Talk:United States v. Sun Myung Moon

message: The article was called "Sun Myung Moon tax case".  That is the topic of the article.  The fact that many people do NOT believe that Rev. Moon was guilty of "tax fraud and conspiracy" is the whole reason that the topic is notable in the first place.  I think the title should be changed back. Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability of the case may rest on the fact that a high-profile leader was imprisoned.  I have seen a precedent at other articles; where if a person is convicted of a crime, they are written about as having actually committed the crime.  There are people at the Jessica Lunsford article, for instance, trying to change all of the instances where it was said that John Couey raped the eight-year-old Lunsford, into saying that he "allegedly" raped her.  In that instance, the conviction was considered enough to refer to it as having actually happened.  That does not prevent there being a "criticism" section saying that some people believe him to be innocent.  You have not provided any evidence that the dissent of his followers is what made the case notable.  I would think that the conviction of a high-profile religious leader is notable in and of itself.  Joie de Vivre 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, those who think the case was unjust include a US Senator and the head of the ACLU for New York.  I would not object if the title of the article was "The conviction of Sun Myung Moon for tax fraud and conspiracy".  I could also mention that the "crimes" themselves are so minor, filing an income tax return with some information not included and conspiring with someone else to do the same thing, as to not be worth an article in themselves.  Please note that the article is about the case, not about the "crimes."  Thanks. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to do that with fewer words.  Joie de Vivre 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. Steve Dufour 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: renaming article

message: "Legacy" gives a positive connotation.  "Aftermath" has no connotation.  If you believe that "aftermath" is negative than please suggest something other than "legacy", which tends to refer to something grand and heroic.  Joie de Vivre 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to "Afterwards".  Joie de Vivre 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That works for me. :-) Steve Dufour 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Legacy" or "Aftermath"

message: :Reverting. Changes refelct the spin of the UC, are not neutral.
When there is a controversy, each side typically puts their own spin on the various matters at hand. To be neutral, an article should describe the viewpoint of each side. Suppressing one side's viewpoint does not make the article neutral, and is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
If you feel the article is unbalance, you are free to include other viewpoints. Surely there is a critic somewhere with an opposing view. You can quote them. Then readers will know why critics and supporters feel the way they do. --Uncle Ed 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ed. BTW I have long noticed that the article fails to mention all of the groups that filed amigus briefs (if that's what you call them) in support of Rev. Moon.  This was mentioned quite a bit in the press at the time. Steve Dufour 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The church's viewpoint

message: This material in the article has been tagged as unsourced for about a year (since February 2007):
::After personnel from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) spent two years poring over all the church's financial records, three United States Department of Justice officials independently concluded that there was no wrongdoing. Moreover, they emphasized that the amount of possible tax liability was too small (less than $7,500 per year over a three-year period) to merit prosecution.
I would propose that the material be deleted. Famspear (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced section

message: I removed the viewpoints section, when did we start having viewpoints sections? It's little more than a defense of Moon. In any case, we don't need to cherry pick commentary on issues. There's very little encyclopedic value in doing that. 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put most of the material back. One of the notable aspects of this story, besides Moon being well-known, is the different opinions expressed about the legal issues involved. Borock (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewpoints section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States v. Sun Myung Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080513174704/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5765
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified