the article, and in any case I think I disproved its usefulness with my counter-example, which you yourself are ignoring. And how do you want me to gain consensus? You and I are the only ones discussing this issue, so consensus is no more on your side than on mine - I wish more people were in on the discussion, but they aren't. Neither am I pushing POV to any greater extent than you are - I'd say less so, since I'm not the one adding unsupported statements ("The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths") to the article. Finally, please refrain from personal attacks. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See below...article is tagged and posted at the COI noticeboard. I'll be happy to have a third opinion, this way you and I can cool off in a mediated environment. WNDL42 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then we can now return to discuss a comparison of your faulty use of WP:Google and it's ineffectiveness in refuting the utterly different meta analysis I showed. Your "bankers" and other similar results have no meaning, because...

(a) Your search query was non-explicit, and derives no meaning from the hit count. To illustrate the problem, consider that [jewish AND bankers AND control AND the AND world] yields 92,000 hits indeed. But merely substitute the word "christian" for "jewish" and the hit count goes up to 152,000, while the "control population" (which is critical, and which you failed to consider) is 565,000 hits. In other words, you have shown only that "Christian" is a more frequently used word than "Jewish". With an explicit search, the results become meaningful. In an explicit search, you must enclose the statement you are looking for in quotation marks, so, a properly constructed search to derive a control population for "bankers control the world" now yields only 3,500 hits, only 0.62% of the 565,000 above. Next, compare the control population of 3,500 to the explicit search for "jewish bankers control the world", and you only get 384 hits. Divide 384/3,500 and, well you do the math...it equals "nonsense". To further illustrate, consider that the technique you used gives 152,000 for christian bankers but only 92,000 for the Jewish people, indicating (falsely) that the former is a "stronger" view. Nonsense again. However, the power of an explicit search is in the fact that it reveals that the exact opposite is true. The explicit search on christian yields, you guessed it, exactly zero hits.

(b) I explained, carefully, several times -- and also referred you to the instruction manual in hopes that you would understand the difference between a general www index query (like you used) and a Google News or Google Scholar specialty database query. The former is useless because it includes all kinds of unreliable sources, such as the nutjob conspiracy theorists who believe there is a race of super-bankers secretly controlling the world. By the way I find your choice of "example" a bit crude, a tad offensive, and that is why I previously avoided discussing it. I know you were just trying to illustrate what you felt was the absurdity of the results I showed. Can we move on?

Now if you will kindly examine this query again, and pay special attention to (a) the Gooogle Scholar interface (that means results are limited to reliable published sources), and (b) the careful construction of the query (by which results become meaningful), and (c) the check box at the very bottom of the page. Perhaps then we can resume a meaningful discussion about how to derive meaningful results per WP:SET, and what my results show or do not show. FYI, here is the web-client query interface for Google News as well, which queries a database that includes only recognized news sources, including the Washington Times. This particular result is very meaningful, and I'd bet at least 95% of the news reports returned would qualify as reliable sources, you think? WNDL42 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for responding to my example. I'd respond further but it all seems irrelevant, since this search is not actually contained in the article. It looks like you used that search to find a few pieces of notable criticism of Rev. Moon, and they're now in the article. So what exactly are we arguing about at this point? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the arguing may be over, but my position is that when WP:SET is properly used, a lightweight statistical meta-analysis of Google News or Google Scholar is, in and of itself, a valid, reliable source.

In the presence of a "strong positive" result, such an analysis can demonstrate evidence that a given media organization is frequently criticized as being associated with "propagandist" activities, and that such characterizations are then shown to be notable and appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. For example, when a long term persistent use of the word [propaganda] in the context of ["Washington Times"] AND ["Sun Myung Moon"] is found in both Google Scholar and Google News, then I'd assert that this is prima facie evidence that the characterizations I support for representing criticism are consistent with WP:RS. So, I assert that "The editorial pages of the Times have frequently been cited as the source of political myths popular among neoconservatives" is my attempt to create a fair and somewhat softer way of saying:

"Critics assert that The Rev. Sun Myung Moon's church-subsidized Washington Times is a primary source of political propaganda, myths and lies that have been historically exploited by neoconservatives to attack both Democratic and moderate conservative politicians and other groups that oppose them".

The meta-analysis is constructed from three separate "explicit" searches; (1) general web test; 12,800 hits, and (2) Google Scholar test; 81 hits for the "alternative hypothesis" (neoconservative) vs. a substantially weaker result; 7 hits for the null hypothesis that Moon's propaganda is not aligned with neoconservative politics, and (3) a Google News "notability test" 1,910 hits distributed on a timeline spanning 34 years.

