Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Video controversy:

I removed the following section:

As of 2012, at least 10 women were still being kept for sexual exploitation by church leaders, according to Kim Jin-ho, former director of the cult and a representative of the organization No JMS (JMS 피해대책협의회). One former member who was a victim of Jung's sex crimes said that "there were over 1,000 women recruited for sexual exploitation, and even from prison he managed them, including minors." Jo Gyeong-suk, former head of the cult's Seoul branch, said that "not a few of those women committed suicide. They become severely depressed and receive psychiatric treatment, suffer various illnesses and social phobias as a result of the stress, and are unable to marry."

The first section uses "No Cult News" as a source. Not a reliable third party source. These charges are very serious, and such a source is not enough to warrant the inclusion of them in the article. The paragraph continues however:

A press conference produced video evidence, with photos of a topless woman licking pictures of Jung. Jung's followers responded that the videos were made before 2008 and did not amount to proof that the women actually had intercourse with Jung.

So there was some kind of press conference, which showed videos/pictures, which was then reported on in the Korean media. This should be included if these sources are reliable third party sources and it was widely reported on in the media. However, I don't know much of the context of this video. And the original link needs you to log in to view it. So more sources, explanation and context are needed. Then it can be placed back into the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To me nothing indicates that No Cut News should translate to "No Cult News", Harizotoh9. I will reinsert the removed paragraph. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a typo and was confusing it with something else. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No harm done. Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding Providence primary sources

I just reverted the article to remove these sources, which have again been added. For example this section:

Jung was drafted into his first term of service in the Vietnam war. After his first term he returned voluntarily to serve a second term, fulfilling two terms of duty in Vietnam (1966 to 1969).

All three references used are to Providence websites. These are:

• providencetrial.com
• gospelofprovidence.com

These, and any other primary Providence website are not appropriate sources for a Wikipedia article.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and the restoration of the sources here by Macauthor is not appropriate and will be reverted. This talk page would benefit from a Recurring themes template or similar to avoid the rehashing of debates. Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This has been discussed to death, and these sources have been removed and re-added countless times. If they are re-added again it may be needed to report it to a Wikipedia noticeboard and seek outside help. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place

Thank you Harizotoh9 for your help with the article, but as has been suggested to many of us who have edited this article I would suggest you ask before you remove content. The discussion about sources has already taken place and can be seen above on this talk page under the header, "Civil government magazine - monthly (merged from JMS talk page)." @Richwales:, an admin, verified one of the key third party sources with a third party Korean speaker and he laid out his opinion on it which you can see in that section. He also suggested that the article might be improved with a careful use of primary sources as is allowed by Wikipedia BLP policy. These primary sources are directly from the source of the subject of the article itself. I support Rich's opinion but understand that two or three people agreeing could still not be considered a consensus. And so I brought this issue up for discussion on the Provi:ANI board. No one responded to the discussion. No one else has expressed an opinion on the matter though multiple opportunities have been given. The other sources you removed are clearly verifiable third party news sources. Both the English and the Korean have been provided in the quotes. Check for yourself if you'd like and do your due diligence as Richwales did. But please do not continue to revert back to older versions of the article without reading the discussions that lead to those changes. I myself have been asking about content on the talk page before removing it and ask that others do the same, as opposed to removing first and then asking about the removed content. Also, thank you for checking up on the reliability of each source. Most of us are not familiar with the different Korean news sources and so I don't see an immediate answer to those concerns. If anyone has any Korean friends their opinions might help us to navigate these waters. All the ones I associate with seem to imply that Korean news sources and magazines in general are a little on the sensational side, like any news organization vying for the public's attention. Macauthor (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor What reason do you have for reverting to such an ancient version of this article undoing not just mine but everyone's work? Why remove 12 third party news sources, 4 direct quotes from Jung himself, and the most recent news story with more than 4 different news sources all confirming its facts without even so much as a comment on the talk page? There is clearly a discussion taking place about sources here but the only source you commented on was the pornographic one you re-instated while removing everything that doesn't match what appears to be a one-sided bias of the subject. Macauthor (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary: WP:BRD. A very short sketch:

• Macauthor make some edits that include direct copy-pasting from providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com, and changing a level 3 heading) from "Sexual abuse charges" to "Trials & Court Decisions", edits that they in some cases have tried unsuccessfully for 3 years to stick into the article despite being reverted by multiple Wikipedians, and they remove at the same time who knows how many sources[1]
• Harizotoh9 reverts with the edit summary "PLEASE stop inserting these primary unreliable sources. I have lost count of how many times these sources have been removed from the article" and goes on to post the next half hour on the talk page
• At this point in time other editors are expected to engage in dialogue with each other on the talk page. Macauthor instead post this new section on the talk page suggesting Harizotoh9 ask before removing content, and they (Macauthor) swiftly restore their version of the article.

Going into details here would include rehashing discussions long since closed on Talk:Jung Myung Seok, WP:RSN, and WP:ANI, and repeating the good faith advice previously given, and serves at this point little purpose other than taking the WP:LISTEN bait. The main thing I notice is the breach of the principles outlined in BRD, and the long term attempts to add material already rejected. The disregard for BRD includes the suggestion that another editor asks before removing material. At best this is an innocent mistake, but I can imagine some editors might regard it as a display of WP:OWN. Quite contrary, Macauthor and MrTownCar as members of Providence should notice the {{COI editnotice}} and pay attention to the guidelines in WP:COI.

In regard to your claim, Macauthor, that I should have re-inserted pornographic material in the article, I disagree. I am neither aware that the article contains or has contained material that by any Wikipedia measure could be considered pornographic, nor do I see any mention of pornography on the various talk pages. Please provide diffs when you come up with these things, read more on WP:TPG, that would create some clarity. The only borderline "pornographic" element, if you so insist, that I recon some people would find disturbing is the mention of a topless woman licking a picture of Jung. That I deliberately left out, not mainly because the original URL to the source cited is dead, but because I can't see which purpose it serves the article.

You further claim that this is the only comment I made on the talk page. Wrong again. I commented in the section titled "Please stop adding Providence primary sources:" 12:35, 28 February 2014‎, in the section "Video controversy:" 15:13, and in the section "False media report" from Apple Daily?" 21:10.

Despite the above you end with implying that I am editing in supposedly violation of WP:NPOV. I don't appreciate the aspersion and I don't believe I do. That, however, is better left to other editors to evaluate, so I ask you to file a case raising your concerns at the appropriate noticeboard, and to notify me when having done so. Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sam for responding but it appears that you may have misunderstood my comments above. But the misunderstandings are not necessary to address because they are hardly the issue at hand. I was hoping you could address your removal of the 12 third party news sources, most of them newly added and some of them old. I can see your point of view on the direct quotes of Jung himself since they come from sites that have been disputed in the past, but according to Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living persons I think these too are worthy of discussion. It has been suggested to me by three editors, including yourself, that we bring these issues up for discussion on WP:ANI boards. Though I tried to bring up this issue the last this article was posted to the announcement boards, this particular issue was not really addressed. I had hoped we could come to consensus here, but I don't think we even agree on what consensus we came to if any last time. I have quoted earlier discussions with admins more than once to show that these sources are worthy of posting but still they are removed immediately without full discussion. Harizotoh9 was kind enough at least to bring some of them up for discussion here after removing all of them, but we didn't really get to have an open discussion about them. I don't really care for the way these talk pages are designed for I feel that is part of the reason these issues don't really get fully discussed properly. Regardless, I will take your advice and post to the boards and notify you when I do. Macauthor (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Samsailor: you removed a source provided by neither macauthor nor my self under the Taiwan section that discusses a legal decision and fraud involving audio recordings. The source was verifiable and was posted for a very long time under the Providence version prior to merger and remained after the merger. You decided unilaterally that the source was not verifiable and removed it. It is hard for me to look at this as editing from NPOV when you remove material that was previously vetted, (or at least contributed by a non providence person) with no discussion. As I requested earlier please show me why I am dead wrong and how your actions regarding macauthors contributions are not edit warring.MrTownCar (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. In response to the continual removal of content, I've posted a notice on the administrators' incidents noticeboard WP:ANI, asking for attention to this article from admins. Anyone who wants to discuss this matter should probably watch WP:ANI and look for any followup to my request for attention. Macauthor (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

non sequitur

@Harizotoh9: I would appreciate if you refrained from en masse editing. It makes it difficult to discuss anything and is counterproductive to improving the quality of the article.

firstly as citation 32 states JMS was charged in 2001. How could he flee and be a fugitive if he left the country in 1999 two years before charges were brought?

second the citation regarding fraudulent behavior quotes a single anonymous lawyer. why are you making it plural in the article?

thirdly you reverted an edit you made on February 27, 2014 stating that the sentence was too strong for BLP. What prompted you to revert your own edit?MrTownCar (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for review:

I reverted to an older version of the article, mostly due to the usage of primary sources. However there are some other sources used. But I do not speak Korean, and I am not that familiar with media and sources from that region, or even the subject matter of Providence. Are the sources reliable, are they accurately being portrayed, etc. I would like these sources reviewed on the talk page first, and for users to give feedback. If they are found appropriate they can then be inserted into the article. I am most interested in the following sections:

In a trial not widely known to viewers, Providence filed suit against a Korean News Broadcasting company for libel. The court ruled that the broadcasts were in fact biased. The court ordered the following: 1) the media must not use one-sided material provided by the informer and others; 2) the media must inform the organization 48 hours before broadcasting; 3) the media must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to [the Church] so that their rebuttal will also be aired; 4) if these orders are violated, the media must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won for each violation.

