Jump to content

Talk:Providence (religious movement)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phoenix0316 (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 13 December 2016 (→Poems and Books). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Civil Government mag self-published

Continued from archived #Civil government magazine - monthly (merged from JMS talk page)

Archived old thread

The title of the magazine is min jung - transliteration which means Civil Government produced by the government notice the blue rose of sharon seal which is the official government seal.

Publisher: Jin soo Cha

Address: Gardenlife F8020, 66 Chungmin-Ro, Songpa-Gu, seoul, Korea

This is not a Providence publication!!!!!!!

All information taken from min jung website which is ONLY written in Korean and found with Korean search engine Snap-do. MrTownCar (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Original article taken from the source February 2010------

http://www.mjnews.co.kr/bbs/zboard.php?id=mj02&page=4&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=185 MrTownCar (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a Korean-speaking friend last night to take a look at Civil Government and let me know what he thought of it. This is what he said:
This friend of mine is definitely not a member of the JMS group (Providence) and has no interest in joining it. As best I can tell, he doesn't have strong opinions one way or the other about JMS (other than not being willing to accept his claims or teachings). In fact, I'm not even sure this friend of mine had ever even heard of JMS before I asked him to help me with translations of sources in the article.
So, I'm prepared to give fair consideration to the possibility that Civil Government is a reliable source for facts and/or mainstream opinions. I think it's possible that one of the main reasons people here have been reluctant to acknowledge Civil Government as a reliable source up till now is that the only exposure we have had to Civil Government so far has been in translations of articles available on JMS-associated web sites. The skeptics (and even neutral people) are simply not going to accept anything from providencetrial.com as being anything other than unabashedly pro-JMS — in order for material about JMS from Civil Government to be taken seriously here, we cannot use material from providencetrial.com, we need to go directly to the source itself.
So, I would like to ask MrTownCar (or anyone else here who has the required language skills) to give us a links to any Civil Government articles about JMS from the magazine's own web site. I realize these will be in Korean; that's OK, we'll find people who know Korean so that we can get an understanding of what the articles are saying and who is writing them. Then, we can make a proper decision — on a case-by-case basis — whether a given article is usable for substantiating facts, usable as an indication of the views of a specific author or of the JMS organization, or not usable at all. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above Mr wales post for link. Sorry I meant to have it below Mr Wales post.MrTownCar (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, MrTownCar, for the link to the original Civil Government article about JMS. Once we can get an English translation, we can start figuring out what (if any) role this article might be able to play in the article. If you believe other Civil Government articles may also be helpful here, please give us links to them too. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editors on Korean Wikipedia said that this article was a paid placement and written by JMS members. Shii (tock) 06:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'll admit I'm a bit surprised, since I was told earlier this evening that this Civil Government article didn't challenge the rape charges against Jung (though it does question the validity of the kidnapping charges). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think their opinions can be worthy of inclusion here, but it's probably an indication that this publication is not exactly a journal of record. Shii (tock) 06:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably need to ask this for completeness' sake: What sources of information led the Korean Wikipedia editors to say that this article had been written and paid for by the JMS people? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked my ko.wiki contributions. It looks like it was not from them but from the anti-JMS website manager that I got this opinion. (Sorry, it was last year...) Shii (tock) 15:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in general, we can use information from this. Even better if we can link to the article on their website. I have zero confidence linking to the article re-hosted on a pro-JMS site, just as I would have zero confidence linking re-hosted on an anti-JMS site. Ravensfire (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wales you have independent confirmation that Civil Government is an independent publication, I strongly recommend continuing what you planned on doing and not be swayed by the say so of a non korean speaking contributor. There is no proof that the above claim is true. Please continue working with your Korean speaking contact and I will provide other articles from Civil government as I believe there are 1 or 2 others that can be reviewed and considered for inclusion.MrTownCar (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire, we do have a link (above) to the original article on the Civil Government web site. I've been given a basic idea of what the article says by a Korean-speaking friend, so it might be usable as an example of independent opinion regarding the JMS trial. Everyone please note that the Civil Government article does not seek to completely exonerate Jung; from what I've been told (and people can correct me here if I've misunderstood), it doesn't question the most important accusations against him (that he raped female followers by abusing his position to coerce them into having sex with him), but it does question whether the kidnapping charges were solidly substantiated, and it suggests media hype in general may have influenced the trial. We should treat this article similarly to the way we've been treating other Korean-language sources — with English translations for Korean names, titles, and excerpts. Also, if there is any way to find out some background info regarding the author of this piece, that might be helpful as well. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Richwales for taking the time and finding the human resources to finally get an objective look at the Civil Government and related articles. I had requested this long ago and feared that my requests had fallen on deaf ears. Macauthor (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