As you review my statement above, note that "political myths" is my attempt at a "kinder gentler" word for "propaganda". Finally, you may be aware that I and many editors before me have been struggling with the Unification Church COI and tendentious editing in favor of pro-Moon POVs for a long time. Me? I'm a cross between a Cato-style paleo-conservative, a Ross Perot republican and a Jeffersonian "liberal-tarian". I think Moon's critics are right with respect to the damage his three-billion dollars of Church subsidized propaganda have done to our democracy and political discourse (to BOTH parties), and that criticism has been "watered down" by and with support of the UC members here on Wikipedia for a VERY long time. WNDL42 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. I'd caution you to try to make sure that your own political views aren't clouding your good judgment as an editor. I'd also note that it's odd, to say the least, that the same editor who added the tag warning that the article "may actually relate to an entirely different subject" seems much more interested in the Rev. Moon than in the actual subject of this article; even to the exclusion of the words "washington times" from any of your Google queries. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, bias is inherently notable in the context of journalism, the category to which this article belongs. To the extent that the Times "bias" has been tied by reliable sources to "ownership" (also inherently notable) and more importantly, the billions of dollars of Unification Church subsidies that have kept the Times afloat since 1982, that bias is extraordinarily notable in the context of ownership. On the other hand, You make two extremely good points.

(a) Yes, these searches can themselves be "biased", and reflect the POV the searcher (me) is looking for (see WP:SET), so your cautionary note is appropriate and appreciated -- this is why our dialog and your suggestion is important. So, adding (explicitly) "Washington times" to the www index search gives 17,100 hits, a substantial increase from 12,800 above; and Google News demonstrates clear support for notability and Google Scholar demonstrates that there are very many reliable sources to back this up.

(b) So, your suggestion to add "washington times" was a good one, and If I had been more careful to include it in the first place, it wouldn't have seemed "odd" -- as the case is actually strengthened by including explicit refs to "Washington Times" in the meta-analyses. WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert, please discuss

I have just restored this major revert due to absence of any discussion and an insufficient edit summary. Please explain any objections, the material is reliably sourced (impeccably so) and entirely appropriate for a criticism section (which is where it is). What's the beef? WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack and COI tags added

See recent talk. WNDL42 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See also report filed at the COI noticeboard Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Media_properties_of_the_Unification_Church here WNDL42 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the conflict of interest issue with church members and/or Times employees working on the article. I don't understand what you think is the coatrack issue. The article seems to be only about the Times itself, unless something was taken off that seemed coatracky. Redddogg (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Times ownership and other statements (history, etc.) are coatracks for the Times and the Unification Church's official "position statements" about the supposed non-relationship with the Times on editorial issues, story selection, etc. Nothing about Moon's leiutenant, Col. Bo Hi Pak (ex Korean CIA) co founding it with Moon, Pak's training in "black propaganda", etc, etc, etc, WNDL42 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But those statements are about the Times. A coatrack statement would be one about something else "hung" onto the article. Redddogg (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for tagging the article as a WP:COATRACK is shown in example by the watered down "relation to the unification church" section, and the "church selected" quote by Rev. Moon that is found there. Featuring Rev. Moon's comments so prominently there gives undue weight to the "moon spin" and not nearly enough weight to the views of journalists. I've just taken a stab at de-mooning the section, take a look at the diff and see what you think. WNDL42 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Racism scandal

I retitled this section from "alleged racial insensitivity" and moved it from the controversy department. The Times itself has admitted that there were racist editors, so I don't think it is "alleged" or a "controversy" anymore. Redddogg (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good, well supported, maybe beef up the cites - there have been a lot of examples. WNDL42 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

Ok, here's an classic example of "Heavenly Deception". Recently, the well known 1996 Moon statement:

"That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda."

...was added to the article, after all, with "newspaper organizations" and "propaganda" in the same sentence, it's clearly notable here, and was sourced back to the Unification Church website.

But strangely, when I repositioned the statement in the article today...I went back to check the source at http://www.unification.net/1996/960102.html , which is found by querying Google's index like this the word propaganda wasn't there. Strangely, upon clicking on the UC link, the word "propaganda" had been removed from the document at unification.net, and the newly revised sentence now read:

"That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda disseminate our message."

Now, fortunately -- the pre Feb. 7, 2008 version was still in Google's cache... the "snapshot" that Google took on Feb. 7 remains unaltered in Google's databeses, see here.

But sometime between Feb 7 and today, the document was changed by someone at www.unification.net, and strangely, it was changed coincident with the addition of the "newspaper to make propaganda" quote here on Wikipedia. That's very curious -- document is from 1996, and now, 12 years later it's been "re-translated" to change the phrase "to make propaganda" into "to disseminate our message". I suppose Moon could have been mistranslated, and the original Korean could have been reviewed and translator Peter Kim could have screwed up, but not likely. Hmm...so, did Rev. Moon mean Propaganda when he said it in 1996?

Better pull out this Moon quote, from 1984 for those who would assert that Moon was "mistranslated" in 1996...

"The means of doing battle around the world have changed markedly. Instead of the conventional warfare of military forces, we have three major types of warfare today. First of all is ideological warfare; secondly is the warfare between intelligence forces; and thirdly, the warfare of propaganda.".

Now, after discussing this "warfare" for a couple paragraphs, Moon concludes:

"In today's warfare of ideology, intelligence and propaganda, nobody can compete with Reverend Moon."

