Talk:Jung Myung-seok

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Untitled

REGARDING EDITS OF 17FEB08

After reviewing the BLP policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) I have removed all content that was either a) unsourced, b) poorly sourced (note: message boards and non-professional media are not regarded by Wikipedia policy as proper sources) or c) conjecture.

Editors will notice that a large portion of the article has been deleted. However, I'm certain that after reviewing the BLP policy yourself, you will see that the content was deleted legitimately.

Specifically I draw your attention to BLP policy stating:

"We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

AND

"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above). Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

AND

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)."

Editors: please do consider BLP policy in regards to this article. This is not the first time I have removed these edits.

Uptional (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

DISPUTED: Reliable Sources for Biography of Living Persons

Editors are in disagreement as to what constitutes reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by RB972 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This subject/headline has been created to provide a space for discussing reliable sources. According to Wikipedia policy concerning BLPs these sources are not credible and have therefore been removed (immediately, as the policy states) from the article. If you would like to reinstate them, please discuss it here beforehand as outlined in Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptional (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? The first source is from the Korean Police's English homepage! The ones following from reliable news sources. The Australian newspaper and various others. You're really clutching at straws here Uptional. And what exactly do you think is wrong about the information? You don't seriously think he's not in jail, do you? Hilarious! ````Peter Daley —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for your input, but I'm not sure what your comment about him being in jail has to do with us editing this article. In any case, I have made edits with your comments in mind. As such, here are the sources that should be left out of the article because they are not considered reliable by Wikipedia policy:

all www.religionnewsblog.com content (this is a user generated blog site); 7 days news documentary (this is not a proper citation); http://nuri.donga.com/nurinews/view.php?k_id=200801110239&m=2 (this site is not in english, nor is an english translation provided) ; all www.jungmyungseok.com/falsemessiah.proboards23.com material ( this is a blog/message board site); all www.rickross.com content (this is also a user-generated blog site according to this link http://www.rickross.com/aboutus.html); http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200608190106.html (this site not in english, nor is an english translation provided)

To any editors that would like to include these sources, please give explanation here before reposting them, as this is the BLP policy.

Thanks, Uptional (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would, it it wasn't that for the last year all you've done on Wikipedia is try to find reasons - any reasons - to delete information about Jung. I'm tired of it. I've seen whatever has been cited with RNB or rickross before it was there, and the news articles that are cited (no, not blog posts) are the same as the ones originally published. It doesn't matter if the source is not English. The falsemessiah ones are sourced to the 30 lessons, not the message board, just you can access a copy of it there. And I'm pretty sure at some time someone gave you a link to the 7 news documentary even with an English translation. I've explained all this to you many times before. RB972 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I try to find reasons to keep this article conservative, neutral and factual. The rule of thumb is to do no harm, instead of sourcing dubious websites. I campaign against edits that betray the BLP policy. Please do read the policy before making further edits.

Uptional (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors, in an effort to resolve this amicably, I have initiated a RFC. Let's encourage Wikipedians to review the citations and sources themselves, as it appears we are at an impasse. Because this is a Biography of Living Persons article, I trust that you will respect Wikipedia policy and refrain from re-posting the sources and citations in question until this process has been completed. After all this is a living person and our goal is to provide a clear and accurate article presenting reliably sourced facts.

As well, because this article involves religion, which can arouse passions in us, let's refrain from directing comments to individuals. I think from the way we write it will be understandable what one's opinion is. Let's stick to the article and not start picking fights with each other in a he said/she said sort of way. Agreed?

Best regards, Uptional (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• First RfC response: Sources do not have to be in English. They are of course preferable, but there are not required. See WP:CITE. If this article were about Britney Spears, then we should be using english sources. However, this is about Jung Myung Seok. Obviously there are going to be a ton of useful resources (probably better ones) that aren't in English. The uiser blogs have to go. The non-English ones can stay.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A note: there's no blogs. The cites are to news articles reproduced by rickross.com and religiousnewsblog.com. They're just not on the original publisher's website anymore. RB972 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, unless you mean providencetrial and providencecultwatch. RB972 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source for you http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/asia/AS-GEN-SKorea-Cult-Leader.php

I'm starting to wonder if the watering down of this article is related to the above news? ````Peter Daley www.jmscult.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it. I've found these as well [1], [2]. It's an AP article so they'll probably be more articles soon. RB972 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editors, please note that the dispute over the sources in this article have not been resolved. Currently the article contains blog sites, which violates the BLP policy. To that end, leave the stamp in place. Uptional (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As the owner of www.jungmyungseok.com/falsemessiah.proboards23.com, I personally stand by everything posted there, and you have yet to explain which sources and materials you believe inacurate. And the material referenced was material produced by Jeong's "religion" specifically photocopies of his 30 lesson Bible course which announces Jung as the messiah, so I can't comprehend how that could in any way be inacurate. And I'd be interested to know why you removed the material referenced by the Korean Police and several newspapers.

