Talk:Ahn Sahng-hong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Korea (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 


Edited[edit]

I have done massive research on this so called "messiah" during these few days! What I have found from reliable sources was that this WMSCOG church had all the rights for this messiah's books and info. Added some details about the doctrines and his claims, and made a table to compare how this messiah's doctrines differ from previous religious bodies, and some of his quotes that he claimed. I couldn't find valid sources to support about his family so I deleted for now.Wikipedia:Verifiability I am still digging in to find the right sources to support about that information. Wikipedia:No original research If you have found some reliable sources please let me know. I edited in a way that the article wouldn't sound negative nor sound like an advertisementWikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields. Since I know that his church believes in something about God the mother or heavenly mother, still searching for his claims (reliable sources) about her. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines I still haven't got his picture that doesn't violate the copyright.

References that are all UNRELIABLE SOURCES[edit]

NAME[edit]

Joo Cheol Kim inherited Ahn's church, and currently represents the World Mission Society Church of God. Legally or traditionally, the problem is the usage of the "NAME." Do you have any LEGAL document that supports your edit that this church is the "Witnesses of Jesus Church of God"? If you don't, stop editing without any supporting evidence.

http://www.ncpcog.co.kr/ebook/index.php?codepage=18 Just because of the title: "Witnesses of Jesus Church of God," we cannot say that the name: "World Mission Society Church of God" is wrong. Because the book presently has no public's trust. If "World Mission Society Church of God" owns this book this may be a fact, but the World Mission Society Church of God is NOT publishing any books with this title.

DIVISION[edit]

http://www.ncpcog.net/eng/?page_id=13

1. This book is NOT on the "World Mission Society Church of God" website (http://english.watv.org), but on another religious site. Don't you think that this church (http://www.ncpcog.net/) is the "Witnesses of Jesus Church of God?" In reality, they are presently using another name: "New Covenant Passover Church of God." It is wrong to insist as if another religion's designational problem is about the "World Mission Society Church of God."

You cannot put information that has nothing to do with the article in Wikipedia.

2. In http://www.ncpcog.net/eng/?page_id=13 , the name is written as "World Gospel Mission Association Church of God" and NOT "World Mission Society Church of God" (compare http://english.watv.org). It is indicating another religious organization, so it cannot be the basis that the World Mission Society Church of God is a sectarianized church.

GOOGLE BOOKS[edit]

http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Q20LAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

The author of this book is Lee Daebok 이대복(Korean), who is the founder of the Institute of "church-heresy(http://church-heresy.com/)" 기독교이단문제연구소(Korean), is not a neutral institute. Lee Daebok has biased ideas about religion, and is not even credited in his own religious body, "Presbyterian Church of Korea" 대한예수교장로회(Korean), and lost objectivity with his own insistence. You can see it yourself about this on this site http://www.pckd1961.or.kr/run/publishing/pu_pds/view.php?num=789&category=&headline=&page=1&st=0&sn=0&sc=0&keyword= It is not right to use such books with no neutral points.

http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=FoE4AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Xsu5AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

"Tak Myeonghwan" 탁명환(Korean) is also another person with no neutral perspective towards religion. He aroused controversies by writing false information, criticizing about other religions. As you can see on this site http://cafe.naver.com/jinpm/364 , he fabricated a document criticizing about the Unification Church, and wrote an apology for it in the book,"Korean Chosun" 조선일보(Korean). The words underlined in red is about his apology. With no neutral points, Tak Myeonghwan and "church-heresy," criticizing other religions, already cannot become the basis of "neutrality." We cannot put information that JUST criticizes about other religions.

"Tak Myeonghwan" is the MANAGER of http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/html/mod01.html 국제종교문제연구소(소장 탁명환) , and has nothing to do with "University of California (which is written for the description of google books)." http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=530344&cid=1619&categoryId=1619 You cannot use sources with WRONG information in Wikipedia.--Galemw2 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

IKCCAH.ORG[edit]

http://ikccah.org/298 http://ikccah.org/2023

"International Korean Christian Coalition Against Heresy" 세계한인기독교이단대책연합회(Korean) is an organization that does not plainly studies about history of Christianity. They have lost their objectivity or neutrality, since they only insist that their own religion is right and other religions are wrong. According to the basis of the Policy of Wikipedia, we cannot use such information. Moreover, the information is written in Korean (Most of all of the listed references) which can be interpreted in various ways, which is highly controversial.

AMENNEWS.COM[edit]

http://www.amennews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=12676 http://www.amennews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=6545 "AMENNEWS.COM" 교회와 신앙(Korean), is a website that calls other religions "CULT." This website does not purely notify about church news and events.

On the intro page of "AMENNEWS.COM", http://www.amennews.com/com/com-1.html 교회와 신앙 소개(Korean), it says: "quick and accurate coverages and theological analytic reports about problems in cults and pseudos" 이단 사이비 문제에 대한 신속 정확한 취재 및 신학적 분석 보도(Korean).

And among the categories, the first category that appears on the menu is "Cults and Issues." This means that the website is an organization that has no neutrality. In Wikipedia, we cannot use news reports that are deflective towards religions. If you use nonenglish sources, the translation varies. Which means they are inappropriate sources to be used in Wikipedia.