So, in 1984 (two years after founding the Washington Times), Moon describes "warfare" in terms of propaganda, declares that nobody can compete with Reverend Moon, and now we're supposed to believe that when he used the word in 1996 he was "mistranslated"? Whew...that's a stretch. WNDL42 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and presented with wit! (I laughed.) Moon's statement "In today's warfare of ideology, intelligence and propaganda, nobody can compete with Reverend Moon" is ludicrous, and obviously out of touch with reality. But so are many such statements, not only by him but by other third-world leaders trying to play with the big boys. I heard an Islamic scholar say the same thing about most places in the Middle East: Reality is not very favorable, so ideals are set up and people act as if the ideal were reality. At least they are less likely to claim to be the best in the world at something. In Moon's case this is particularly ridiculous when it comes to something having to do with language. He barely speaks English, and many poor - and even flat out wrong - translations persist for years. Damian Anderson probably changed the wording. He may even have been correct in thinking "propaganda" was a bad translation. Whatever reservations I might have had in his shoes about changing it recently, now that the issue has come up, I guarantee you he wasn't thinking that he was engaging in an official or unofficial policy of the Unification Church of "Heavenly Deception". -Exucmember (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, funny indeed -- thanks for your comment Ex; but still...kinda scary to have such an "obviously out of touch with reality" figure pumping $3billion into political propaganda -- in the U.S. alone -- since 1982. WNDL42 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Rev. Moon's purpose for founding the Times was propoganda, which in its original meaning was the same as "spreading the truth about God to the world." He certainly didn't found it as a money-making venture. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Church propaganda for "spreading the truth about God" is a guaranteed first amendment right for recognised religious speech, and speech so recognized is made by churches that are recognized as churches by virtue of their tax-exempt status. The political propaganda of Insight magazine, the editorial pages of the Times, and so forth cannot be construed as "about God", see for example here WNDL42 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of speech of all kinds is quaranteed by the constitution for everybody. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, the word "quaranteed" gave me a chuckle -- a fun combination of "quarantine" and "guaranteed", if that's what you meant. Now, of course "speech of all kinds" is not protected, slander, libel and many other forms of speech -- especially where harmful to living persons -- are not in any way guaranteed. WNDL42 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, UC attempts at revisionist history may be clearly identified -- thanks to a dozen or more internet archive sites and "wayback machines" all over the world, all out of reach of Rev. Moon's "helpers" -- for example the unaltered version of the "to make propaganda" quote is preserved, and whomever changed it to "to disseminate our message" has only provided more evidence for the critics. WNDL42 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unification Church ownership

Here is the definition of "church" from Wiktionary:

church (plural churches)

1. A Christian house of worship; a building where religious services take place.

There is a lovely little church in the valley.

2. A Christian religious organization, local or general.

The Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534.

The church across the street has a service at 10 am.

3. A group of people who follow the same Christian religious beliefs, local or general.

These worshippers comprise the Church of Christ.

Be shepherds of the church of God (Acts 20:28).

4. A time of public worship; a worship service.

I'll be there after church.

By definition 3 the Unification Church, as a world-wide community of believers, does own and support the Times. However the church organization (definition 2) in the United States does not own it. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense technicalities and obfuscation.

(a) Corporate shell-games and a gazillion confusingly meaningless name shuffles are a hallmark of Moon's PR practice.

(b) Sorry Steve, my tolerance level has dropped since andyvphil teamed up with an anon IP from Reston, VA to edit war over at United States journalism scandals, getting me a BS-block in the process. I'm tired of these talk pages being dominated 80% or more with "church POV's".

(c) the average editor dropping by here does NOT know that you are a Unification Church member with a COI, so as you create a new section here and present an editorial opinion in which your pro-UC COI is "hidden" under a technical argument for mitigating the plain truth that this paper is a $3 billion propaganda mouthpiece for Moon and the neocons, well...as you can tell I'm not happy that all of these articles wind up "drifting" back in the direction of the "Church viewpoint" on who owns what, etc etc etc etc...etc...ad nauseum. Give us a break and go write about UC theology...I can't for the life of me understand how your expertise in UC theology makes your voice important here in an article about a slimy "news" organization, especially when you present ostensibly "innocent" comments like above. WNDL42 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WNDL42, I think your hatred for the Washington Times and the Unification Church is causing you to commit errors that you otherwise wouldn't. One is attacking other editors personally; another is using unnecessary formatting (lots of blockquotes and bolding) to highlight what you see as the sinister-ness of the whole thing; and another is setting unwieldy section titles ("Unification church subsidies, "propaganda" and political bias") when shorter ones would be both more readable and more neutral. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting theory. Please post diffs. All I am doing is representing in an encyclopedic tone, the "notable" facts.

• Here's a twenty-five year news timeline to refute your "theory". Wanna do an RfC? WNDL42 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you would prefer I use reliable sources (academic and scholarly publications), perhaps you'd prefer to peruse these reliable sources? WNDL42 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What theory are you talking about, and what does this have to do with sources? I'm talking about inappropriate personal attacks, bad formatting and bad section titles. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your theory about me begins with "WNDL42, I think your...is causing you to commit errors". Wrong.