The goal of wiki is to provide information, you are here to remove information. Here's a rule I like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules CaptPorridge (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Peter Daley

Ironically if the jungmyungseok.com sources are removed, the article is just going to echo the sensationalism of journalism even more than it does now. Why Uptional wants this is beyond me. Maybe the hyperlinks should be removed and it just cited as an offline source. Or maybe someone can watch the "I want to know about it" Korean documentary again and see what it says. RB972 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

No need really to provide links if they are in contention. Just give the full cite to the actual original news source itself, without an external link. You could even use one of the cite templates from WP:CIT. And as an aid to other editors active in the article, just give a "convenience link", either after the cite, or on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that for all the Rick Ross and Religion News Blog articles. Since I saw all of them on the original publishers as far as I can remember, this is appropriate. Re:Esprit15d on blogs, I've also removed providencetrial and providencecultwatch as sources (although they were only being used as sources for their own opinion). I really only had them because I wanted Providence's main argument included (that the allegations were by or paid for by bitter former members) and the new AP article has it (more or less) so that can be used instead. RB972 09:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed all primary sources as well. The article is now entirely sourced by reliable secondary sources, except for his birthday and that he was born in WMD. Not that I think the article is better like this, I've just got better things to do than play wikicop. The article is an accurate representation of reliable sources so if it's negative, it's not my fault. I invite all editors to comment on the article and if they think it's perfectly sourced now or not. I also expect Uptional to promptly remove the tag and leave the article alone from now on. RB972 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cooperating editors, I find the article improved because now the information being presented is at least verifiable and reliable. I do share your opinion that the journalism upon which the article is sourced is overly sensational, unfortunately so. Thanks to those editors who made themselves available to us for help. Note: citation 16 is a dead-link and needs to be repaired. The Disputed tag will remain until the dispute is resolved, when the remaining sources are discussed, specifically those termed "Rick Ross" and "Religion News Blog". Uptional (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Query

So as it currently stands, what is still disputed? Cirt (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It no longer cites Rick Ross and Religious News Blog and that was Uptional's concern. And since Uptional's contribs show all he's ever done on Wikipedia is try to delete or discredit this article, I removed the tag for him. RB972 02:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way Uptional, if you really do have real concerns over bits in the article, don't label the entire article as disputed. That would be akin to when you labelled the article POV and posted a long opinionated defence of Jung on the talk page, without actually giving a reason why the article was POV [3] - and when a third party investigated, he did not share your concern [4]. I'm tired of such games. RB972 04:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is not resolved. Sources 1, 11, 12, 20, 24, 27 and 31 are not citations at all, but merely links to... nothing--literally in some cases. Imagine writing a research paper and sourcing articles and books that cannot be located...this is wrong, especially so because this is a biography of someone living, who is also the focus of the media. Consider Wikipedia policy of Verifiability: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Is this material likely to be challenged? Yes, not only in Wikipedia, but also in a court of law. Is the material published? Perhaps, but we have no way of knowing because there is no link to it. The information Wikipedia provides must be verifiable.

Again, the Wikipedia policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So, if a reader cannot verify a source, there is no use in citing that source.

Finally another bit of policy which applies directly to this context: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV." Editors of this article must not use the article as a tool of manipulation. As such, since they SHOULD be working with that which is verifiable, the prompt removal of these sources is also in their best interest. Please remove those sources immediately. Uptional (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns about lack of verifiable sources in this article appear to be invalid. Is this quote, "Is this material likely to be challenged? Yes, not only in Wikipedia, but also in a court of law." supposed to scare people who may disagree with your point-of-view regarding the subject of this article? There is also no evidence that this article's editors are using the article "as a tool of manipulation" I would advise you to be more concise with specific concerns; your current responses indicate that you disagree with the neutral use of information in the article and could paint you as a POV warrior. Bumm13 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is unhelpful. Please re-read my post, which concerns invalid sources (there are no sources if there are no links!). That's the issue being disputed--the sources--that's what needs comment on. Follow the links and see... can you verify them? If not, then should unverifiable sources be included? According to BLP policy, the answer is No.

My quotation was mis-read because you are unfamiliar with the subject matter: "court of law" regards the legal on-goings of the subject matter, with which the sources speak of. No, it was not a scare-tactic. It is pointing to the fact that this article serves as a public record of an on-going investigation and therefore the sources should all be verifiable. That's nothing to speak of Wikipedia policy.

There is evidence of manipulation. Go back and look at the history. For the past year this article contained sources from one article editor's blog-site on which contained copyrighted material. That is not only against Wikipedia policy, but also illegal. Yet, despite the other editors being aware of this, I remain the only editor at the moment who is challenging it. Uptional (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another link to a summary of source No1, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30801576_ITM You need to register, but I can't be bothered. Anyway I RB andI already saved that on our forums here: http://jmscult.com/forum/index.php?topic=246.15 The above link is at least evidence the article existed.

11 is on my old site, and I'll say again I stand by that completely: http://www.jungmyungseok.com/falsemessiah.proboards23.com/index127f.html?board=japan&action=display&thread=1154863682

No 12, I remember reading it and I was the one who submitted it to Rick Ross, but I may have neglected to keep a copy on my old site. Anyway it is online at Rick Ross's site.

20, 24, and 27 are also on my site, I can't be bothered with individual links. http://www.jungmyungseok.com/falsemessiah.proboards23.com/index49f9.html?board=japan

At least you can read them if you were curious.

It's a pity you weren't so critical when Jeong was telling you he read the Bible 4 thouand times and meet Jesus in a cave.