And the section "False Allegations made against

On October 24, 2013, Congressman Park Beom-gye (a democrat of Daejeon Seo-gu-eul), member of The National Assembly of Legislation falsely accused Jung of living a luxurious life in prison and reported that Jung was being given special priviledges based on false information from an exaggerated and distorted report.

President Jung was convicted because false information was given to the court.

The Seoul Eastern District Court acquited ‘JMS’ of the charge for allegedly sexually assaulting under-age students in a modeling institute. The court concluded that Jung and 13 other related executives were free from suspicion after a series of investigations.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

These stories are all over the internet. The first one you mentioned is posted on two different news sites, and I found the Congressman story on at least 5 different news sites. I had translated quotes from 4 different news sources until Sam Sailer removed them. Macauthor (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hariztoh9: If you think sources are not reliable please bring it up on talk page. Removing sources and then discussing them is edit warring. If you are not sure please ask for help from rich wales or shii as admins.MrTownCar (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If we consider that you have 400 edits exclusively in the area of your own religious movement, Providence, I find it odd that you give advice to Harizotoh9 who has 9000+ edits in all kinds of articles, especially when your take on what constitutes edit warring to the best of my knowledge is dead wrong. But since you're self-confident enough to bold the verdict you pass, please file the case at WP:ANEW. Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Samsailor: it would be polite if you let people answer for themselves. it would be real helpful if Haritozot and samsailor spend more time posting on the talk page. as I have been instructed by richwales and others we are all to assume good faith and if material is in dispute it is to be discussed on the talk page and not engage in edit warring. macauthor included a great deal of new material from korean media sources not previously reviewed. "But I do not speak Korean, and I am not that familiar with media and sources from that region, or even the subject matter of Providence. Are the sources reliable, are they accurately being portrayed, etc." The question asked is fair but it is not appropriate to remove the material after the disclaimer that I am not familiar with media etc.

BTW my contributions are not limited to this page, please look again. Kindly sam show me where I am in error in my understanding of this process since you state I am dead wrong. ANEW requires a violation of the three revert rule which has not happened yet.....MrTownCar (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Following the ban of the Providence members MrTownCar and Macauthor on 26 March, user TESTIFIRE has on 24 April in this edit re-added the section "False Accusations made against Jung" that Harizotoh9 already has questioned above. As the addition is verbatim identical to additions made by the banned and blocked members of Providence, I will revert per WP:PROXYING. We would need independent translations of the Korean sources to verify this material. Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories

I removed the categories: Category:Christianity in Korea, Category:Christianity in South Korea, Category:Unification Church. This organization does not seem to be Christian, nor is it the Unification Church. I don't understand why someone put them back. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick actual read of the article should reveal the Christian foundation of the organization. Sam ^Sing! 10:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested first paragraph

I think this would be closer to what the sources say:

Providence is a sect or cult founded by Jung Myung Seok (also known by the names of Joshua Jung, Joshua Lee and Pastor Joshua).[1][2] It began as a splinter group from the Unification Church[3] in South Korea in 1978, where it still has the most members.[4][5]Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• From sect: "A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group." And from cult: "In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or other social group with deviant and novel beliefs and practices."Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the suggested change. AFAIK there is a long tradition on Wikipedia of neutrally describing what media and layman (other Christians often in particular) may call a cult as a NRM. Sam ^Sing! 11:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian and/or new religious movement?

From what the article describes I don't think that almost anyone would say that Providence is Christian. The Unification Church is not usually considered Christian itself, so an offshoot of it would probably also not be Christian. It could also be asked if Providence is really "new" or a "movement." BTW the article New religious movement says: "Generally, Christian denominations are not seen as new religious movements; nevertheless, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Shakers have been studied as NRMs.[9][10]" Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Did any source say it was Christian or a new religious movement? The sources cited in the first paragraph use the words "sect" and "cult." Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What might otherwise be popularly referred to as a cult is here either put into Category:New religious movements or Category:Christian new religious movements. In this edit you remove the word "Christian" from the sentence "Providence is a Christian new religious movement founded by Jung Myung Seok" in the lead, with the edit summary: "neither source cited said "Christian"". Please be aware that often statements in the lead are not necessarily supported by inline citations as the lead is a summary of the article. Also in this case the Asian Correspondent numerous times mentions JMS as the Second Coming of Jesus and writes that "a Korean association against Christian cults issued a statement calling for a full investigation of Jeong Myeong-seok". Sydney Morning Herald wrote that "Providence is a quasi-Christian sect started by Jung in South Korea around 1980." Sam ^Sing! 11:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Should the Unification Church also be described as a "Christian new religious movement"? It and Providence seem to share most of the same beliefs, according to this article. Right now it is only called a "new religious movement," although its Christian roots are explained in the second paragraph of the the lede. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Morning Star

The article says that "Jesus Morning Star" is the most common name for this group in South Korea. It also says that South Korea is where it has the most members. Shouldn't that be the title of the article? Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on a quick Google search for news articles relating to the religious organization, "Providence" is the most WP:COMMONNAME amongst English-language sources. Per Wikipedia guidelines, we use whatever is the most common English name used in English-language sources, regardless of what is official, or what is used in specific countries. Most of the media coverage regarding this topic uses "Providence". --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the sources cited for this article I see a lot of JMS and Jesus Morning Star. I didn't count them up to compare however. I guess I should do this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Korean Judicial System

Hello everyone!

Just wanted to suggest that we include some info on the nature of the Korean judicial system, specifically that this individual's case was originally decided by a single judge, no jury--I know the allegations and convictions against this group are shocking, but I think that this info is important to include! Source ex. http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/south_korea.htm

Actually I am new to Wikipedia--not sure if any of you saw, but I left a message on the talk pages of some of the recent editors of this article. I created an account because I am a student and was hoping to address some questions with this article! Basically I just noticed that it is missing information in a few key places; i.e. the details of the trial, maybe a bit more on the philosophies of the group and the background of the individual. Also, the language feels a bit hostile at times. As you can probably tell, still getting used to the deletion/editing process.

Whatever the nature of the group, I think it is important that we as scholars get the article right for academic purposes ;)

Thanks all, looking forward to the work!

GIOSCali (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay with me. I don't really see why it's important in this article, however. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose the addition for several reasons: firstly, it is not backed by reliable sources that specifically talk about Jung's trials. Original research is not allowed, neither is synthesis. Secondly, bench trials in court cases at lower courts are, bar U.S. law criminal cases, common, e.g. the majority of civil trials that take place in England and Wales do not feature a jury and are heard by a judge sitting alone, which leaves the supposed premise for inclusion invalid. Thirdly, Jung's case was tried at High Court, presumably a Jury trial, that added four years to the sentence, and that ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court (a jury trial). If anything this could indicate that the sitting judge in the first case was too lenient, but back to square one, that's not for us to ponder about. I will remove the addition. Sam ^Sing! 08:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sam,

Actually, serious criminal trials in England and Wales do feature a jury! The allegations against Jung would warrant a jury in England and Wales. For the question about sources, any case tried in SOuth Korea would fall under their judicial system, so because Jung's case was tried in SOuth Korea, we know for sure that their judicial system applied to the case. A system of three or one judge at the district level, and a group of judges at the supreme court level! No jury thought, so we should mention it because the vast majority of English speaking nations do feature juries at the district level for serious criminal offenses.

I'll put the edit back, and add some more clarity soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 August 2014‎

• It is still original research and should not be added unless supported by specific, reliable sources. Sam ^Sing! 10:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the source, again, still getting used to Wikipedia! I found a few more sources that fit the criteria and reposted the edit :: :) Just a suggestion everyone, but for the future, rather than deleting an edit if it is poorly sourced, it would probably work better :: for everyone if we just replace it with an appropriate source, especially if the information is widely available (as in the case of the Korean judicial system!) I think this would save us all time, and help us work better together :) thanks all

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please carefully read the links I have provided above to get an understanding of why these additions are not acceptable under our policies. Sam ^Sing! 06:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sam,

I'm not sure under what criteria the sources are not appropriate, but if that is the case, please explain! The nature of the Korean legal system is very basic information, so there are plenty of sources that can be substituted in if the ones provided do not qualify :)

If you have any concerns about the relevance of the edit itself, please also explain in detail on this talk page! I think it would be better for everyone if we all work together to make this article comprehensive and balanced ;0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello all,

was hoping to discuss in greater detail the edit on the South Korean judicial system that says they do not feature juries for criminal trials. Actually, South Korea just introduced a lay participation in the form of juries for criminal trials upon request of the defendant, however the decision of these juries does not actually determine the verdict of the trial, which is still ultimately decided solely by a judge.