Now, my theory is that even though the words "propaganda" or "propagandist" are found in 46,000 places here on Wikipedia alone, and (as I have shown you)...propaganda is the good old english (and quite encyclopedic) word...a word that MOON HIMSELF, and the critics use to describe "the Times"...well, my theory is that the "propagandists" here on Wikipedia (you know, the church members with COI's and the tendentious political editors with whom Moon's media POV's are aligned)...somehow want to censor the word "propaganda" from a criticism heading that is about propaganda. My theory is that's just plain wierd. If I've personally attacked someone, post a diff please. 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling people (including me, maybe) "propagandists" is a personal attack, to answer your question. And my and others' edits on Wikipedia are not "censorship", just like your own deletion of content on this page wasn't censorship; it's just differences of opinion on how the article should be structured. I think your section title and formatting sacrifice aesthetics in the interest of trying to make a point. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, did I delete content here? I placed an off topic joke here (the Tax man joke) and then came back later and pulled it - but it was a meaningless self-revert. Unless you are talking about something else. Anyway, my point is illustrated by having a look at the Palo Alto Research Center wikipedia editing stats on this page, here. It is not acceptable that the number one editor here is a Unification Church member, given all the complaints of COI edits by church members. Add this plaininly visible fact to the politically tendentious editors who also act to "help" in censoring (or tendentiously mitigating) Moon-related criticism of this "news" paper, and I think I've made my point. Nobody likes to invoke WP:SPADE, but sometimes speaking the truth of a situation gently (after trying to do so for months) just plain doesn't work. If I'm going to piss in the wind here, I'm going start using a fire hose if I'm forced to do so. WNDL42 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by "this page" I meant the actual article. Anyway, you seem to exhibit a certain lack of self-awareness here - criticizing Unification Church members for heavily editing the articlee, given the bias they bring to the subject, while not realizing that you bring just as strong a bias, though in the opposite direction. I'm trying to keep the article neutral and readable, but I think because of your strong feelings about the issue you tend to think that anyone who doesn't see things the same way you do is a censor or worse. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the "bias" exhibited in a refusal do describe the criticism as what it IS..namely propaganda. The definition of "propaganda" by the way is in the very extended discussion on this topic (see above). Perhaps you can review that discussion and we can continue there. FYI, I am quite aware that I am editing against the heavily pro-church POVs of the Unification church members here, who are perfectly capable of "defending" themselves if they have problems with my criticisms -- namely that they edit here without exhibiting any "self-awareness" of or respect for the impact of their conflict of interest. Shall I post the previous administrator RfC's and ANI's and all extending back over the last two years? Let the Unification Church members defend themselves please. WNDL42 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to describe the criticism as propaganda? I think you mean that what's written in the Wash Times itself is propaganda. In any case, you must recognize that that's your opinion, and it's not even that strongly backed up the quotes cited. Two people are quoted as saying it's propaganda: Rev. Moon, who says, obliquely, that it's propaganda for his church, and the other, the "investigative journalist", who says it's propaganda for the GOP. You'd think, if it were so obvious, that there would be more sources one could cite, and that they would be more consistent. Also, on a related note, I think you're mistaking your own specific views for "consensus". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to characterize the criticism accurately, not couched under the meaningless "editorial independence" heading you keep reverting to, which is exactly the way the "Times" and Sun Myung Moon would like to see it "positioned" (and in fact that is how they DO try to "spin" the issue). Please quit trying to coat rack (sugar coat) the criticism. Allow me to demonstrate (for about the ninth time) that:

(a) [Washington Times] + ["Editorial independence"] + [Myung] = 923 hits, while...

(b) [Washington Times] + [propaganda] + [Myung] = 18,100 hits

This is exactly what WP:SET is for. Case closed. Revert it again and I will take it up the chain, OK? WNDL42 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, when have the Times or Rev. Moon tried to spin it that way? I'm quite curious about that. Also, when previously have you done a web search on the phrase "editorial independence"? And how could you possibly think that "coat rack" and "sugar coat" are synonyms, even with a link to the "coat rack" article right in front of you? You leave so many questions unanswered... anyway, you misunderstand the use of the search-engine test; it's no substitute for clear-headed judgment. As an example, let's look for the section of Wikipedia that deals with another controversial subject - the supposed lack of intelligence of the current U.S. president. Here it is: Criticism_of_George_W._Bush#Intellectual_and_psychological_ability. Funny, but a web search on "George W. Bush" "intellectual ability" returns only about 1,000 hits, while a search on "George W. Bush" idiot returns a whopping 830,000 hits. I guess it's time to change the section name immediately, right? Guess what: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a distillation of whatever's on the internet at the moment. And please do take this disagreement up the chain; I think I'd enjoy seeing that. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Questions:

(Q1) "Really, when have the Times or Rev. Moon tried to spin it that way?"

(A1) “I have the editorial independence that Bill Keller of The New York Times or Len Downie of the Washington Post can barely imagine.”; Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden; The American Prospect; July 2, 2005 issue -- http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2005/06/editorial-independence.html -- This is how the "Times" answers to charges of being a moonie paper. How many more do you want?

(Q2) "Also, when previously have you done a web search on the phrase "editorial independence"?"

(A2) The predominance and relevance and encyclopedic basis for the use of the word "propaganda" has been demonstrated several times here, and at Insight magazine, and at Sun Myung Moon, and at United States journalism scandals, and elsewhere. You've seen them. The evidence FOR the use of the word propaganda is more than self evident, and you've made NO case whatsoever against using it, other than that neither you, nor Ed Poor, nor Steve DuFour, nor the Unification Church, nor the GOP seem (not surprisingly) to "dislike" the good old english word. The section is about "church subsidized political propaganda".