CULT[edit]

http://www.kncc.or.kr/sub04/sub03.php?ptype=view&code=board_04_2&idx=10852

The subject says "List of Christian Cults and Religious Pseudos and Reporting Religious Discrimination" 기독교 이단 사이비 종교 명단과 종교차별 신고(Korean).

The characteristic of this post(to eliminate other religions and has a hostile attitude towards other religions) has no objectivity nor does it have any neutrality, which is inappropriate to be used in Wikipedia.

FALSE FLIER used as a Reference[edit]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-VK7RLDRwS4NWF6Q0lGVUJUTFU/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-VK7RLDRwS4X21OQmQ4bGRVeHc/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1

See this link: http://wmscog.org/index.php/the-church-of-god-distributed-fliers-on-time-limited-eschatology/

This flier was CREATED by the opposers of the World Mission Society Church of God. It is rather ridiculous using this false flier as a source.

I find anything that comes from wmscog.org suspect. All one has to do is look at their intro page here. With respect to the fliers, sometimes the simplest answers are the right ones. When you hear hoof beats in the woods do you automatically think it's a zebra? Of course not! It's a horse! The information in these flyers come from one of ASH's books that were published prior to his death, so that information is likely different from the editions published in 1989+, which would explain why current members of the WMSCOG are not familiar with them as they follow the later editions. Who published these flyers is moot anyway. It' what's contained within them that is important. Superfly94 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@superfly you removed an edit I made last year anonymously with this same interpretation. I just wanted to point out that no, in reality, the simple answers aren't always correct, and that you have just admitted that you don't care whether or not the document is a forgery, and that you have an agenda to trick people with its story contrary to any other evidence. This is not a one time thing but now a consistent pattern from you and others which I hope has been noticed by the community. It is especially ironic then for you to call foul on other people concerning sources. Also here's my signed I think I was supposed to sign the others but oh well. JohnnyGospel (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyGospel (talkcontribs) 22:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I find anything that comes from BIASED pages suspect. If you're so into this religious movement you would know basic facts about them Superfly94. Their services aren't taken place in those times. You can even go check yourself out in a WMSCOG in your area. So if I make a flier about WMSCOG or about you does that make it to be true? There's no address no nothing on the flier. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"which would explain why current members of the WMSCOG are not familiar with them as they follow the later editions" That's your opinion.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that these flyers were made in 1988, right? So, you can tell me, without a doubt, that services were held at the same times they are today? And how do you know when these services are held? Is there a reference that is available online that tells us or do you have personal knowledge? Because without an actual physical (or internet as the case may be) reference, we can't just take someone's word for it. For example, I could tell you that I have 6 toes on one foot, but without a picture, there's no proof of it, just my word which, on the internet, isn't worth much. Superfly94 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
How do you know if the fliers were made in 1988? I can make a flier that looks so ancient that you can't even tell.Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

CWMONITOR.COM[edit]

http://www.cwmonitor.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=7917 Strange interpretation can be made without knowing Korean. This news is NOT about "Church of God is a church that proclaimed about doomsday." It says: 1. "Timely clarified that this is a false information" 이 점은 허위 사실의 적시에 해당된다고 밝혔다(Korean) 2. "Applies to be a baseless false information" 근거 없는 허위 사실에 해당된다(Korean) 3. "Admited as a baseless false information or overstated truth" 근거 없는 허위의 사실이거나 부풀려진 사실이라고 인정된다(Korean)

The whole point of this judgment is that "Church of God proclaimed about doomsday" is a baseless FALSE information.

Likewise, using nonenglish sources to support the article, misinterpretation can occur. That's why we must delete all nonenglish sources.


BIBLIOGRAPHY[edit]

1. There's no basis that the books of New Covenant Passover Church of God (NCPCOG) are original. Lack of evidence to support this.

2. If the books can be viewed online, can that be the original? Ex) If I took a picture of a famous painting of an artist, can I become the owner of that painting? Logically, it doesn't make sense.

3. Edited Books: The owner of the copyright has rights to edit, and carried out the rights. No issues can be made to it. --Galemw2 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

HDJONGKYO.CO.KR[edit]

http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/ 현대종교(Korean)

The "HDJONGKYO" has no objectivity. If you see the welcoming message on the website http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr/html/int02.html, the publisher Tak Jiwon 탁지원(Korean), it says: "And so it is with the problems with Cults and Pseudos. We need to know about them in order to fight against them" 이단과 사이비의 문제도 그러합니다. 알아야 싸울수 있습니다"(Korean), "We will do our best taking measures for cults..." 앞으로도 저희들은 이단의 대책에 최선을 다할 것이며 (Korean). Tak Jiwon points out all other religions as cults(except for his religion). Since we CANNOT use information without any neutral basis that disregards others' religions, the HDJONGKYO parts must be deleted. --Galemw2 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Bulbgraph.svg Idea: Recommend that the above 8k+ objections be numbered to facilitate answers. Maybe a slightly less opinionated and more fact based presentation would benefit discussion with other editors before further deletion attempts are made? (I will post a Welcome message with links to guidelines on the editor’s user page.) An edit history like this [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14] where the last 11 edits are made within half an hour begs the question: is there a wish to declare a WP:COI? – Best, Sam 🎤 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