The system has been quite controversial in South Korea, but I'm thinking for the sake of transparency it would be good to include it on the edit. Might read something like this: "In the South Korean legal system, district cases are decided by a system of three judges or a single judge. As of January 1st, 2008, the South Korean government introduced juror participation in criminal trials, yet these juries do not determine verdicts nor bind the ultimate decision of the judge." Not perfect, would be great if you all could offer suggestions.

As for sources, I'm wondering why the Korean government website does not apply? SOuth Korean government website was actually cited on this Wikipedia page.http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Law_of_South_Korea If it doesn't work, can we just cite the Korean constitution? LoL.

Also Sam, you brought up the issue of synthesis--could we discuss that as well? Want to make sure we get the edit just right.

If no response I will post this within a few days, but would much prefer to have it nailed down beforehand!

Baja! :) --Gios — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.51.206.66 (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello all,

been one week and still no responses so I'm going to go ahead and post the edit :) Sam, if you feel that the edit causes an issue in regards to synthesis, please feel free to remove the edit, but also please discuss in detail why you feel it is synthesis on this talk page--you seem to have a lot of experience on Wikipedia, so I'm sure that you have some advice as to how to make this edit fit with the proper policies!

Alternate suggestion: if synthesis concerns persist, maybe it would be better if we just create an entirely new section to include details of the Jung's trial? i.e. nature of the Korean judicial system, evidence in the trial, media coverage, etc.

There are plenty of sources in Korean that give more detail on these subjects--I figured most readers of this site wouldn't be able to read Korean, however if that is the only option I say we do it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of GIOSCali's addition to the topic. It would seem to be designed to cast doubt on the verdict. I.e. WP:WEASEL. There is no reason that a judge would be biased in the case anymore than a jury. BTW: A link to Ryan Park's article: The Globalizing Jury Trial: Lessons and Insights from Korea]Jim1138 (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense-- actually I just thought it would be good to provide the information for readers who weren't familiar with that type of judicial system, but if it seems to create a unfair bias in any way then we shouldn't include this edit.

I was hoping to put more information in regards to the trial on this page-- perhaps the context of more information would make this edit in particular seem more appropriate, if not then it does not need to be included. Thanks for the input :)

I will try to post more information on the trial on this talk page soon-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Background Edits

Hello all, hope you have been well--

I would like to post the following information to the this article, about Jung Myeong Seok's background as a poet, with sources of course:

Jung Myeong-Seok is a best-selling writer and poet with the largest book store chain in South Korea--the Kyobo Book Centre. In 2011, 10 of Jung's poems were selected for inclusion in 'The Great Dictionary of Korean Poems,' which represents 100 years of history of poetry in Korea (1908 to 2010).

His works include: - Poems of Inspiration 영감의 시 (May 1996) - Telling Through Poems 시로 말한다 (July 2013) - Woman of Poetry 시의 여인 (July 2013)

In the 'Great Dictionary of Korean Poems', Jung’s work was given the following appraisal by the editorial committee: "His sincere world of poetry expresses a love of praising Heaven and love of embracing the broken Earth. His literature creates hope and harmony for modern people whose lives lack a balance between reality and ideals."

This is the first of a few edits I would like to add that detail more of the subject's backgrounds as well as the beliefs of this new religious movement! To be honest, the current article is a bit unprofessional and comes off as more of an anti-Providence article than an academic representation of the subject.

Anyways, because I can speak Korean I can access a much broader range of sources which we can now utilize and make this article the best it can be! ;)

Blessings, GIOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Harizotoh9,

I saw that you removed the above edit, with the reasoning: "seems pretty tangential to the purpose of the article."

LoL, maybe I'm a little confused, can you please state on this talk page why you feel that this edit does not fit with the purpose :of the article? Just so we're on the same page! :)

If the purpose of the article is to provide an academic representation of the subject, then being a best-selling poet/writer who was :included in an anthology of 100 years of Korean poetry is very relevant, right?

I'm going to re-post the edit--remember we have to go by the facts and provide a complete picture of the subject, even if it is unpopular or controversial.

blessings,

GIOSCali (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(actually remembered to sign my name this time!)

Yeah, he is a best-selling poet, writer, and convicted sex offender. This isn't relevant to this page. Shii (tock) 06:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm still a bit confused... can someone provide a rationale for why the above edit is not relevant to the page?

Yes, this is a complex and controversial subject, but I think one of the advantages of resources like wikipedia are that they provide a complete, detailed set of facts on various topics. If you do not think the information is relevant, I encourage you to take a look at these links to other NRMs that have often been categorized as cults or sects, with their leaders convicted of various crimes: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Assemblies_of_Yahweh https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus_the_Temple_of_the_Tabernacle_of_the_Testimony https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unification_Church

Regardless of how popular or not the subject may be, the fact is, he was included in an anthology of the greatest poems in Korean history. This information is relevant.

also, lets please utilize this talk page in detail ;)

blessings, GIOS GIOSCali (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If I see an English language source for this supposed "greatest poems collection," I'll believe it. It strains credulity that after being a fugitive of the law for 6 years he would suddenly be considered Korea's cultural treasure. Rather than those articles, I think this one is more relevant to our discussion: Yoo Byung-eun Similar tale of a Korean cult leader who purchased fame and titles for himself. Shii (tock) 02:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shii, sorry for the late response--

actually I can provide a picture of Jung Myeong Seok's page in the Great Dictionary of Korean Poems if that would help! I was actually informed (by an author on this page lol) that as per wikipedia's sourcing policy, foreign language sources are acceptable if English sources are not available--unfortunately there are just not many English sources that provide details on this subject beyond the accusations...

For the https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yoo_Byung-eun page, if you read through the article you will see that it mentions the prize he won from the International Federation of Inventor's Association for his invention of the colonic irrigation system. Again, regardless of the popularity of the subject, it is our responsibility on wikipedia to provide the facts... in this case, the subject was included a significant anthology of Korean Poetry, so it should be posted on the article right?

Lastly, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jim1138, I saw that when you recently removed the above edit, you sent me a template saying that I was edit warring on this page-- lol please do not misunderstand, I am not interested at all in engaging in an edit war!

As I have mentioned various times on this talk page (and in personal messages on the talk pages of various authors from this page), I would really like for all of us to utilize this talk page in detail to come to a consensus on the edits for this page...

So https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jim1138, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Sam_Sailor, or https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Harizotoh9, rather than just removing the above edit, if you feel that the above edit is not relevant to the page, please pleeeeaaaaase use this talk page so that we can discuss and come to a consensus regarding this article. :)

I hope that going forward we can all work together to make this article the best that it can be.

Blessings,

GIOSCali (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general Wikipedia policy, but on this particular page we have discussed before how organizations can purchase article space in the Korean press. We even went to Korean Wikipedia to get confirmation about the dubiousness of articles about Providence in particular. You can compare the case of the International Federation of Inventors' Associations, an international organization, to this supposed compilation of poetry in Korea -- who compiled it? Who paid for its publication? I think there is probably a good consensus that we should not allow a Korean-language article that contradicts common sense. Shii (tock) 01:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shii. The sources are dubious and the flowery prose not encyclopedic. Concensus has not been reached. GIOSCali, a few days for replies is not sufficient, we all have other irons in the fire. Please do not restore without consensus. Jim1138 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

thank you for utilizing the talk page! ;) Sure, for the Great Dictionary of Korean Poems I can research the publication information and repost it here, so that we can come to consensus on this edit. Shii, again I would just offer a caution when defining common sense while working on an article about a very controversial subject-- lets remember our responsibility simply to present the facts directly, as they are. Best, GIOSCali (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello all! Here is some additional information on 한국 시 대사전 (Encyclopedia of Korean Poems).

The book was compiled by three authors: 1. 허영자 (Heo Young Ja) One of the more famous figures in the Korean literary community--professor of poetry at Sunshin University, first published in Hyundae Mundak in 1962 and has since published 11 collections of poetry and essays, recipient of various awards. 2. 윤금초 (Yun Keum Cho) Also a professor and poet, formerly a journalist in the editorial office of the Chosun Daily News and deputy department head of the Weekly Chosun. Also published several books, here is a link: http://www.kyobobook.co.kr/author/info/AuthorInfo.laf?authorid=1001811201 3. 윤해규 less known than other two authors, published a few collections of poetry

The Encyclopedia of Korean poems has been published in three different versions: 1994, 2002, and 2011. The most recent version in 2011 includes the subject of this article, Jung Myeong Seok. The book was originally published in 1994 by the Korean Dictionary Research Institution, which has published dictionaries and anthologies on a variety of subjects including architecture, professional fashion design, children's education, and so forth. The Encyclopedia of Korean poems was updated in its second and third editions by Eunji Publishing and EJP Book, respectively.