(Q3) "And how could you possibly think that "coat rack" and "sugar coat" are synonyms, even with a link to the "coat rack" article right in front of you?

(A3) Using the language and messaging of the "Times" (putting their "editorial independence coat" on the "article as a rack"), in order to soften/deflect the essential nature of the criticism is "sugar coating".

Finally the nonsense over at "Criticism of GWBush" is utterly irrelevant here. For example, (a) no reliable source has ever called President Bush a "moron" according to the strict, clinical definition of the word, and (b) it is easily demonstratable that President Bush is not a moron.

The word "propaganda" is a completely different thing, "propaganda" is explicitly and specifically used by Moon himself and so it is 100% appropriate here. There's no argument you can make to refute it when Moon and the critics BOTH use the word. WNDL42 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the word was actually "idiot", and here's a notable source calling him that, and here's sort-of a second one. I'd argue that the reason the Bush article goes with the wording it does is not due to lack of "sources", but due to a desire for neutrality and professionalism. Also, "coat rack" is a specific term indicating excess information that doesn't belong in an article. Removing information (as you think I'm trying to do) does not fall under that category. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting talk page. I was following the discussion above until I reached the part about "idiot". It seems to me that Bush article is about a person, and this article is about a newspaper; so the use of "idiot" (describing a person) certainly cannot be compared in any way to the use of the word "propaganda", (for describing a newspaper).

Also, as I have been looking around here at wikipedia standards and policies, it seems that the Bush article is a "BLP", and this article is not. For what it's worth, if the critics say "propaganda" and Moon uses the word himself, I don't see why there should be objections to using the word, apart from any political motivations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosk7 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of church teaching of "Heavenly Deception"

I'm a critic of the church and was a member for two decades (from the mid-70s before big media attention), but outsiders have this one completely WRONG. The phrase "Heavenly Deception" was made up by detractors; it was never taught in the church. -Exucmember (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi exuc, the "Heavenly deception" aspect of Unification Church theology is well sourced for a very long time from both former church members, church watchogs and scholarly studies, and is entirely appropriate irrespective of your personal experience.

In a quick meta analysis of the Google Scholar database of reliable, paper-published documents, a "control population" emerges from an explicit search on "heavenly deception" of 60 publications. Of those 60, 50 documents are explicitly associated with Rev. Moon, the Church and his media properties. Meanwhile, a search that excludes words that indicate a Moon association with the "heavenly deception" concept yields only 10 hits. If you'd like to refute this, please use Google Scholar -- query page is is here. Finally, Moon's words of explanation "even G-d lies" extablish context. The "heavenly deception" aspect is extraordinarily relevant irrespective of the experiences of individual church members, current or former. WNDL42 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying a previous conversation from my Talk page for additional context:

• My understanding is that the "heavenly deception" quote was an insider paraphrase of Moon's "even G-d lies sometimes" explanation, and that it's attribution is solidly connected to previous church members...I didn't make the edit, but have I got this wrong? WNDL42 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was a well-connected, full-time member for two decades, including during the period when the "heavenly deception" accusation was strongest. I never heard it advocated in the church. Only one time (I think it was 1975) did I hear a rank-and-file member (not a leader) advocate something similar, and everyone else disagreed. I've never heard even a rumor that "'heavenly deception' was an insider paraphrase of Moon's [statement]," and I've never heard that Moon said "even God lies sometimes" (although that might be possible). It is pretty easy to check these things because devoted members have been busy putting nearly every talk Moon has ever given online. It was amazingly easy for me to find Moon's rejection of the "heavenly deception" accusation with a Google search. On the other hand: Google: "even God lies sometimes" "Sun Myung Moon" yields no results. (Unificationists don't use "G-d," as Unification theology emphasizes immanence over transcendence). I did find something with a similar phrasing to "even God lies sometimes", but there were three different versions of the same supposed quotation, and no original source quotation (not encyclopedic).

• It might be a good idea, however, to find a (reliable) quotation by Rev. Moon that reveals the fact that honesty is not his number one most important value, as it is for many Americans. That line of argument has some merit, and has indeed led to conflict with American society in a number of ways. An observer might expect that his rhetoric about building a unified world culture would assimilate this vital virtue so central to Western sensibilities, but it's remarkable how resilient small, third-world thinking is within the top leadership of the Unification movement.

