Methodology.
How we source, verify, write, and correct.
Accuracy comes first
Every factual claim in an article points to a source the reader can verify. Where two sources contradict, both appear in the article body and the discrepancy is named in plain text. The editors do not pick the more flattering source and bury the other.
Primary documents (court filings, government reports, sworn testimony, internal church publications, the named subject's own published statements) are cited where they exist. Secondary reporting is cited when it carries information the primary record does not.
How we use AI
This site exists partly because the Unification Church has not been open about its money, its history, or what it has asked of its members. We cannot ask for that openness and conceal how our own work is made. So, plainly: we use AI tools to help research and draft what you read here.
What that means is narrow. AI helps the editors gather and organize sources and produce first drafts. Every claim is then checked by a person against a real source, edited, and approved by a human editor before anything is published. Nothing reaches this site straight from a machine.
We use these tools because the editors are a small group and the record is large: court filings, government reports, and decades of the church's own material in several languages. AI lets us cover that ground, and write about it more clearly and at a steadier pace, than we otherwise could. It is an imperfect translator of intent: where the words do not fully capture what we mean, that is the limit of the tool, not a lack of care or conviction.
Some things it never does here. It never publishes; a person approves every word that goes live. It never invents a source or a citation; if a claim cannot be verified against a real document, it does not run. It never fabricates testimony, quotations, or people. And it does not decide what is true: it drafts; people judge, source, and stand behind the result.
It still makes mistakes, which is exactly why the checking and the sourcing exist. If you find an error, write to [email protected] and we will correct it in full, in public.
Factual articles and opinion articles are different
Most articles on this site are factual: the editors describe what the record shows, with sources cited inline. The editors' own interpretation stays out of those pieces.
Some articles are opinion: the editors are interpreting the record, characterizing a pattern, or naming what they think is happening. Opinion articles are clearly labeled as such at the top of the page. They rest on disclosed facts that the reader can check. Opinion is never a way to make a factual accusation without the sourcing a factual accusation requires.
Serious factual claims about named individuals
For factual claims about a named living individual (claims of misconduct, illegality, abuse, or significant harm) the editors apply a stricter standard: at least two independent documentary sources, and an attempt to contact the individual for comment before publication. Where the individual responds, the response appears in the article. Where they decline or do not respond, the article says so.
Archives
Web pages change, get rewritten, or quietly disappear. So we make our best effort to capture a snapshot of each web source in the Internet Archive (archive.org) and to link that snapshot alongside the live URL. Not every page can be captured, but where a snapshot exists we link it, for church-affiliated sites, news reports, and our own pages alike.
Corrections
When something the editors wrote is wrong, the correction goes on the page itself (at the top, dated, with the prior wording preserved underneath) and on a running corrections log. The editors do not silently re-edit articles. A typo fix does not count as a correction; a factual change does.
Right of reply
If a named individual or current institution disputes a factual claim in an article and provides evidence, the editors publish their reply in the article body or in a linked sidebar piece. The editors do not silently remove disputed claims in response to complaints, and the editors do not assume that a complaint means the claim was wrong.
Sources and anonymity
Sources are named unless there is a stated reason (usually safety, sometimes a pending legal matter) to anonymize. Where the editors anonymize, the article says so and identifies the category of person the source is (e.g. former staff at a named organization, between specified years). Anonymous sources are corroborated against documents or a second source before publication, and an anonymous source is not the sole basis for a factual claim about a named individual.
Voice
Articles are written in journalistic third person. The site does not address the reader as if it knows their circumstances, and it does not assume the reader is either a current or former member. The founder of the Unification Church is referred to by name where the historical record uses it; honorifics are not used editorially.
What is out of scope
Personal counseling, legal advice, and mental-health advice are out of scope. The Resources section links to organizations that do that work. The editors do not respond to private requests for advice, and email sent to the site is not confidential unless that has been explicitly arranged.