Lastly, in regards to the concern about third parties purchasing article space in the Korean media, each journal/newspaper/website has different regulations, however I could not find a single source that allowed third parties to purchase space for articles on persons. Primarily the function of purchasing article space is for advertisement purposes. Shii, if you have any additional information to provide on this subject to further our discussion please bring it forward! ;)

In any case, one of the sources I originally provided for this edit, Yonhap News, is on Wikipedia's accepted list for Korean sources. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources

best, GIOSCali (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, with the above information I'm going to go ahead and post the edit-- any thoughts or concerns please post on this talk page! Thanks best GIOSCali (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that GIOSCali has added for a fifth time the section /Cultural Impact/ to the article, despite objections from Shii, Jim1138, Harizotoh9 and myself. The addition is essentially not different from what we saw from the now blocked members of Providence MrTownCar here and Macauthor here. Only while the section previously was titled /Books published by Jung Myung Seok/ and placed at the end of the article it now gets the title /Cultural Impact/ and is placed prominently in the beginning of the article. What cultural impact? Puffery! Not to my surprise it does not include a single critical source raising obvious questions such as e.g. how does the 100s of young women this man has sexually exploited, crimes for which he is still serving a 10 year prison sentence, feel about the fact that Jung from prison, sponsored by those who still fund this man, are able to get his writings out in print? Naturally critique does exist, example, but the editor has left it out. I object to the sections inclusion, and will remove it. Sam ^Sing! 00:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2015

This movement is operating in the United States of America and has following in many parts of the Bay Area, including Hayward, Santa Clara, San Jose and San Francisco. Two names used are: American Providence and Always Providence. Kriskrishnan (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article

I am submitting the following information and sources to be included in the article specifically regarding the allegations, arrest, and trial of Jeong Myeong Seok. Additionally, I would like these sources to be used for reflection on the neutral point of view of this article as a whole. This is by no means a comprehensive list of such sources, but is a good set of representative samples. I am including partial summaries here.

1. JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?

"JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" (in Korean). Political and Economic News Media Group. The Monthly Political & Economic News. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help) It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS (first to bring public criminal accusations against the CGM) along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money amounting to 2 billion Korean won (1.8 million US dollars). At one point, Kim publicly apologized to Jung and admitted he had fabricated the allegations; however, shortly after he re-assumed the allegations against the CGM. Additionally, Jin Hyung Kim, a representative of the CMC, was sentenced to a year and a half in prison for fraud. Several articles provide actual pictures of Kim's letters demanding money from Jung.(potentially these pictures could be included in the article)

2. Allegation of JMS’s sexual assault on minors proven false

"Allegation of JMS's sexual assault on minors proven false" (in Korean). KBS News. 2 Nov 2012. Retrieved 4 Apr 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help) As reported by the Korean Press Agency and KBS, in 2012, Jung Myeong Seok and several other leaders of Christian Gospel Mission were acquitted by the Supreme Court of Korea on all charges of sexual assault. They were acquitted for lack of evidence.

3. Why is JMS (CGM's) President Jung Myeong Seok bearing the cross?

"Why is JMS (CGM's) President Jung Myeong Seok bearing the cross?". Civil Government. 2010-02-15. An original SBS broadcast 1999 depicted Jeong Myeong Seok as a religious leader with sexual problems by purposely editing the audio of one of his sermons. Additionally, videos were edited so that where males and females were both shown to show only females. CGM sued SBS for this and the court ordered the following: 1) the media must not use one-sided material provided by the informer and others; 2) the media must inform the organization 48 hours before broadcasting; 3) the media must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to [the Church] so that their rebuttal will also be aired; 4) if these orders are violated, the media must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won for each violation. The courts decisions acknowledging the media’s errors and biased reporting was not made widely known to viewers. Additionally, of the four original accusers in the trial for which Jeong Myeong Seok is currently serving a sentence, one of them claimed that she had committed perjury at the insistence of the leader of an anti-CGM organization. She has since been convicted of perjury. She also claimed that another one of the four witnesses had done the same. This same leader of the anti-CGM mission sent verified letters of apology to Jeong Myeong Seok and CGM in 1999 and twice in 2005.

1. Moved to Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 2 § Kim Do-hyun of EXODUS
2. Moved to Talk:Providence (religious movement) § JMS's sex offense on minors
3. Moved to Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 2 § SBS Broadcast Infractions

I am purposely leaving out exactly how these articles should be included, but I am merely putting forth the idea that they are essential for the inclusion of the article. GIOSCali (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a claim pertaining to the Salvation beliefs of the CGM

Affirmative Sources

I would like to examine some of the current sources used to cite the beliefs of this organization. The following are quotes from several of the cited resources:

Toyoshige Aizawa, a clergyman who specializes in persuading young people to leave cults, told Japan Times: “Jung has twisted the biblical story of Adam and Eve to focus on sex, saying, ‘To atone for Adam and Eve’s original sin, which was visited upon all mankind, it’s necessary to engage in intercourse with the Lord’. Only in this case, he means himself – since he claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus.

“The church’s doctrine is composed of the so-called ’30 precepts,’ although it’s pretty clear that they’re derived from the Unification Church,” explains Toyoshige Aizawa, a Christian minister engaged in weaning young people away from cults. “Jong has twisted the biblical story of Adam and Eve to deal with sex, saying, ‘To atone for Adam and Eve’s original sin, which was visited upon all mankind, it’s necessary to engage in intercourse with the Lord.’ In this case, he means himself, since he claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus.”

South Korean media also reported that Jung had claimed to have received a "special revelation" from God, and that many female members of his cult were ordered to undress for a "health check" and have sex with him to wipe off their sins.

A private meeting with Jeong marks entry into the deepest levels of the cult. Former members describe being asked to disrobe for a “health check,” then being told that sex with the Messiah can cleanse them of their Original Sin.

Dissenting Viewpoint

Citing this as a general doctrine of the organization can easily be considered as an exceptional claim (WP:Exceptional) and thus should have many reliable sources to attribute to such a claim to have it posted in the article. There are three issues that I have with this claim:

1. The first two of these articles are cited as supports for this as a claim of the organization, but are actually not quotes from anyone who claims membership or ex-membership. Thus, although these sources may be reliable, they are being misused. These sources could be used to say, “One religious leader claims that the inner beliefs of the organization are…” They should not be used to support supposed claims of the organization itself.
2. The reported "health check" incidents should not be directly linked to claims about the theology of the organization. This is similar to saying, "This happened, therefore it must have to do with their beliefs." This is original research (WP:NOR).
3. In there is the following quote:

   The Theory of the Purpose of Creation and the Fall also operated as a cause of the conflict with CMS also. CMC is claiming that President Jung used the Theory of the Purpose of Creation and the Fall and taught that [people] can restore their broken love with God only through sexual union with him. However, there is no evidence to prove this so it ended only as a suspicion.

Unless there is additional opposition to this or there are other sources that cite more clearly about this particular belief I am proposing that this claim be removed or modified appropriately to mirror the actual content of the reliable sources. GIOSCali (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

On the main controversial teaching, I made additions to the page in the edit of 19:57, 11 April 2015 to explain that the sourcing situation.

Japanese academic Sakurai's paper uses testimonies from (ex-)members in Japan. The Japanese Christian minister Aizawa Toyoshige is identified as a person who interviewed and counseled a number of young people who underwent the JMS experience, and he relates the cult's theology second hand.

Jo Gyeong-suk (조경숙), former head of the Seoul Branch of JMS made a public statement that this messiah sex doctrine was taught: 자신 역시 성폭력 피해자임을 밝힌 조 씨는 “정명석은 본인은 재림주이고, 자신과의 성적 결합만이 구원이라고 가르쳐왔다”. I added this article which covered the event: 신, 동명 (Sin Dong-myeong) (2012-04-06). “테러·성폭행 … 독버섯처럼 자라고 있다” :‘JMS’ 탈퇴 지도자들, 실체폭로 기자회견 ['Terrorism, Rape, growing like poison mushrooms': JMS defected leader(s) hold press conference revealing actual goings-on]. The Christian Times (ko:기독교타임즈). {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help).

Incidentally the No Cut News covers the same press conference, so there are overlapping info between the two. --Kiyoweap (talk)

Cult

The word "cult" is a loaded term, and should be avoided. The fact that the media frequently calls them a cult should be noted, but the article should not go further than that. Authoritatively stating it's a cult adopts a POV. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reference I see to the word is this: Providence has been widely referred to by the media as a cult.[4][5] Isn't that in line with what you're saying? Where does the article go further?? PeterDaley72 (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72

I specifically went though and removed references to "cult" in most of the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Kim Do-hyun of EXODUS

Cont. from #1. of #Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article
Also from User:GIOSCali/sandbox (20:29, 6 April 2015)

1. "JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" (in Korean). Political and Economic News Media Group. The Monthly Political & Economic News. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help)
It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS (first to bring public criminal accusations against the CGM) along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money amounting to 2 billion Korean won (1.8 million US dollars). At one point, Kim publicly apologized to Jung and admitted he had fabricated the allegations; however, shortly after he re-assumed the allegations against the CGM. Additionally, Jin Hyung Kim, a representative of the CMC, was sentenced to a year and a half in prison for fraud. Several articles provide actual pictures of Kim's letters demanding money from Jung.(potentially these pictures could be included in the article) -- GIOSCali (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

...The sources translated on User:GIOSCali/sandbox contain slanderous hearsay, for example "It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money". The founder of the group is in prison for raping teenagers, period. There are sufficient English sources attesting to this.
--above statement signed Shii (tock) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement) permalink/655950558

...And since Do-hyun Kim, the founder of the anti-JMS NGO Exodus was brought up. Can we consider including the violent attack on his elderly father by members of Jeong's cult? http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.0

I've met Do-Hyun and while there is a language barrier, I can get a response from him regarding his earlier mentions. Would that be helpful?