• Nevertheless, the assertion that the Unification Church teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception" is patently false. The insider paraphrase, even if true, is not sufficient reason to make (or even mention in an encyclopedia, imo) the false claim that the Unification Church teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception". The church already has a persecution complex (which you can even see revealed in subtle ways by the overreaction of Unificationist Wikipedia editors to certain relatively innocuous statements that remind them of spurious critiques of the church). To me it's just not helpful to dredge up the flimsiest criticisms when so many others have a strong case behind them. -Exucmember (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "heavenly deception" quote is multi-sourced, most recently to Kellner's journal paper in "Presidential Studies Quarterly" titled "Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying". Sorry, "Heavenly Deception" may (in someone's opinion and/or personal experience) be true or not true, but "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth". The sources are numerous, the sources are long established for thirty years, they are reliable, the characterization is notable and is well and fully in context. WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no doubt that the Unification Church has been tarred with the accusation "heavenly deception". I'm afraid that's all the Google scholar searches you did prove. It's a very different thing to assert that the church actually teaches a doctrine of "heavenly deception". Such an assertion requires, at the very least, a reliable quotation of something at least related from Moon's vast number of speeches available online. How does it help the reputation of an encyclopedia to repeat an accusation that's probably not true? Even if there were an explicit doctrine of "heavenly deception" in the Unification Church, why would this be used to criticize a newspaper which certainly has a great deal (if not complete, which is in dispute) editorial independence from church officials? Not that it's relevant, but I'm not a fan of the paper or of conservative politics. I just think an encyclopedia should strive to be accurate. -Exucmember (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all references to "heavenly deception" should be sourced to "critics", and/or former church members that are explicitly identified as such. WNDL42 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the deleted quotation from Moon here, in case someone thinks it would be a valuable addition to this or any other article that mentions "Heavenly Deception":

• But "Heavenly Deception" is not a part of church teachings,(ref)Exposition of the Divine Principle, 1996 Translation(/ref), and Sun Myung Moon strongly rejects the accusation: "Some people try to criticize us by saying that Unification Church members lie and justify it by calling it heavenly deception; I never taught you to do that and I was very angry at hearing such a thing. We don't have to lie. We must be totally honest."(ref)Reverend Sun Myung Moon Speaks on "My Life". March 12, 1978. Belvedere, New York. Translator: Bo Hi Pak(/ref)

If critics are going to make false accusations, a case can be made that countering them provides appropriate balance. -Exucmember (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex, again, it doesn't matter what any of our individual opinions or personal experiences are, the "heavenly deception" quote is multi-sourced, most recently to Kellner's journal paper in "Presidential Studies Quarterly" titled "Bushspeak and the Politics of Lying". Sorry, "Heavenly Deception" may (in someone's opinion and/or personal experience) be true or not true, but "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth". The sources are numerous, the sources are long established for thirty years, they are reliable, the characterization is notable and is well and fully in context. WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

funding

I noticed that the issue of the Times being funded by the UC and/or by Rev. Moon is mentioned 8 times in the article. Why not just say it one time?Steve Dufour (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point, maybe since it seems relevant in so many contexts, we should work up a summary statement to put into the lead? Somehow, "media arm" just doesn't quite capture the full essence of it. WNDL42 (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rearrange article

The article on Insight Magazine gives the notable events in the order they happened without a separate "controversy" or "criticism" section. It seems to work well there. How about trying it here? Would anyone object if I tried? Redddogg (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I got bold and did it. What do you think? Redddogg (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if we'e going to look for wiki-precedent here an "apples to apples" comparison would be to the Washington Post. Insight is (a) a work in progress (no established consensus) and (b) a "different animal". My thoughts.... WNDL42 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-cited quote

Former Times editor and Unification Church member Josette Shiner said, "We are told by the Associated Press that we are the third most quoted newspaper in the world after The New York Times and the Washington Post."

References

To me this seems to be cited only by a posting on one of the Unification Church websites. I don't think it's well cited enough to include in the article. If the Washington Times was really that important wouldn't a more reliable source have said so? Redddogg (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Google search for "Washington Times" "most quoted": [2] When I get around to it I'll look through it for better sources. Redddogg (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Shriner quote has been in for a long time (added by a UC member), I just added the UC info on Shriner when I saw that elsewhere in the article was a silly claim that "none of the paper's editors have ever been Unification Church members". WNDL42 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, looky here. See also "Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print - Google Books Result by David Wallis - 2004 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 336 pages "I was further interested when I learned that the paper's deputy editor at the time, Josette Shriner... here and books.google.com/books?isbn=1560255811...

WNDL42 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My objection to putting the quote in the opening section, or maybe in the article at all, is that it is someone's statement about another person's statement and not very well cited at that. I don't have any idea if it is true or not. It doesn't seem likely to me if only 70,000 people subscribe to the Washington Times in the first place. Redddogg (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try moving the quote out of the intro section. True or not it is not so important.Redddogg (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bo Hi Pak

The intro says: "The times was co-founded in 1982 by Sun Myung Moon and Bo Hi Pak." Is there a source that says Pak was the co-founder? Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. -Exucmember (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With all fairness, Steven Alan Hassan makes a good living (I guess) as an ex-unification church member who is now considered an "expert" on cult and mind-control issues, so what he says must certainly be taken with a grain of salt. He does have a business (and therefore a conflict-of-interest) regarding the Unification Church. I find his writings to male too much use of loaded language for my tastes. WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I have yet to ever...have never once found Hassan to be factually incorrect. With that disclaimer in place...here is Hassan on Col. Bo Hi Pak, from "The GOP's $3 billion Propaganda Organ":

---

Intelligence Ties

By the late 1950s, Moon had managed to build a small cadre of loyal followers and was reaching out beyond Korea. By the early 1960s, the church also was pulling in better educated young men, including some with connections to South Korea’s intelligence services.

Kim Jong-Pil and three other young English-speaking army officers became closely associated with Moon’s church during this transitional phase as the institution evolved from an obscure Korean sect into a powerful international organization.

Beyond his association with Moon’s sect, Kim Jong-Pil was a rising star in South Korea’s intelligence community. In 1961, he founded the KCIA, which centralized Seoul’s internal and external intelligence activities. Another one of the promising young KCIA officers was Colonel Bo Hi Pak, also a Moon disciple.

With these KCIA officers, however, it was never clear whether the benefits of the religion were paramount or if they simply recognized the potential that an international church held as a cover for intelligence operations.

---

"Racism Scandals" section moved

I moved the "Racism Scandals" section out of the criticisms and controversy section up to its place in the main article. It was a series or events, not a criticism or controversy in itself. I also think that made it easier to follow what has happened in the recent history of the Times.Redddogg (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NEA "blame America" controversy

This section seems a little hard to understand. It could use a rewrite. Borock (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple changes. I hope that helps. Redddogg (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and condensed the section moving it to the political leanings section. It seemed like this one incident was taking up too much space. The links are still there so people can check it out. Redddogg (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category removed

I took off the category: "Entities which received funding from the Unification Church‎". There is already a category "Unification Church affiliated organizations" and the article says the church owns the Times. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Brock

• Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times' sister publication Insight, said in his book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy Brock wrote "the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias and that its journalistic ethics were close to nil." [3]

Why was this material deleted? Brock is a respectable journalist and his viewpoint is notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The opinion of such a direct, inside witness is important information for this article. Gamaliel (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the Times has always been a conservative paper and has been strongly criticized by liberals. A half dozen other liberal critics are already cited. Giving two sentences to Mr. Brock seems like giving undue weight to his opinion. A casual reader also might get the impression that he was an employee of the Times itself and was giving first hand information. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He is giving firsthand information. He was there. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Woah! David Brock is a "respected journalist", I though he was an institutionalized self professed lying character assassin? CENSEI (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to show off your bias?Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Same thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting CENSEI's comment back. It seems worse to edit someone's comment on a talk page than to remove what looks like merely opinion (and isn't really a violation of BLP anyway).Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And no one has objected to Brock's comments about the WT employees on BLP grounds. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is length then we can shortern it. We don't need to include both titles, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that the Times is conservative and has often been criticized by liberals. I think there are about 20 cites given backing this up. On the other hand if the Times was really as bad as Brock said Senator Biden wouldn't have given it an interview: [4]. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's President Bush: [5] Steve Dufour (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of State Rice: [6] Steve Dufour (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Senator Obama: [7] Steve Dufour (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. We don't have to decide which one is right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I happen to think that the Times is conservative and liberals should criticize it, if they want to be true to their liberalism that is. However if every instance of a liberal criticism was listed in the article it would be about 100 pages long. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a problem with the current version? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is probably given about the right weight now. I still think Mr. Brock is a bit overexposed with two quotes and two of his books plugged mentioned.  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If mentioning the names of his books are a problem, we can leave that for the footnotes and just quote him. Gamaliel (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, why not mention his books? He has to make a living. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Salon and The Daily Howler

I think it is worth mentioning in the article that these two critics hold opposite political leanings than the Times. Thoughts? Doug Sacks (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course. On the other hand most readers are not stupid and will know that a person, publication, or website that spends its time bashing the "right-wing" media is almost certainly itself "left-wing." BTW I am a Unification Church member but have no direct connection to the Times. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If readers click through to the wiki pages for Salon, etc., they can read all about their perceived, alleged, or self-proclaimed political leanings. A wiki editor's addition of this kind of qualifier only puts his objectivity into question.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The information that it is mainly "left-wing" sources that are criticizing the "right-wing" Times is useful information. I just think it is obvious to an intelligent reader. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried a compromise, mentioning that "critics" are "liberal", but not saying that about any one person or publication. I also mentioned the Times' conservatism in the introduction. That is what it is noted for, not mainly for covering local DC news, sports, etc. although it also does that. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem, unfortunately. The best way is to not insert one's opinion and let it be. If given a choice between naming a source and keeping a pejorative, I don't understand how editorial judgment would lead you keep the pejorative. Name the source, remove the "poison the well" usage of liberal. It's already obvious. Putting that in there only adds bias to the article.Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. On second thought, I think I am okay with this version.Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also be happy if the NYT article (for instance) mentioned that the people calling it liberal were conservative. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This section has recently been expanded. I will try taking off the "liberal" label here since it sounds a bit awkward to me since the word is also used in the sentence before, besides which the liberalism of the Times' critics seems fairly clear in the rest of the material. I hope no one objects.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Frank quote

I changed:

In a 2008 essay that examined political corruption in Washington, D.C. since Richard Nixon, historian Thomas Frank called the Washington Times a "propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries."

to:

In a 2008 essay published in Harper's Magazine, historian Thomas Frank called the Washington Times a "propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries."

What might be better is to find out the point Harper Frank was making, the article is not online. Was he saying that the Times contributed to political corruption in Washington? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank's article is now linked. I will tweek the sentence to add a little more context. Redddogg (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is easier to understand now in this section. Actually Dr. Frank made some good points in his essay that conservatives should think about. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I took off the circulation figures from the intro and gave them a new section. I hope that is okay with everyone. Redddogg (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good change. It was kind of strange having the intro tell us the circulation figures for one point in time. BTW I was kind of surprised to learn that two-thirds of the Times' readers also read the Post. It sounds like they must be political insiders, not ordinary newspaper readers. The NYT also mentioned this as a problem for the Times' ad sales. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, and if I say so myself as a contributor, the intro as it stands now:

The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues. The Times has never been a financial success and has about one-seventh of the circulation of its major competitor in Washington, the Washington Post.

I think this is one of WP's best intros. In only four sentences it gives the main information that people consider important about the Times, without making any questionable or controversial statements. I don't think anything should be taken out and I can't think of anything to add. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Website

Should the Time's website be mentioned? I understand it is more successful than the paper. Borock (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it could be mentioned in the body of the article if you have cited sources. The website itself is currently listed in the external links. Not sure if that helps to answer your question or not.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a secondary source must be given to say anything about the website, rather than just give its address which would be normal. BTW it's interesting that the Times is moving to the left. The Post's article says the Post is moving to the right. Maybe they will pass each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.163.189 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Slant vs. bias

I'd like to see the section "Political Leanings" divided into 2 sub-sections:

1. its editorial slant, i.e. conservative as opposed to the liberal slant of Washington Post, New York Times & Boston Globe
2. questions about its ACCURACY, i.e., accusations of bias

I don't think there's any dispute over whether WT is a conservative newspaper. (There might be a dispute over whether NYT et al are liberal newspapers.) But I've seen numerous conflicting accounts over the last 20 to 25 years about whether the conservative nature of the paper has affected its news reporting (see media bias). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think every intelligent person understands that "liberal" news media and "conservative" news media report the news differently. That's one reason we need freedom of the press. Borock (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Views

The claims and articles that alleged that Wash Times promoted or had links to white separatist or nationalists, has been removed from the main body. I have inserted them back in the main body taking care to avoid POV bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by CasperDude (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned since it was a notable controversy.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Major development - three top executives fired

• Three top executives ousted by Washington Times, The Washington Post
• In Shake-Up, Washington Times Ousts 3 Executives, The New York Times
• Source: Rev. Moon Son Went Rogue In Ordering Wash Times Shakeup, Talking Points Memo
  • Source: Wash Times Managing Editor Tears Up When Asked About Missing Exec Ed
  • Is The Washington Times' Continued Operation In Jeopardy?
  • Family Feud: How Much Is Moon Church Conflict Driving Wash Times Turmoil?

This should be covered in this article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For sure. I've been waiting to see what happens. They might be rehired. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Editor of The Washington Times Has Resigned, per The New York Times. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Big news. That should be in the article right away. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there another newspaper in the past called "The Washington Times"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.68.152 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See the see also section. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight and possible BLP issues

I see a paragraph has been added about a pending lawsuit which includes the statement: 'executives "gave me examples of people whose careers at the Times had grown after they converted" to the Unification Church.' I don't question that the statement was made. However one lawsuit is probably not that important, until the trial is over anyway. Also I see possible BLP problems here. I have been a member of the Unification Church since before the Times was founded and I have never heard of anyone joining the church because of employment at the Times. I also think this might be used a fodder by conspiracy theory types who will conclude that many of the people who have worked for the Times (listed on the page) are probably secret converts to the UC. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it could possibly be BLP, since Miniter name the executives that he alleges tried to coerce him into joining the church. Also, given that the "shakeup" is considered significant news for the Times, that the lawsuit is directly relevant to the shakeup, and that both the paper and Moon are no strangers to controversy, it seems inappropriate to leave it out. Finally, the source is the Washington Post, so the reporting should be considered pretty solid. I understand the desire to do damage control, but I have to disagree with you. Leaving it out seems worse than keeping it in, especially since the allegations don't seem to directly defame anyone.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For one thing one person's opinion is fairly minor. Also look at some of the people who have worked for the Times and moved on. As far as I know nobody has ever said they were pressured to join the church. The whole idea is kind of weird, speaking as a long time UC member. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is about the lawsuit—and the allegations are repeated in other respectable outlets—so it's clearly noteworthy. This isn't some low level employee of the Times, either. It's is a successful, generally respected journalist who has already been considered notable by Wikipedia editors. I can't be convinced to remove this, though I do appreciate your input.Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Lawsuits are filed everyday. I personally think it would be better to wait until this one is settled. My BLP concern is mainly for current and former editors and writers of the Washington Times, listed in the article. They did not mention any pressure to join the UC, AFAIK I might have missed something. I think it is very possible that some people will say they are secret Unificationists since they worked for the Times and in many cases went on to be successful there or in other places. These might be the people mentioned in Mr. Miniter's statement, or so a conspiracy theorist could reasonably conclude. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dufour, one minor lawsuit does not deserve this kind of prominence in an article. WVBluefield (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Current incarnation looks fine to me.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

With Tumult at the Top, Washington Times Faces Uncertainty

In-depth look by The New York Times [8]. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the NYT is the best source for infomation on the current changes at the WT. They seem to be covering it fairly well. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)