Uhm Evidence of manipulation? Not on my site there isn't. I've collected factual information about a man who was at the time a wanted fugitive, and in case you have forgotten, he was a fugitive you aided. And speaking of manipulation, have you also forgotten that you erased numerous sourced material? Ande what a laugh it is your cult complaining about copyrights, you don't blink an eyelid at the rapes, the suicide of former members, and Jeong's fugitive status, but I post some of your "secret" materials Jeong stole from the Moonies, and suddenly you start caring about "laws." And if those sermons are really the word of God, why is my site the only place where they are freely available? Why aren't you posting all those speeches and Bible study lessons?

````CaptPorridge / Peter Daley —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) ````CaptPorridge

And I would argue that I haven't infringed the cult's copyright. No court has deemded that I have, and my sites are all still online.So your beef with my site as a reference in that respect is baseless. Your allegation is just that. If you want to prove it, go ahead and sue me. If not, then I object to your statement just as you would if I wrote in the article that Jeong is a crazed serial raping pedophile. I'm sure if I wrote that you would say, "wait for the trial" and fair enough too. So let's treat your copyright allegations the same way. ````Peter Daley —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

You don't have to have online links visible on the Internet in order to satisfy Verifiability for this project. Just enough information in the citation to verify it so that others could go and check it from news archives, and to make sure that it satisfies WP:RS. In my opinion, Sources 1, 11, 12, 20, 24, 27 and 31 appear to satisfy WP:V to that regard, and the sources themselves seem to satisfy WP:RS. Not sure what the problem is here... Cirt (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat what Cirt said - there is absolutely NO requirement that a source be online in order to be used. Some of the best information available is found in books. And thousands of Wikipedia articles cite newspaper articles that were at one time online but now can only be found in a library. And many magazines articles aren't online either, not even in paid form.

Also, I disagree with removing a link to a blog or other site that would be (in and of itself) considered unreliable IF the link is simply to content that is in fact from a reliable source. I realize that it's possible to put up a fraudulent copy of an article on a website, but if the website is reputable in and of itself, there seems - to me - to be no reason to keep information from readers by not providing the online link. Of course, when you do so, you should not mention the website. Here's an example:

• Tom Beyerlein, "Questions raised about branding contract for U.S. Rep. Mike Turner's wife", Dayton Daily News, February 10, 2008

The link isn't to the Daily News website, but to a copy of the newspaper article on the citizensforethics.org website. That website isn't mentioned in the citation because it's irrelvant - the source is the newspaper. And, of course, the source is perfectly good even if there was no link.

I will note that this approach isn't universally accepted, partly because of copyright concerns and partly because of concerns that what is being shown isn't accurate; that's why it's ideal if you can find a copy of a page at archive.org. But if no one objects to a link to a site with a copy of source material on it - and hopefully objections are limited to cases where someone believes that the website owners are in fact not reputable - then (again) it's a service to readers to show them where an on-line copy of a source does in fact exist. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removals by Hux

3 sources were removed by Hux as being unreliable or not stating what the quote said. As the author of the Keimyung article, I would obviously disagree. And as someone who has researched this group for 5 years and who hosts the major critical sites in English, I think I have established my credentials as someone who knows this cult well. The sources I checked all said exactly what the quote stated, so the stated reason for the deletion is misleading

Another article deleted was a copy of a printed article hosted at rickross.com I submitted most of the article to Rick. I'm not sure what the problem is there. The quote was directly from a published news source.

The testimony from www.freedomofmind.com. I again fail to see how the testimony of a former member is unreliable, especially when it is consistant with all the articles and the Korean court's rulings, which all came much later. And the specific quote concerning when members' are eligible to be married is also exactly what I heard from other former and current members.

````CaptPorridge / Peter Daley

Hi. Just to make clear at the outset: I know next to nothing about the subject of this article - I'm not "for" or "against" him or whatever he stands for. My edits are solely from the perspective of making the article more encyclopedic, in accordance with the policy at WP:BLP. If I come across as fairly rigid in my views then that's because the BLP policy is a very serious one: articles that don't conform to it open Wikipedia up to serious legal liability - it only takes one hefty libel case from a plaintiff with deep pockets to bring this whole project down. I don't think any of us wants that.

So, that said, this is an issue of using sources to back up claims made in the article and some of those sources just don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, self-published sources should never be used in BLP articles (unless written by the subject of the article to back up what that person has said, obviously). They're just not reliable enough to hold up to scrutiny. This applies to an apparent reprint of a news article on some random site (e.g. the rickross stuff): we don't know whether it really is a word-for-word reprint or whether the publisher is passing off a fake and banking on "originally posted in [major news outlet]" to convince people it's real. But whether fake or real, it's effectively a non-issue: if a site claims to be republishing a news stories from a major outlet then we can simply go and find the original source and link to that. If that's not possible then we'll just have to do without it. This won't be a major disaster. This is the internet: if something is significant enough we will be able to reliably source it somewhere, if not now then eventually.

Re testimony from former members: again, where is that testimony published? If it's in a major news outlet or a serious, peer-reviewed journal then great, put it in there. If it's from a self-published web site or a little known advocacy group then sorry but that just doesn't meet the standard of reliability that we need to shield Wikipedia from legal action.

Re the "Keimyung" article that you said you wrote, Peter, I'll refer to you to WP:NOR. Sorry but we can't use original research here. You should also take a look at WP:COI, since you're obviously heavily invested in a particular viewpoint on this subject. This is not to say you can't make edits here, obviously, you just need to be very careful and, in particular, you shouldn't in general be citing yourself to back up something in the article.

Hopefully people can now see where I'm coming from. This has the potential to be a decent article, but it needs a lot more work, especially in the reliability area. -- Hux (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hux for your responces. And yes, I'm definately not as up to speed on wikiguidelines as I'd like to be.. busy busy busy! But I just read them, albeit briefly and I still feel the references are valid.

A few comments, first the Keimyung article is a published article. Keimyung University is a large university with 30,000 students and three campuses. They produce a Korean newspaper and the above English Gazette in which my article was published. The article was published both online and in the Gazette's printed edition. I have scans and copies of that edition, if that'd help, but the article online at the kmu website should suffice. Here's the university's homepage in Korean: www.kmu.ac.kr

RickRoss's site. There's just no reason to doubt those links. Some of those article are no longer online where they were originally published, but I personally saw them and Rick did as well, as he does all the articles on his site. This did come up last week and another editor felt those articles met the standards.

The testimnony is from Steven Hassan's site and he's recognised as one of the world's leading experts on cults. If a testimony is on his website, then again I can't see any reason to doubt it. I understand the need for verifiable sources, but again, I fail to see why those sites are in any doubt. We are hardly talking obscure advocacy groups here. Especially since the contents are completely consistant with the articles referenced and the Korean court's ruling. If they contradicted everything else published about Jeong Myeong-seok, then yes I could understand scepticism, but they don't.

I understand your edits were designed to improve the article, so apologies for sounding otherwise.

Thanks, CaptPorridge (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)CaptPorridge

Hux, thanks for discussing and helping with the article, but I really feel that you've just disregarded all the discussion above in the RFC. The articles are not sourced to rickross (besides the point that rickross is not some random site, he testifies in court as a cult expert and he'd get sued in a millisecond if a word of his articles were wrong - there's a lot of people who don't like him). Have a look at this diff [5]. I absolutely cannot agree that sources should be removed just because they are removed from the original publishers, and it was previously established that the article doesn't need to be online to be cited. Yeah the article looks pretty much the same with them, but it sets an absurd precedent. Are we to remove the Korea Times articles when they get removed? It's not impossible to find the articles now removed in other ways. RB972 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to be WP:BOLD and add the offline cites back. It's been established they don't need to be online to be cited, and both myself and CaptPorridge have seen and/or have the original articles. If you're curious what they look like, they look the same as the ones on the Internet. Most of the cites were originally cited to the original publishers, so WP:DEADREF applies. Note that, for example, the "2,000 Japanese join cult led by suspected sex offender on the run from Interpol" is hosted identically by 6 independent sites that all get their articles directly from the media: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. And that's only the English ones. Also note that most of these articles are Japanese from late July to early August 2006 - a time where Jung Myung Seok was the 3rd most aired story on Japanese TV. So if CaptPorridge and I are lying, we're picking a pretty bloody stupid thing to lie about, and a pretty implausible lie too. WP:AGF. RB972 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that at no point did I ever imply that you or CaptPorridge were lying or attempting to mislead anyone. Otherwise, I strongly disagree with both of you about relying on sites that reprint news articles. Why can we not simply locate the original source? If it doesn't exist then surely we can find a separate, more reliable source to back up the specific claim, can't we? -- Hux (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have helped to keep this article "clean". I noticed someone replaced text with an expletive--and not a very nice one--a few days ago. Kudos to the editor for noticing it and reverting... Uptional (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence about Jung being 'unrepentant' and claiming that the rape was for religious ritual because A) it's not factual and B) the source for it was unavailable to the reader. Uptional (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A is WP:OR and B is false. That you don't subscribe to Korea Herald is not reason to delete the ref. Anyway, you can see the article here:

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=784&sec=1 RB972 00:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for working so hard to keep this article accurate. I don't see any major issues with this article in light of Wikipedia trying to keep everything well sourced and Encyclopedic. So even though some facts about Jung were removed that were probably true and even verifiable through research (in that I agree with them having seen it from multiple sources myself), it would be unfair to a third party visitor if they themselves cannot independently verify this through a source that meets Wiki standards. So while I might have seen something reported on the news, if I cannot provide a reference it would basically be my word on the internet that I saw it. Cached articles by a reliable source are probably a necessity here as articles tend to evaporate. The nature of Wiki means that the article will evolve over time through peer review. Thanks again! -bdiego

Segments of Jung Myung Seoks's sermons give more accurate or more up to date contents of his teachings. Newfound References

I found some references/quotes taken directly from Jung Myung Seok's sermons. Based on these references I updated the "teachings" section. I also removed the part about his teachings on resurrection because I didn't see anything about resurrection in the cited reference. Based on the teachings in his sermon, "Only God and Jesus is(are) the Lord(s) and can be the Lord(s)." all parts that refer to him as a self-proclaimed messiah need to be removed. This obviously contradicts his own quotes. Macauthor (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should take the unreferenced word of a convicted rapist who was fugitive for 8 years as "gospel" and use it to delete material that was sourced from numerous news articles. Here is one: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/asian-cult-leader-arrested/story-e6frg6so-1111113538594 PeterDaley72 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)PeterDaley72

File:Jungmyungseok.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Jungmyungseok.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 25 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Jms in vietnam.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Jms in vietnam.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 25 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please make changes that improve and make the article more accurately represent the sources referenced.

I'm not sure why these recent changes were made. They are only adding vagueness and confusion that does not match the sources of information about the subject. He does not claim to be the "physical embodiment" of Jesus, and has made it clear in numerously online posted sermons that the Lord is a divine being and that JMS himself is simply being used by the Lord who has no body much like the Lord used all the heroes of the bible. I don't think you'll find "physical embodiment" in the biographies of Martin Luther or any patriarchs of the bible, so that kind of language should not be used here - just as it wasn't used in the cited source. Also, please do not paste the entire long url in the summary. A simple reference to the links section or cited references will suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macauthor (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Macauthor (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Inadequte citations in Jung Myung Seok article

I am new to Wikipedia but seek to make sure the information is correct. According to BLP rules any information that is unsourced or of a dubious source is to be removed. In the article Jung Myong Seok I take issue with citations 11, 12, and 13.