--above statement signed PeterDaley72 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement) permalink/655950558

On 1., I was able to read the piece "JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" in a user-posted Japanese translation at [2] used in the Korean wiki article on the cult (ko:기독교복음선교회) to source some small point ("JMS" usage) irrelevant to this thread discussion. As the title suggests, this is more like an Op Ed piece defending the cult. It complains that "Christian media" coverage has been unfair to the cult. It levies various charges of deceipt, wrongdoing/venal motives, police investigation ongoing, etc. against the cult's opponents. But these allegations have not made it into the Korean wiki, and should not be allowed to enter the English wiki without further proper WP:RS sourcing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A. There are important facts missing regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok...

1.There were four original accusers in his case, and of those, one recanted and admitted to being bribed by Kim Do-hyun in exchange for testimony against Jung. She alleged that another accuser had also been bribed, and was convicted of perjury. With no physical evidence in the trial, the single judge presiding over the case sentenced Jung to 6 years (later extended to 10).

4.Kim Do-hyun admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM and Jung by spreading scandalous accusations. There are letters and written documentation reported about in source we provided as well as other newspapers throughout Korea.
--above statement signed GIOSCali (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement) permalink/655950558

Providence(religious movement)

To the editors of the Providence(religious movement) article:

Several months ago I had been attempting to post an edit on Jung Myeong Seok's written publications. As a newbie I unintentionally violated the 3 edit rule, I apologize for the mistake and hope to proceed in the best interests of the community.

Given the serious nature of the article, I can see in retrospect why an edit on poetry may have seemed out of place. For this reason, I think it would be better to first address the problem with the structure of this article:

• My primary concern is that while this article uses academic sources to analyze the Providence group, the article takes the accusations and reports of critics and cites them as the ACTUAL claimed beliefs of members--when in fact, there are extensive publications by the Providence group that detail members' beliefs in their own words (which would obviously be very different from what the critics would say).

• My argument is simple: this Providence article should have the same format as other articles on controversial religious groups, and feature a section on member beliefs and also a section on criticism and controversy, so as to remain unbiased. It does not matter how controversial this group is--both members beliefs and critics perspectives should be cited. Pretty straightforward.

Drawing from the Christian Gospel Mission website god21.net as well as Jeong Myeong Seok's book on salvation, I was able to put together this section on member beliefs.(would include full citations on actual article). I think that this is a concise, fair representation of member beliefs. I would like to submit it for inclusion in the article, and compile the critic's perspectives into a criticism section.

Member Beliefs

Members of the Christian Gospel Mission ascribe to the following tenets of Christianity: belief in God as the Trinity of the “Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”; belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah sent by God to save a fallen humanity; and belief that Jesus will return a second time in order to fulfill God’s final Will and Testament. Members hold that the Bible itself must be interpreted, and that the events within the Biblical text do not conflict with science when understood correctly.

Faith

In his writings, Jung Myeong Seok frequently states that is not enough for individuals simply to believe or “have faith” in God. Rather, he states that in order to achieve spiritual success, faith must be “put into action” and that human beings must fulfill their own responsibilities before God. He teaches that taking action is the “law of the Heavens” and God’s “basic law of justice.” The following excerpts from Jung’s Heaven’s Words, My Words provide a brief example of these teachings:

“You do not transform just because you have heard the Lord’s Word of life. Only ‘those who absolutely keep and act upon the Lord’s Word’ will transform.”[6]

"Even though the air is next you, if you sit still, you cannot feel it. If you are fervent and run, then you can feel it as your clothing and hair flutter in the wind. God, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Son, are like that too."''

Moreover, Jung teaches that the extent to which individuals put faith into action will determine success in the physical world as well. He writes:

“A person has both a body and a spirit. Therefore, you must always believe and take action thinking about [those] two things. Then both your body and spirit will not incur losses but do well and prosper.”''

"The person who takes action on his thoughts is the one who fulfills his dream. The person who does not take action is the one who shatters his dream."

GIOSCali (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Those member beliefs are just propaganda. The material inner members are taught and accept at deeper levels of the cult include such gems as: "Would the Germans sit idly for that? God raised Hitler to resolve His grief. That is why Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the gas chamber and rung oil from them. It was good that he did that. It's really refreshing. If you don't think that was a great thing, you have nothing to do with me or with salvation." Sunday Message Full version 1998. December 13 Title: Ruler will come from among you Given by: President Jung Myung Seok

"I even won first place in a memorization contest for reading the Bible. Other people memorized one or two verses, but I memorized chapters - 1 2 3, and 4 chapters. That's why they couldn't even compete with me. I was so good that they told me not to compete in the memorization contest because I had already won it one time, and that was when I was in Sunday school. I was able to memorize a lot because I memorized it when I was a child."

"And then I became the person who had read the Bible more than anyone else among all the Christians and among all the people in the world. Because I read the Bible a lot, I know the most about The Bible. Right? Even the Christians who slander me say that I'm such a great Bible study teacher. Listen to my sermons and see. I'm able to know all of these things so well because I read the Bible that many times. Because I read the Bible a lot, I was not shaken because the Word of God told me what to do. God was telling me to do these things." May 6, 2006

"It would take me only 3 minutes for me to draw a picture. Sometimes when I do it fast, I could do it in 1 minute. But because I'm always so busy, I only draw abstracts. Abstracts take me only 30 to 40 seconds to draw. I can draw a great masterpiece in that short a time. I've drawn so many pictures, in the past 40 years, I've been drawing pictures. And such pictures are great masterpieces. Later they'll be worth millions of dollars."

"Nowadays I hear that Korea is lacking a lot of rain. I want you to pray diligently and make it rain. Display some of your powers." May 16, 2004

I don't think those meet Wiki standards, but I offer them to counter the notion that Jeong's public messages are indicative of his teachings.

Perhaps these excerpts are admissible because they come from a published book, albeit one published in-house and only made available to members: From: Parables Resource Book (2006) A beehive is composed of workers, drones, and the queen. Each bee has a lover relationship with the queen. ...The queen and worker bees don’t relate to each other as master and servant or brother and sister. They interact with each other as inseparable lovers. As a result their organization isn’t easily broken or divided. Even if they are tempted to divide they won’t be swayed easily.

Because she is the queen, she receives instant respect but she also receives love from each bee. This decreases the chances of any defection from the hive. This is the most ideal organization. It is almost heaven on earth like no other organization that can be found in any human or animal organization. If one of the nations on this Earth comes together like the bees, they will become the most ideal nation, a nation like the heaven on earth." Pages 92-93. Here's the cover: http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j181/CaptPorridge/A%20New%20Forum%20pics/parables_zps2c40479a.jpg

GIOSCali. How did you come by Jeong's Salvation book? I would love to get a hold of a copy. PeterDaley72 (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72 www.jmscult.com

For the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc quotes provided, I have not seen them in particular but have read quotes like them-- Jung Myeong Seok's sermons often include examples from his personal life in order to serve as an example of taking action for members. I have also come across analogies like the beehive example that Jung Myeong Seok uses to illustrate the relationship between humanity and God.

For the first quote, about hitler, I have not come across anything similar but would have to see some sort of official link or documentation(otherwise anything could be written and cited as Jung Myeong Seok Sermon, date xx/xx/xxxx).

• Again, back to the core problem: the critique of the Providence group that exists(and there is a considerable amount) should not be presented in the article as if it is what members are claiming to be their beliefs and theology. Even if critique comes from academic sources, it must be organized into a criticism/controversy section.

For members beliefs/theology, the information presented must be what members claim as beliefs, or it is not an accurate representation of the group. This is the case with other controversial religious groups, even those accused of being cults. Members' beliefs section; critics section.

GIOSCali (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections should generally be avoided. See WP:Criticism. Information needs to be wp:reliably sourced by wp:secondary sources. Your proposal sounds contrary to Wikipedia policy. Jim1138 (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles on controversial religious groups do feature a criticism section. This exception to general wikipedia policy is listed under WP:Criticism :

• For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

Here are a few examples of religious articles with criticism sections: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unification_Church https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Scientology https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

Likewise in the case of the Providence article, it would be inappropriate not to organize material into a section on members beliefs and a separate criticism section.