I do not understand why you think these facts are opinions. Then all of the sources and edits made by Peter1007 must also be opinions. --Galemw2 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for interpreting Korean. I think Peter1007 must reply for this?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter1007 Superfly94 please read why your edit does not meet the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. These sources have no neutrality and are utterly ureliable sources. You asked to write the reasons on the talkpage, and you don't read the discussion. Then you claim that your edit is right? How odd is that?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)



Honestly, Superfly94/Sam Sailor/Peter1007's entire purpose is just to find false, slanderous, negative, untrue information regarding this church and has spent months upon months, hours upon hours, rewriting the articles. It is clear you are not here for a constructive purpose and trying to improve the article for neutrality and factually. Seriously, get a life man. Go somewhere else and edit! Watts9595 (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Now I bet you're going to go running to the "this is a personal attack and red herring" claim, boo hoo! aren't ya! instead of acknowledging your purpose on here to just cause trouble and disruption! Watts9595 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


Peter1007 please reply. It's been more than two weeks now. If you don't have any explanation, all of these information must be deleted. You don't owe these articles.--Galemw2 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying that a source is unreliable just because for you it is unreliable is not enough according to Wikipedia policies. Please quote which policy of Wikipedia these sources are breaking so we can discuss further. I believe all of the sources are well according to WP:IRS, please explain, based on Wikipedia, why they are not. Thanks, Peter1007 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


Peter1007 - Did you even read my explanations? I've clearly pointed out why the sources you've used were unreliable to support this article. (or even the article for WMSCOG) Please reply according to each sections.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (NPOV).

- According to WP:IRS, it says: "articles should be based on reliable, published sources, with neutrality." However, HDJONGKYO is not trusted in Korea, to be considered as "RELIABLE." It rather caused many victims and had been sued many times.

http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/ This site is an association of the victims of HDJONGKYO. The HDJONGKYO has no trust among Christians, and is an organization with biased information.

academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources

- According to Wikipedia, "most reliable sources are peer-reviewed publications." But even one author can publish in HDJONGKYO. And its publications are not considered, nor has any values as scholarly materials.

- Wikipedia states "particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" But only few people know about HDJONGKYO, and is very unfamiliar among Christians. They have also lost their civil suit for human rights violations and paid 80 million Korean won (seventy four thousand dollars) for losing the trial. See http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/668

HDJONGKYO cannot be considered as reliable source.--Galemw2 (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I read http://cafe.naver.com/hyunpimo/ and it's clear that the guys of the HDJONGKYO have bias against the WMSCOG. The article is nonnuetural, isn't it? I agree with Galemw2. The HDJONGKYO.CO.KR has caused many problems. You should use scholarly materials that has neutral perspective instead of calling this religious movement a "cult." Trekkerguy7 (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Requirements Part 2[edit]

The article has already been flagged for theese issues so I figured Id post this here and give people a couple days to figure out the best method of fixing it. First, when sourcing subjects, please source the actual subject, and not a 3rd party with a slanted opinion. I.E. when mentioning the WMSCOG link to ht tp usa watv org not a website that has Heretic as its subject line. If after sourcing the subject you want to expand on a subsection about said Heretic review by all means create a separate subsection for exploring that. But do not immediately try to pass off heresy bias as if it is source for wmscog. A lot of the flags can be cleared simply by being diligent to mention that most sources are based on interpretation and public opinion. Try to avoid advertising those opinions as facts, especially where such things as the SDA baptism list is under scrutiny for being a potential forgery, making the 1948 baptism more likely the truth, but ill work on that by finding better sources and better wording. JohnnyGospel (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Doing NPOV related edits now. I have no objections to anyone who wants to expand on controversies in subsections, but I'll be deleting NPOV skeptical material and recommending that venue for people who want to elaborate on it. Other Misc changes in formatting, ease of reading, et cetera will be done as I skim through it in no particular order. Finally, I will be deleting all things related to the keyword "heresy" according to my search function. Recommend neutral sources be used to restate the same point. Or, state the identity of the source as a biased opinion and do not infer or suggest with any vague wording that its a factual authority. JohnnyGospel (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT revisited[edit]

"Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted"

Seems like the bottom line to me.

Now I'm not an international copyright lawyer, however it seems to be Wikipedia's prerogative to respect copyrights according to their own internal rules. So unless something changes concerning the World Mission Society Church of God which created Melchizedek Publishing Co., Ltd. the claimant owners of the copyright and original material of Ahn-Sahng-Hong's writings; then I'd have to suggest that we not directly link to copyrighted material.

And if you do want to directly link to copyrighted material or quote it, it should be sourced to the copyright owner at the very least, if even allowed; which would be Melchizedek Publishing or the WMSCOG.

Now I don't think the NCPCOG has any tenable copyright claims or are official claimants in a case. But even if there is some argument for this, the verbage "violates any copyrights" seems to indicate that WMSCOG's official claim should be respected.

Relevant changes to come. JohnnyGospel (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)