11 Is attributed to a French sociologist Ms Nathalie Luca. Problem is the citiation page does not support the claim that JMS was a member of the Unification Church. Additionally there is an out of place British flag on the top of the citation page which does not fit CNRS country of orgin--- France. Therefore, I do not only doubt the authenticity of the citation but it does nothing to support the claim made in the body of the article.

12-- Citation leads to a link titled Radio Australia with 5 poorly written sentences that describe a supposed historical timeline. The article has no reference to primary sources AND does not even have a listed author. It gives me the impression that someone robbed a page from Radio Australia and wrote whatever suited their needs. Furthermore, the information contradicts what was written in paragraph 3 of the JMS article. Mr Jung was not fleeing justice but was carrying out missionary trips. The sentence associated with this citation clearly portrays Mr Jung as a criminal on the run. This is a shameful act of intellectual dishonesty and it is travesty to leave this libelous information posted with an inadequate citation.

13 The citation link is no longer available and can not be used to verify the statement in the body of the article. What accusations reached other countries and why was he investigated by Taiwanese authorities? The answer is not stated in the wikipedia article but the implication is that he committed sexual assault or some similar crime in other countries. These 3 sentences( associated with citation 12 and 13) flow with the clear intent to slander Mr. Jung without 1 single properly referenced source.

All three citations should be thrown out with their associated text!!!! MrTownCar (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I also take issue with three additional citations.

Citation 17 is a dead link.

Citation 18 not verifiable and can not be used to support the text.

Citation 19 is very dubious as it quotes an unnamed source and a spokeswoman for Providence but doesn't include her name. Additionally, the article is poorly written and full of typographical errors including missed punctuation. I doubt the existence of a person by the sir name of Jewsbury. The citation also quotes the article as being written in 2001 but the article has a heading date of 2007. Given the poor writing quality of this article and inconsistent dating, it is very dubious and should be removed (with its text) as a reliable source.

The associated text should be removed according to BLP guidelines.MrTownCar (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

FICTITIOUS ARTICLES QUOTED IN CITATIONS

A number of the citations for this article have been dubious at best but as I go through the ciatations one by one they are actually fraudulent. Citations 3 and 5 are essentailly the same article with a cut and paste effect with no author listed in either article. Citation 4 does not even open the link and I can not verify it. The fact that a number of these citations (beyond 3-5) have the same retrieval date is also very suspicious. Considering that one article is written in the China Press and the other by Fox News it is highly unlikely that the content would be exactly the same. Clearly they were written with the agenda to slander Mr. Jung. Additionally the fact that someone highjacked bona fide media outlets to post their propaganda is illegal let alone unethical.

In the spirit of seeking truth, I ask that the editors remove citations 3,4,5 from the footnotes at the end of the article.MrTownCar (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize this page

How could Shii remove so much biographical information, links, and add such derogatory information to a living person's biography without even so much as an edit description or a mention on the talk page?

He should be familiar with the rules he's breaking because he's been called out on it before for other articles he edited just as JoshuSasori warned him on (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC), "do not add unsourced derogatory information to biographies of living people, and then expect people to clean up your mess. The rules for biographies of living people appear at the top of every page whenever you edit it. If you add any more I will remove it again, the same way."

Just as JoshuSasori said I too will immediately undo such undocumented vandalism. Macauthor (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The facts have no bias. Shii (tock) 15:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to find balance in this article.

Macauthor, all of the specifics of his theology is unsourced and does not belong in the lede. It looks to be copied from somewhere else. You can't use the site http://providencetrial.com, gospelofprovidence.com, http://gospelofprovidence.com or any other related site as a resource, since it is WP:Primary. It can be used only as an opinion of itself. We need WP:Secondary WP:Reliable sources.

Also, 98.14.50.144 and Macauthor, it looks like you two got into an WP:Editwar. Please avoid that. Build WP:Consensus and go to the talk page.

Everyone, please read WP:BLP. Specifically WP:BLPCRIME.

Shii, the first sentence in the lede should not mention he's a rapist. That's not an appropriate tone. There is a paragraph dealing with that in the lede. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I’m a little new to the difference between primary and secondary/tertiary sources, but I’m pretty sure the article referenced on ProvidenceTrial.com is a secondary source since it is a direct translation of an article published in a Korean investigative journalism magazine. ProvidenceTrial.com has some articles written based on member experiences, but that’s different from the magazine article written by a journalist listing out the problems with Jung Myung Seok’s trial. It just so happens to be available for online viewing at providencetrial.com which is why I provided the link. I originally cited it as an online resource but we could just as easily cite the magazine it was originally published in called Civil Government. http://providencetrial.com/2010/01/jms-in-the-news-full-report-reveals-all/