Primary sources are acceptable if used with care; in particular, a substantive article on any religious subject would not be possible without extracting at least some information from primary texts(i.e. an article on LDS eschatology would require material from the Book of Mormon). The proposed edit does not engage in analysis, it simply lists beliefs claimed by members of the group. GIOSCali (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As a self-proclaimed student of theology you should be well aware of the need for secondary sources. Please answer the question raised by PeterDaley72. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case, secondary sources are necessary. Allowing members to voice their beliefs would be unverifiable. Best to let an RS do this job. There is a criticism section in Seventh-day, but not per se of Scientology nor Unification. There is a controversy section in Scientology, but not of Unification. Where are the criticism sections on Scientology and Unification? Jim1138 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, per PeterDaley72: How did you come to posses a copy, and how can I get one? Jim1138 (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Criticism criticism sections can be alternatively titled "controversy" or "critique" sections, as is the case with scientology. Here are a few additional examples of articles with sections specifically titled "criticism": http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Way_International http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

The question is not whether criticism sections are ubiquitous in articles on controversial religious groups, but whether one is appropriate for this article in particular. Because critical reports of the Providence group are being presented in this article as members beliefs--when in fact members themselves claim a different set of beliefs--a criticism or controversy section is necessary.

The link to the unification church is intended to be a reference for primary sourcing--apologies for the mix up.

Primary sources are used in the proposed edit not for the purpose of analysis, but for the purpose of listing their basic teachings. Again, take the example of Christian eschatology--Biblical passages represent the beliefs themselves, not analysis. Perhaps more relevant to this case, reference the article on the unification church, which lists a considerable amount of material drawn from the Divine Principle(the primary text of that group). (Also Jeong Myeong Seok's book on salvation is publicly available, with an official ISBN--its not difficult to come by online if you speak Korean, Chinese, or Japanese).

Secondary sources do exist for the proposed edit, but not many-- Providence is relatively newer with fewer members than many other NRMs. In comparison to critical reports, far fewer secondary analyses have been done on the group. In order to write a comprehensive article on this subject, it will require that both primary and secondary sources be accepted to detail critique as well as member theology.

GIOSCali (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the ISBN number? I'm in Korea, so I can easily get it here if it's available. I would be surprised though as JMS is very secretive. You asked me earlier about the authenticity of the sermon quotes I posted. Some of the material I came across while browsing closed forums like http://heavensculture.com/ for senior members. I have not seen those contents on any public sites. The only exception being this video, uploaded by a member, in which Jeong describes his interest in drawing pictures of the female form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLo9RW5OJhI. Likewise, sermons sent to me by former members over the 12 years I have been interested in JMS have also not been released on JMS public sites - and they are identical or completely consistent with material posted on the closed sites by JMS leaders. I appeared in the Australian SBS show and have met several times the former members who appeared in it. Those former members, Liz and Sarah, have shared quite a lot of material including letters with sexual content that were given to them attributed to Jeong. All who participated in that report were threatened by JMS leaders, by the way. I also have copyright violation complaints from JMS that prove the material I have is legit. The Holocaust-praising material was recently confirmed to me by a current member. I also have a wee audio file of a conversation I had with two JMS members who thought it a good idea to surprise me at work to try to discourage my interest in the group. She did confirm the Holocaust material, but claimed I had taken it out of context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWP5QIU-sF0

Perhap it'll be helpful for the purposes of Jeong's wiki page if I try to include some of those quotes the next time I am interviewed.

There is a version of Heaven's Words, My Words available online from the leader of JMS in America. The link was shared on closed forums, and, again, I haven't seen it posted publicly: lulu.com/spotlight/pjay_us The book ends, on page 155, with: ii) Faithfulness is completing the mission assigned, even unto death.

GIOSCali, if you're interested there is an article in the works that is nearing completion. If you'd like to be involved, let me know and I'll pass on the journalist's contact details. You're also more than welcome to share your experiences on my site: www.jmscult.com/forum

PeterDaley72 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72

Information given by former members that can’t be linked to a publicly available source couldn’t be verified or used--and it is drastically different from what the published material by the CGM says. For the holocaust quote, I haven’t come across anything like it, and again if it is not available there is no way to verify it.

The core problem with the article still hasn’t been addressed:

currently, for the Providence(religious movement article), the beliefs/teachings listed do not match with what members are claiming as their beliefs. If critics of the group say something different from what members themselves claim, then the appropriate way to present that information would be "Critics claim that Providence members believe x... y... and z."

Even if material comes from former members, if it is used to present a critical perspective of the Christian Gospel Mission(or a perspective that does not agree with the claimed beliefs of members), it would still belong in a criticism section.

I don't see where the debate is here. Yes, there is an extensive and alarming amount of criticism against the CGM. However, this is precisely why it must be presented as criticism, because it differs so drastically from what members claim as their beliefs in accordance with WP:Criticism.

My question is, is there anyone who disagrees that this article needs a criticism section? Without one, the article will fall short of basic standards per WP:NPOV GIOSCali (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an RS secondary source for what members claim their beliefs are? If not and you wish to add member's views, how would you decide whose views to add? Jim1138 (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree most of the material I have doesn't meet wiki guidelines. My point was that presenting member beliefs from cult-operated sources only shows what they are willing to show to outsiders. The inner teachings are kept secret ala Scientology's Xenu teachings. You wouldn't have seen the Hitler material unless you are in pretty deep and if you're at that level, you would have also accepted Jeong as the Second Coming. I have about 25 hours of video sermons of sermons given by Jeong (translated by the American leader) the year before his arrest. To be honest, I haven't sat through them all yet. I realize Wiki isn't the place for private research, so again, if it'll help with the article, I'll try to include excerpts the next time I'm interviewed on film or in print. I'm participating in a podcast later this month. Do podcasts meet Wiki's source requirements? PeterDaley72 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72

For the proposed edit, all the beliefs listed are covered in the following two articles: 1) Yonhap News http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/Press/YIBW_showPress.aspx?contents_id=RPR20091125022100353; 2) from the Sisa News Journal # "기독교복음선교회 정명석 총재" [Jeong Myeong Seok (President of Christian Gospel Mission)]. Sisa News Journal (in Korean). 8 August 2005..

The short excerpts are taken from Jung's published Heaven's Words, My Words--Proverbs with Pictures.

As the edit is fairly short, and supported by reliable secondary sources in addition to primary ones, does it have the go for inclusion? GIOSCali (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for a belief section as long as it factual and not the usual propaganda and lies. Since almost all the group's inner teachings have not been released by the group, I really don't see much value in using the watered-down material that is designed to appeal to newcomers and hide the true criminal nature of the group. I believe the second reference has already been discussed and discounted as a reliable source, but perhaps some of the other editors more familiar with previous discussions here can confirm that (I could be wrong). Central to the group's beliefs is that Jeong is the messiah. That's really the only belief worth sharing as far as I'm concerned. Jeong's role as messiah is already mentioned in the article.

If we're going with Heaven's Words, My Words (interesting title^), then I would like this from the last page included: Page 155: ii) Faithfulness is completing the mission assigned, even unto death.

A couple of other excerpts perhaps worthy of mention. The first is Jeong referring to himself as Messiah, and the second alludes to pre-dawn schedules imposed on members to encourage sleep deprivation: Page 53: ii) The person who sacrifices the most will become the ultimate central figure. Page 117: i) Think from before dawn. Thinking after the sun rises is too late.

One more: Jeong warning members to not talk about the huge white elephant in the room - the rape accusations (the booklet was published before the allegations were proved in court). I suspect we're seeing that same cautiousness to "be careful of what you say" on this talk page^ Page 65: ii) ... Life and death hang on the tongue. So, be cautious of what you say.

Thoughts on including those? I realize I am interpreting the above, but the first quote is unambiguous. PeterDaley72 (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72

The quotes are being used to support beliefs that members do not claim--so they belong in a criticism section.

Including criticism in the members beliefs section would defeat the purpose of having a members beliefs section. In cases like this, wikipedia policy is clear that the two must be split, regardless of how controversial the group may be.

Do any other editors have any thoughts to include in this discussion? Is anyone opposed to creating a criticism section?

And unfortunately peter it seems that you have a conflict of interest per WP:COI, as you have posted and managed several websites criticizing the CGM. Also, in at least one website, you have been illegally violating CGM copyrights. GIOSCali (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gios, I would be curious to see what other editors think of the conflict of interest aspect. I consider myself knowledgeable rather than biased. According to the guidelines you linked to, bias is: "often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I believe all my suggestions and comments on this talk page have been given with the aim of improving the article. My informed opinion does coincide with the Supreme Court of Korea and around 99% of published articles about the cult. My site is here if anyone new to the topic is curious: www.jmscult.com.

As you said, I have received letters alleging copyright infringement, so at least we can both be sure the material I have in my possession, which I have not tried to edit into the article, is 100% legitimate. I'm happy to share those letters if anyone is interested either here or by email. What then do you think of the quotes I posted about Jeong praising the Holocaust now that you know they are real? Do you mind if we add that to the "beliefs" section? "Members believe that Hitler did a wonderful thing when he killed 6 million Jews."