The source of the theology additions were all from Jung Myung Seok’s publicly available sermon summaries on GospelofProvidence.com. It is an official site by the organization he founded and contains no opinions other than the ones Jung Myung Seok has publicly made himself through his sermons. The site is nothing more than a publication of summaries of Jung Myung Seok’s own sermons by the organization he founded which are broadcasted all over the world each week. I don’t know which category of sources it would fall under, but I think we can agree that Jung Myung Seok’s own publications would be the best source of information about Jung Myung Seok in the context of religion. I would like to restore the section about his teachings. I can reference which sermon each statement comes from if needed, especially the statements that conflict with the wrong and out date presumptions about them currently posted. More specifically the idea that he is a self-proclaimed Messiah. He has sermons directly addressing this misunderstanding that are publicly available. Can I update the wikipedia article based on his own sermon? http://gospelofprovidence.com/2008/12/sun-msg-only-god-and-jesus-is-the-lord-and-can-be-the-lord/ http://gospelofprovidence.com/2008/12/there-is-only-one-god-one-holy-spirit-and-one-lord/ Macauthor (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we know GospelofProvidence.com is a real Providence website and not a spinoff group? This is why WP:V was invented. Shii (tock) 06:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious that Shii has an agenda to smear and discredit Jung Myung Seok. As pointed out by another user the tone is not appropriate in the lead. In the spirit of Wikipedia I will do my best to keep this article honest and factual with appropriate citations when possible.MrTownCar (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're actually going to do what you say, that sounds perfectly good to me. I don't live in Korea and have never met a member of Providence. Shii (tock) 06:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

RE:ProvidenceTrial.com. The site is a Providence run website. I don't know if their translation is accurate. I don't know anything about the magazine Civil Government. I don't know if it is a WP:RS. There's too many questions and issues with that source.

The Providence sources probably could be used for citing their theology, but with some caution.

MrTownCar, you can't remove multiple reliable sources like what you did. Please read WP:BLPCRIME. He has been convicted of rape, it is not slanderous to mention that. In fact, we have to mention that and can't downplay it. It is also not uncommon to mention a conviction in the lede, since that is rather noteworthy. Look at the page for Kent Hovind for instance. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Harizotoh he was convicted of rape WITHOUT physical or DNA evidence. This is an important point.MrTownCar (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Harizotoh9 for helping with the article. I agree, we need to be safe and find balance with this article. Not just for the sake of wikipedia, but it’s only right that the article have some representation of the opposing side if it’s going to declare the subject controversial.

Due to the controversial nature of this article I would like to remove some, but not all, of the links that MrTowncar found contentious. I know that the rules say that you can use sources that are not available online as long as they retrievable from an archive but wikipedia's rules also say that any material that is contentious should be removed immediately. So many of the current references are just links to the front page of the newspaper organization, to their 4o4 page, or even just dead links altogether. There seem to be plenty that are viewable online so can we agree to stick to those?Macauthor (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

ProvidenceTrial.com is the undisputed representation of the religious organization’s point of view. They even have a Taiwanese branch of the site in Chinese http://tw.providecetrial.com.

GospelofProvidence.com has produced 2 summaries every week for several years. This time next week I’m pretty sure there will be two more. I’m not quite sure what you would find to be convincing evidence of the validity of an online resource, but for me the consistency of time and effort put into the site alone is enough to give it credibility. Macauthor (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a public figure known only really in Asia. All of the content written or published about him originates from sources written in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. If we are going to have an article about him English then we can’t remove sources and content simply because of our inablity to read those languages or because we’re too lazy to get an editor involved who does. If it’s better we can cite a link to the source in its original language.

There may be a few short articles that are little more than sensational headlines written by journalists who did not care enough to interview anyone involved with the subject, but if we only publish those articles then wikipedia risks the same legal trouble that both the Taiwanese and Korean broadcast channels experienced. The Taiwanese news broadcast released an official apology and the Korean New Broadcast agency were made to pay a fine to Providence church and subsequent fines if they failed to give at least 5% of broadcasting time to allow the church to defend itself. By excluding Jung Myung Seok’s publicly stated opinions and his organization’s point of view we commit what one court has already deemed to be libelous activity.

Without at least some mention of the religious figure’s teachings and accomplishments the article looks incomplete. It says he leads Providence - a religious movement. You can’t have anything referred to as a, “movement,” without at least 1,000s of people being passionate about the subject. No one becomes famous for a rape crime alone. Why do we have an article about Jung Myung Seok at all if we are not at least going to mention some details about what makes him worth reading an article on wikipedia about? If these sensational uninformative articles about a crime not worth mentioning on wikipedia by itself is all we are going to have here then we should just take down the wikipedia article altogether. A wikipedia article should have more than just a sensational headline about a crime committed. I agree with Harizotoh9 that we need to be careful. That’s why we must find a way to balance this article or just take it down altogether.

Wikipedia has no choice but to hold itself to higher standards than these journalistic agencies because unlike them wikipedia cannot afford to survive a libel suit, as harizatoh9 mentioned earlier. The rules of BLP allow enough flexibility for primary sources to be cited if used carefully. Since GospelofProvidence.com is a reflection of the subject’s own religious views, and since another editor already suggested it, let’s go ahead and restore the section on Jung Myung Soek’s theology.Macauthor (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the statements on the previous version don’t even match each other. It says in one line that he was convicted of raping two girls, and in the very next line it says the court found him guilty of raping 6 members. It also mentions that he was charged with embezzelment and misuse of church funds. The numerous charges made against him may have been important at the time that article was written but they seem irrelevant now that he’s been convicted of two of the many charges made against him. Of course we can’t just assume they were dropped since we have no source saying so, because that would be synthesis which is against Wikipedia’s rules. Much of the content in the previous versions was redundant. The articles appear to have been written before the trial took place so let’s just make the section concise and up to date according to the more recent articles available online.

The self-proclaimed messiah stuff directly contradicts his own published sermons which are available online. As a matter of fact, the sources cited for this part are to dead links. For this reason I’m removing the contentious material. I’m not removing all the negative material like MrTownCar did, but let’s at least make an effort to stick to the verifiable facts and statements made by the subject himself just to be fair. Macauthor (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Providence websites are being cited for factual claims about his life. These cites completely fail WP:RS. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please follow WP:RS which is Wikipedia policy. Shii (tock) 11:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Macauthor should be aware (if he is not already) that a discussion of this issue is in progress on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). The consensus there appears to be that the sources used in Shii's version of the article are appropriate, but that Macauthor's version (based solely on Providence sources) is not. Please note that WP:BLP bans contentious material unless it is backed up by reliable sources — which the current consensus version of the article appears to be. Wikipedia's BLP policy does not say we must (or even should) omit reliably sourced material simply because it is or may be illegal in some countries (other than the USA, where Wikipedia's servers are located); see WP:NOTCENSORED. I recognize that Macauthor was only warning of the possibility of legal action by others, and was not himself making any legal threats (something which is absolutely forbidden here; see WP:NLT) — but I would caution Macauthor to be very careful not to say anything that might even seem to a casual reader to be bordering on threats of legal action. Finally, I would remind Macauthor (and also MrTownCar) that edit warring is not acceptable, even if you are convinced that you are right and that everyone else is wrong — and that civility requirements apply to edit summaries (e.g., identifying a specific editor's contributions as "libelous" is not an appropriate thing to put in an edit summary). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I would never imagine threatening anyone in any way and if any of my comments were taken that way earlier I in now way had any intention but to further the argument that Harizoto9 had already made.

The article being cited for the problems with Jung's trial is absolutely a reliable third party news magazine called, "Civil Government" published in Korea. It just happens to also have some translated quotations on ProvidenceTrial.com. The original source passes WP:RS.Macauthor (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As for Civil Government magazine, I know nothing about this magazine. I don't know if it's independent or not. I don't know if it's reliable. I don't know the quality of it. I don't know if their quotations from it are accurate or quote mining. I don't know if their translations are accurate. There are just too many problems with that source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Civil Governement is the translated title. It is a bonafide media source but it is NOT circulated in English. THe issue that deals with Jung is dated February 15, 2010. It is verfiable but will not be found with an English search on Google.14:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I confirmed that a magazine with this name exists in Korea, but I cannot get any information on (1) how notable it is (2) who sponsors it (3) how it is viewed by other sources. When I googled the terms "Civil Government + Magazine" in Korean, the top results were all about JMS. Shii (tock) 16:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This allegedly major magazine has no article on the Korean or Japanese Wikipedias. Shii (tock) 17:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that most of the articles on its website http://www.mjnews.co.kr/ are uncredited plagarisms from Yonhap News and similar sites. Very strange website. Shii (tock) 17:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless Shii's opinions abou the site it is still a verifiable third party source, and the other articles he found about Jung Myung Seok there confirm the details found in the Civil Government article. I ran a search and found some more articles which verify the court's penalties against the libelous news broadcasts. Many of Shii's links still link to dead links, 404 pages, or reroute not to any particular article but to the sites home page. A good example are the links to any articles on Asahi Shimbun. Let's fix the links or remove them. Macauthor (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that we must be careful about sources. Using sources tied to Seok or his organization must be done carefully as they are not independent. They are essentially self-published and their use, especially with regards to living persons, is very limited on Wikipedia. (see WP:SELFPUB, especially the part on claims about third parties) Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Violation of BLP Rules

It is obvious by looking at Shii postings that he/she has a slanderous agenda. This individual incessantly violates the BLP rules and continues to post contentious and libelous information on this page. Additionally Shii continues to post bogus secondary sources as they can not be verified by going directly to the websites and searching the archives. The articles do not exist.MrTownCar (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

An article from a website does not have to be always on-line to be considered acceptable. Sites remove and/or archives articles all the time. The requirement is that the source must be verifiable through enough information given in the reference - see WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't have to be easy for you to access, just accessable in some way. For websites, you can always try using the Wayback Machine which can show you older versions of a website. Also, your edit restored information that multiple uninvolved editors said was unacceptably sourced. You need to stop using involved sources for contentious information. You also removed mention of the conviction from the lead. That's purely a POV edit - it was a major event that happened even if you disagree with it and needs to be included in the lead. Please consider reverting your edit and discussing specific issues. Aspects of your edit may be acceptable in a limited manner but if you continue bulk reversions without discussion nothing positive can happen. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, MrTownCar, I misread your edit when I was looking at it. The conviction information IS in the lead. Completely my error and I have struck-through my erroneous remark. I think your version of the lead is far too long and needs to be trimmed. Much of what you added belongs in the article body, not the intro section. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sources that you said you could not find and thus discounted - would you mind listing them here to see if others can find the source? Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusations that an editor is violating the BLP policy need to be taken up promptly at the BLP Noticeboard (WP:BLPN); making such accusations without following up on them may get you sanctioned for incivility. I would also remind everyone that, per the edit warring policy, edit warring is unacceptable (and can get you blocked) even if you are convinced you are in the right and other editors are in the wrong. Discuss your differences of opinion regarding content or sources here (on the article talk page) or on the appropriate dispute resolution noticeboards. If these problems continue with no sign that people are trying to resolve them, this article is likely to end up being fully protected for a time (in order to force a stop to the edit war), and/or disruptive editors may be blocked from editing in order to protect Wikipedia and convince them that they need to take our policies seriously. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted my grievances extensively earlier in the talk page and enumerated my grievances citation by citation. Shii has posted nothing in response to my edits and yet I am reminded about edit warring? I am at a loss considering how much I posted back in October 2012 about the dubious sources included in Shii version of the article when many of his references have no listed authors when you open the links.MrTownCar (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Civil government source