As I said before, I realize wiki isn't the place to share private research, so I will endeavour to quote parts of Jeong's speeches I believe would benefit this article in future interviews and articles. I have been interviewed as someone knowledgeable on the group in the past and will be in the future. Regarding your selected quotes from Heavens Words, My Words, again, I think selected "vanilla" quotes don't further the article at all. Rather, quotes from the same book that clearly point to the destructive cult JMS has been proven to be should be included alongside your suggestions. If you object to that, I would like to know why. I'm quite happy to share my copy of Heaven's Words if other wiki editors would like to take a look. Getting back to the Salvation Book, you said it had an IBN number, but you forgot to mention it. Can you provide that? PeterDaley72 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Peter Daley

Peter, the problem with sharing Jeong's speeches at all is that it is not immediately evident what parts of his speeches are important. As you can see, some people here seem to think it is important that his book of poetry won some kind of award, but his poetry is a primary source; the fact that he is a convicted sex offender is the sensible secondary source that overrules it. I personally think it would be very easy for a knowledgeable person like yourself to get a write-up in a small academic journal about cult studies, or some media publication. If you can do that, it would be a simple matter for you to come back with the reviewed, edited, vetted material for us to take a look at and add to the article. But Wikipedia is not the place you go to to make that publication happen. Shii (tock) 17:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Shii for your ideas. I am a member of the International Cultic Studies Association which publishes a quarterly journal. I do have a lot on my plate, but I will certainly write a paper on Jeong's teachings when time permits. I mainly mentioned the quotes here to counter the vanilla and in my opinion misleading material suggested for inclusion in the article above. PeterDaley72 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Peter Daley

No one said anything about not including criticism. To clarify the argument:

1. What members claim to believe is different from what critics claim that members believe.

2. both can be supported with secondary sourcing

3. Therefore, as a compromise, simply provide both a members beliefs section and a criticism section, per the exception for religious articles under WP:Criticism. State what members claim as beliefs, and what critics claim they believe.

It doesn't matter if the group is claimed to be a sect or anything else. Its simply a policy issue. GIOSCali (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources perhaps, but RS? It would seem highly likely that members would not say anything contrary to or out-of-line with the church. Jim1138 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, based on what I have seen above, there is a major difference between saying "what members believe" (which can vary a lot from person to person), and the stated beliefs of the group as a whole, which are what would be of primary interest here. Also, honestly, without any real criticism of GIOSCali intended, there can be sometimes large variations within groups, which statements like "members believe" don't necessarily address. Some Christians believe Jesus was the literal "king of the Jews," for instance, or at least the heir apparent/presumptive to the Davidic crown, even if no churches that I know of assert the same. And, for what it's worth, most of the statements in the section about what the members believe can be basically summed up by using links to the most directly relevant articles, which probably sum up the basic ideas fairly well. So far as I can see, none of them are exactly unique, although I do note that I don't see any sort of explicit indication as to the exact Christology of the group from the quotes presented to date, specifically relating to the divinity or lack of same of the Son and Holy Spirit. If that information is available, it would be definitely worth including. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

GIOSCali says he is going to rely on "two articles: 1)Yonhap News" at http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/Press/YIBW_showPress.aspx?contents_id=RPR20091125022100353, but this first one turns out to be bogus. While Yonhap is indeed a major news outlet in South Korea, when I put it through machine translating, the webpage reads like a religious leaflet. Plus, at the end this piece clearly states that the source is a "press release" of the "HK Media", with the disclaimer that Yonhap's editors are not responsible for its content.--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dead link information: The Yonhap article entitled '천국성령운동'을 통한 올바른 기독교인의 실천신앙 강조 is no longer online. But archive.is has a snapshot copy at [3]. It is stated at bottom "출처 : HK미디어 (Source: HK Media)" with the disclaimer "본 콘텐츠는 해당기관의 보도자료임을 밝혀드립니다" explaining the contents are the entity's press release.reprint at Joeun News (조은소식) which names HK Media [HK미디어] as the source, with copyright notice to Yonhap is a live link as of this writing. Another copy of text is @ god21.net --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC) 08:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DR/N notice regarding above

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement) (Archive 113) — Jim1138 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow up on Book on Salvation

Moved from User talk:GIOSCali § Jung Myung Seok's Book on Salvation

 – As requested by user. ---- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that the title, Book on Salvation? Or is it Salvation Book? What is the title in Hangungmal? On March 3, you wrote on here above that Drawing from the Christian Gospel Mission website god21.net as well as Jeong Myeong Seok's book on salvation, I was able to put together .... On March 4, PeterDaley72 asked you how you had obtained a copy of the book. You did not answer. I followed up on March 9, suggesting you answered the question. And so did Jim1138. Again you did not exactly answer the question in your next posting on March 10, but wrote Jeong Myeong Seok's book on salvation is publicly available, with an official ISBN--its not difficult to come by online if you speak Korean, Chinese, or Japanese. Peter asked you on March 14, what the ISBN number is, as he's in South Korea and can obtain a copy. You did not answer. Please provide the ISBN number. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's move discussions to the talk page, and we can go from there. GIOSCali (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a discussion, it's a simple request for information. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The title is Heaven's Words, My Words (하늘말 내말; 天の言葉、私の話) by Jung Myung-seok, as Peter Daley72 stated.

While it seems to be true that the book is availabel under an isbn number (see list below), there apparently exist a "secular version" and a "religious version" (according to this user page)

So the passages Peter was referring to may only be found in copies available to closer inner circles, and not the one for general public.--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ISBN for HWMW

The isbn's on Heaven's Words, My Words at book.naver.com:

• v. 1: isbn 8991459080 (2005, 199p)
• v. 2: isbn 8995266651 (2004.02.03, 223p)
• v. 3: isbn 899526666X (2004.07.07, 230p)
• v. 4: isbn 899145903X (2004.12.03, 223p)
• v. 5: isbn 8991459048 (2005.09.07)
• v. 6: isbn 8991459099 (2005.09.07, 177p)
• v. 7: isbn 9788991459106 (2012.11.30, 203p)
• v. 8: isbn 9788991459113 (2012.11.30, 253p)
• v. 9: isbn 9788991459120 (2012.11.30, 275p)

Thanks, Kiyoweap, but that's another book series. Your link to book.naver.com combined with the Korean article about Jung did however make it possible to find the info requested for almost half a year: The so-called salvation book is in Korean titled 구원의 말씀 which the National Library of Korea translates as Words of Salvation. It's a 3-volume work dating from 2005; further information including ISBNs here. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the error. (I had used Peter Daley's post from March 14 instead of one from March 4).--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Proceedings Against Jung Myeong Seok

This is in response to the recent reversion of the section entitled "Controversies in the Proceedings Against Jung Myeong Seok."

The section in question contained factual information pertinent to the page:

1. Major media was found in a court of law to have broadcast doctored versions Jung's sermons, and issued an official letter of apology to the CGM. 2. The individual who organized the lawsuit for which Jung is currently serving a sentence was himself found to have extorted the Jung and the CGM(with published pictures of his extortion letters). 3. One plaintiff in Jung's trial admitted to fabricating her allegations against Jung and was found guilty of perjury.

Concerns regarding the proceedings against Jung were published in at least 7 independent publications with no relation to religion or the CGM, therefore it does not constitute conspiracy. The information is sourced and significant, and as such belongs on the page.

The dispute resolution proceedings from a few months back did not indicate support for these changes; however as facts precede opinions per WP:FAPO, the information belongs on the page regardless of personal opinion on the subject or religious beliefs of the group.

Additionally, it was stated on the talk page that the edits would be added, and they remained on mainspace for almost two months without any opposition. Please state concerns/thoughts in a timely manner.

If no agreement can be reached, we can request for a third party comment.

Thank you.

GIOSCali (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is just more of the vandalism that resulted in this page being locked for rather a long time. I thought these issues were resolved in the previous dispute here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?oldid=655950558#Providence_.28religious_movement.29 but granted I haven't checked in a while. Your sources GIOSCali are highly suspect and in stark contrast to dozens of reputable news reports. Here is another such article: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2006/08/10/national/south-korean-cult-member-may-have-gotten-illegal-visa/#.Vah6ZPmqqkp

In my 12 years researching this criminal organization, I have come across no reputable sources casting any doubt on the trial. The Australian SBS report from last year, which is quoted briefly in the entry, deserves more mentions in the article as that is a reputable source and, like the published news articles, is entirely consistent with the almost two decades of information, news reports, allegations, and convictions related to the group. The doubts raised in GIOSCali sources are part of a larger and ongoing misinformation campaign by the criminal organisation aimed at whitewashing the convictions and related allegations so that the cult may more easier recruit new victims. PeterDaley72 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72

Just a quick comment with some pointers to facilitate future editing: (A) Regarding state concerns/thoughts in a timely manner: there is no deadline on Wikipedia, so just because something was added to the article and remained there for some time, doesn't mean it can't be questioned and removed at any later point in time. All other Wikipedians who have made edits to this article in the past year are active in a broad range of articles and may not swiftly respond to another lengthy debate here. (B) Regarding we can request for a third party comment: If the intention is a WP:3O the answer is no, as this is not a dispute between two editors. If the changes were covered by the recent DRN that noted that the consensus was against GIOSCali's changes ("there is a pretty clear 4 or 5 to one consensus against changes") the answer is also no. Otherwise an WP:RFC could perhaps be filed, but please notice the comments already made above by Kiyoweap, Shii, and PeterDaley72, and please provide third-party translations of the non-English sources. (C) What is "pertinent" to an article and what is not, is determined by the community, not the singular editor. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. The essay Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions has no bearing in this case and does in any case not take precedence over Consensus-policy. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I just disagree with your consensus.

A significant number (at least seven) of reporters expressed concern regarding the events surrounding Jung's actual trial in national publications that cover econ/business/cultural affairs... and I believe they merit inclusion.

I.e., as major media was found to have broadcast doctored videos of Jung's sermons and private life... based on WP:ALIVE, I don't see why there would even be a consensus against including it in the first place. Why does consensus deem that this fact does not belong in the article? Imagine if ABC had broadcast doctored videos of a public figure prior his/her trial.

I think that if most readers read this article, they would come away wondering why, if an individual raped thousands of women, is he only serving a ten year sentence? I believe the information in these sources helps to understand a bit more about the proceedings (i.e.; only four plaintiffs, no physical evidence). I think that it is a more responsible way of presenting a very controversial subject.

GIOSCali (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

JMS's sex offense on minors

Cont. from #2. of #Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article (Archive 2)

2. "Allegation of JMS's sexual assault on minors proven false" (in Korean). KBS News. 2 Nov 2012. Retrieved 4 Apr 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly= and |coauthors= (help)
As reported by the Korean Press Agency and KBS, in 2012, Jung Myeong Seok and several other leaders of Christian Gospel Mission were acquitted by the Supreme Court of Korea on all charges of sexual assault. They were acquitted for lack of evidence. -- GIOSCali (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The title doesn't say "sex assault" (성범죄 is "sex crime") and JMS wasn't exactly cleared of rapeing minors [in other situations] in this article.

The accusation levied was that JMS ran a modeling school, where middle and high schoolers enrolled forcibly had explicit/obscene photographs taken of them.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Slightly reworded --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)}

Jung's Sexual Abuse Conviction

For the purposes of improving the overall quality of this article, and without engaging in a debate on its substance, I would like to propose that the information contained under the section 'Jung's sexual abuse convictions' be separated into 2 sections, namely, 'Allegations of sexual abuse in the media' and 'Civil disputes and Criminal conviction '.

So far the information presented appears to be a combination of media activities involving Providence, Jung, Exodus and various police authorities, leading up to the conviction itself and then post-conviction. It is not apparent that the information about SBS's reporting of Providence, what the Seoul Media said about Jung receiving a 'special revelation' from God are relevant to the criminal conviction or the trial. Therefore, I propose that for the purposes of improving this article, information about the media be separated into a different section.

Furthermore, under the subject of 'conviction', there are information about civil suits (which is not a 'conviction') and criminal liability. Again, to make the article clearer, that is, to show that there were civil suits and a criminal conviction, the name of the section should be changed to reflect that. CollinsBK(talk) 02:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsBK (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC) — CollinsBK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think whether or not the article is organized this way, it is important to somehow include the criticisms outlined in the sources below. As both media and trial are mentioned in those sources, I think the info could be integrated into a single criticism section... still my opinion, open minded as long as its included... GIOSCali (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you are concerned that the article lacks content which addresses the alleged dubious conduct by the media and certain evidence presented at trial, which may ground a critical view of the court's judgment. Without doubting that such information could improve this article, I would however suggest that there is no need for there to be separate section titled 'Criticism' for that information to be included. Where there are secondary sources that have reported about the conduct of the media, that information can be incorporated under the existing heading 'Allegations of Sexual Abuse in the Media', and the same would apply for the information concerning the trial, that could be incorporated in the text under 'Civil suit and criminal conviction'. If structured this way, the overall article would be presented as broadly neutral. Moreover, separating the article into sections based on different viewpoints could result in an 'unencyclopedic structure' see WP:STRUCTURE. CollinsBK (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2015(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsBK (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Two years semi-protection

For the record this article has now been semi-protected for a further two years following the 1-year protection which expired in April. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the secrecy of the lessons

I intend to include the detailed information about these 30 lessons that are included in the Sakurai citations. This is would be inevitably more clear than simply stating some of the conclusions of these lessons. The issue I find is that many of the sources have slightly contradicting conclusions. Therefore, to clear it up, I am in the process of posting more details of what sources say about these lessons. Therefore, please do not simply undo the work in progress that is currently the Theology section. Instead, please give suggestions. I am not aware of all of the discussion up until now, so I will gladly incorporate any details you might offer to incorporate here. Phoenix0316 (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of this article, please post your suggested changes here and get wp:consensus before adding the information to the article. Please add citations from wp:reliable sources Phoenix0316 Jim1138 (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jim1138 for your input. I will certainly take caution in my edits, but I must also try to be WP:BOLD, should I not? I have, and will continue, to make my edits being informed by the current sources of the article that have seem to already have been discussed at length. Phoenix0316 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Just be WP:CAREFUL and use RS. Jim1138 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the particular source cited, the South China Morning Post article, doesn't actually say that the lectures are 'secret', to which the description 'secret' lectures appears to rely upon. Having had a look at the South China Morning Post article, the word 'secret' was never used all throughout to describe the lectures, and nor could I find it in the Hokkaido University article. Hence, I'm of the view that 'secret' should be removed, to more accurately reflect the information from those sources. Regards,Collins BK(talk) 15:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.133 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC)

If you look at the Korean, the official title of the lectures are "The Thirty Principles" or "The Thirty Precepts." A third party referred to them as "the secret lectures," (in the source that is being cited in the article currently), but this seems to reflect more of an opinion as to how the group operates rather than the official title of the lectures, which is more appropriate for encyclopedic purposes. In this case, I would have to agree that "secret" should be removed, for the purposes of remaining WP:NEUTRAL. GIOSCali (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Searching on <"The Thirty Principles" jung> I get only 7 hits, none are RS. What is the title in Korean? What information is given in the colophon? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Want's the difference between a principle and a precept? Tiderolls 07:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

'precept' is pretty much always religious in nature. the OED says 'a. a. A general command or injunction; a rule for action or conduct, esp. a rule for moral conduct, a maxim; spec. a divine command.' Whereas 'principle' much more general. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If translated from Korean, wouldn't the choice of words be the translator's rather than the original author? Google translations follow

Google translation of "precept" and "principle" into Korean

Goggle translations of "precept": noun 교훈 lesson, precept, morality, didacticism, sermon 격언 maxim, dictum, precept, axiom, word 명령서 precept 기술 따위의 지침 precept 기술 따위의 작업지침 precept 지침 guideline, indicator, precept 계 total, precept, Buddhist commandments, credit union, official rank, charge Interesting to note that Google translates "기술 따위의 작업지침" into a single word: "precept" Also GT only gives that one translation. Goggle Translations of "principle" - noun 원리 principle, principal and interest, theorem, basics, element 원칙 principle, institute, law 주의 attention, note, care, notice, principle, doctrine 본원 origin, long-cherished desire, germinal, principle, spring 소 cattle, mog, moggy, ox, stuffing, principle 도 district, road, degree, metropolis, clique, principle 이 person, tooth, teeth, cog, broken edges, principle 지조 principle, land tax, scat

Jim1138 (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Choice of words yes would be the translators, but I think its still better to use the official title whatever the word choice may be. GIOSCali (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In lack of answers from the Korean speaking editors to my above questions, I did some legwork myself. In Korean the title (most?) often used would appear to be 30개론. Combining it with 정명석 (Jung's native name) yields 10,000+ Google hits (9 Google Book hits) and seems to be confirmed by its frequent use on the sect's own web page god21.net. Google Translate suggests that 개론 is "introduction/introduction to/views", but then again Google Translate is less than stellar in regards to several languages, Korean being one of them. The English language title 30 Precepts is at least used in one source:

• Schreiber, Mark (2002-10-27). "'Love' cult snares students". Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2003-03-06. Retrieved 2015-04-07. The church's doctrine is composed of the so-called '30 precepts,' although it's pretty clear that they're derived from the Unification Church," explains Toyoshige Aizawa, a Christian minister engaged in weaning young people away from cults. "Jong has twisted the biblical story of Adam and Eve to deal with sex, saying, 'To atone for Adam and Eve's original sin, which was visited upon all mankind, it's necessary to engage in intercourse with the Lord.' In this case, he means himself, since he claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2007-08-27 suggested (help)

We do however not have to guess the title from the Korean original, we can simply use the title of the English translation of the work, which is 30 Lessons, and has been leaked by former sect members. From what I can gather not to the amusement of the remaining adherents, since it has not as far as I can tell been published like e.g. the Divine Principle. I suppose the "secret lessons" might stem from there, but I suggest the more neutral "unpublished" be used. And "30 Lessons" rather than the choice of the translator. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would go with "unpublished" and "30 lessons". Should it be "Thirty Lessons"? Jim1138 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Jim1138. In both Korean and English the numerical 30 is used in the work title. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)