Civil Government is being used as a source for a few things in the article and I'd like to get some more information on it. Right now, the existing ref is not enough. It's pointing to Providence Trial webpage carrying a reprint of the article. That reprint doesn't have a whole lot of information. Civil Government is supposedly a monthly magazine but the reprint notice doesn't include year and month or page information. Some quick searches didn't turn up any information about civil government - who publishes it, is it still published, website, circulation size, editorial staff, reputation, etc. I completely understand I've got a major language barrier that's making this difficult so I'm asking for help. For an article like this, having most of the sources from a self-published sources is a Bad Thing. For this particular source, would editors more familiar with it kindly fill in the blanks? At a minimum, we need to get more information about the cite to use it. As written, it fails WP:V because you do not have enough information to verify that the content came from Civil Government. This is a contentious issue and Wikipedia has demanding standards on sourcing that aren't being met. Help would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind - re-reading the linked page carefully shows it's not a reprint (not sure how I read that), but a follow-up report of an original article. That makes it sourced to providencetrial.com and thus at best a self-published source. This is will limit how this source can be used in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're reading it correctly. The line you're referring to is the first line of the article. It's basically the reporter, Moon Il Seok referring to an earlier article published by the same or some other source. None of it is sourced to ProvidenceTrial.com. The article, "Christians on Trial" http://providencetrial.com/christians-on-trial-jeong-myeong-seok/ on the other hand is clearly original research by the authors of the website and thus a primary source. If any of the cited references should be in question it might be that one. But if it you want more confirmation, you can check the details against some of the other third party news sources. You'll need to know Korean or use google translate to read the article at News Daily, http://www.newsdaily.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=29216, or if you speak Chinese you can read a Chinese translation of the news article from Jeong Gyeong News at http://tw.providencetrial.com/mjknews-2012-12/, or you can read it in its original Korean at http://providencetrial.com/wp-content/uploads/ptrial-articles/newsarticle.pdf. An English translation of the article is available at http://providencetrial.com/jeong-gyeong-news-article-about-the-problems-with-jungs-trial/ Macauthor (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging the versions

I think there are essentially two different versions of the article out here. Using the current version as one, that gives us version 1 and version 2. Information from both belongs in the final article - both versions are flawed. An edit war can go back and forth between the versions and editors get blocked OR we can work together to merge information from both into a single, NPOV article. It's the WP:WRONGVERSION (meaning to someone, it's always the wrong version) but I suggest taking the current version and adding to it. I've done some work culling out some of the most egregious puffery and starting to flag parts of the article that I think aren't adequately sourced. Please, use the talk page and use the noticeboard actively if there's a dispute. Ravensfire (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire - let's merge the two versions. There appears to be some sources (not all) in both versions that are valid according to Wikipedia's rules. It's not up to us as editors to decide which side is right or wrong, but it is our responsibility to let the reference both sides if it is a controversial subject which this obviously is. But let's not forget what the subject of this article actually is. Jung Myung Seok is a living person who founded an international religious movement. There's far more to his biography than just the recent trial and conviction. I'd like to restore his page on wikiquote and keep the details of his biography even if they cite primary sources written by either the subject himself or the religious movement he founded so long as they are not contended by any other sources. An example of what I'm talking about is his service in Vietnam. In Shii's version of the article these details and photo keep getting removed. This not only makes the article one sided (as the version that MrTownCar insists on also does) but it also takes the focus away from the subject and makes it entirely about his criminal reputation. A version of the article that includes both versions would be much more substantial. Macauthor (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The approach outlined by both Ravensfire and Macauthor is in proper spirit of creating a Wikipedia article. There are clearly two sides that disagree and there is also a process of reaching an agreement outlined by Wikipedia in WP:Consensus. Specifically, for such an article, consensus should be heavily built using discussion. Since this article falls under BLP, we must be extremely careful about what kind of material is posted. Under WP:Eventualism, BLP's should be kept neutral at all times to the best of our ability, rather than posting heavily weighted material knowing that someone will eventually object to it. Itsfiziks (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Providencetrial.com is not a RS so there is nothing to be gained by merging anything sourced to it. Any so-called "translation" you want to link on providencetrial.com must come with an explanation of what the original source is and how that source is viewed by relevant media. World newspapers on the other hand are RS, assuming that there is not a more reliable source that contradicts them.

I will be happy to include anything related to his Vietnam service or anything at all, actually, as long as it is not sourced to providencetrial.com. Shii (tock) 09:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Continued vandalism of the article

Shii continues to subvert and rewrite this article unilaterally. I have posted a complaint on the BLP newsboard asking for help at the suggestion of an editor. In the meantime I have simply reverted to the previous edition of the article. THe existing article needs further work and more sources will be forthcoming but this takes time to gather the information and post it with appropriate sources.MrTownCar (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"My unsourced version is a temporary measure to replace your sourced version." Shii (tock) 15:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would rather a sourced version by a member of Providence than a falsely sourced version by someone who is not part of Providence and has never met someone from Providence.MrTownCar (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

false statements and non supporting/dubious citations

5 nathalie luca the article does not support text that Jung was ever part of the unification church. He was never a member. 26, 27,28 jung preaches absolute sexual purity. There is no redemption in having intercourse with the Messiah. This is categorically untrue and contentious. By BLP rules this material should be removed.MrTownCar (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Shimbun references were cross checked with International Herald Tribune archives directly. None of these articles are verifiable. JMScult.com is pure propaganda. The fact that this is listed as the first link in external references is very revealing in the agenda of Shii and others who put forth this version of the article.MrTownCar (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)