The original article in Civil Government, JMS(기독교복음선교회) 정명석 총재는 may not be available translated.
But Moon's "follow-up" article is translated:

Nutshell:

  • Cha's Civil Government piece opines that Jung's was unfairly convicted.
  • Cha intones that Kim Do-hyung concocted women victims as a hoax to "extort (협박, 脅迫)" 2 billion [won].

--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil Government magazine is published by "Cha Jin-soo". He is described as a journalist, and also was the one wrote the article in question, JMS(기독교복음선교회) 정명석 총재는, dated 2010/02/07.

This is easily verifiable.

  • Cha Jin-soo appears clearly as the magazine's publisher in the web link above (in Korean), and also stated as such by MrTownCar in archived talk.
  • Cha Jin-soo is identified as the writer of the CG piece in Moon Il Seok's "Retrial needed.." (orig. Korean article 2010/02/15, in at BreakNews), which is a contemporaneous rehash of the material found in CG.

Since Moon's piece is a rehash ("based primarily on such sources") it is also tainted and meets disqualifying rules under WP:SELFPUB. Other such rehashes included the Newsmaker magazine article.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the NewsDaily article is another rehash of Civil Government material, and is part of this chain. So, if you want the reporting that goes into heavy detail about the court-imposed settlement against SBS, I advise you find more neutral sources that are not part of this chain. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a bit on this:
I contacted the former Civil Gov publication, and they said that Cha Jin Soon was indeed the publisher but that all articles were written by separate authors. If you look at the actual article itself, Jin Soo is listed as the publisher, but for the author space it only shows the magazine's logo.
Whoever wrote the ProvidenceTrial website article misreported Cha Jin Soo as the author, which I think has been the source of this confusion.
Again, it is common in S Korea for articles of this nature to be written anonymously; in this case, it is not surprising that the author would choose to remain anonymous, especially given the controversy surrounding Providence in S Korea.
As for the rehash claims, some, not all, of the other articles reference the Civil Gov article, but they also offer independent reporting/separate evidence.

GIOSCali (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil Government piece is a WP:SELFPUB piece, and that assessment should stand.
GIOSCali, the feedback you got back on your phone call is the purest form of WP:Original Research. As is your brazen claim that Moon "misreported" on this. But we do not need to heed them. Stop wasting our time.
Moon goes on to say Cha has been following this case for 11 years, so he clearly has this specific person in mind as the writer of the piece. Which makes it doubly doubtful such gross clerical error could have been made. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where Kiyoweap may be coming from. I checked the article by Moon on the Providence Trial site and saw that the translation explicitly referred to the author of the Civil Government article as 'Cha Jin Soo'. However, upon further enquiry with a Korean, the untranslated Korean article written by Moon makes no reference to the author being Cha Jin Soo. The translator inserted the name 'Cha Jin Soo', for translation purposes. As I am informed, Korean does not prescribe subjects with respect to verbs, which starkly contrasts with the English language. Hence, the name 'Cha Jin Soo' was inserted to mitigate that contrast. Unfortunately, that is a misleading insertion, as he was not the author of the Civil Government article. The article is in fact not self-published.

As for whether making enquiries on whether an article is self-published constitutes 'original research'. it does not. As per the policy, OR is 'used on Wikipedia to refer to material -such as facts, allegations and ideals- for which no reliable, published sources exist.' [3] Original research refers to content that is written based on research done by the editor, that does not refer to secondary source. The purpose and intent of OR has nothing to do with enquiries made about sources, to check for reliability. In this case, enquiries were made with respect to a particular source, to determine whether it qualifies as a reliable source, more specifically a non-self-published source. There is a clear distinction between this and editor's research about the subject matter itself. The enquiries made about the source is appropriate to and necessary for complying with Wikipedia Policy, and is not contrary to any policy. This is especially the case given that the article was published in a non-English magazine, and given the cultural and language differences, it is only appropriate that enquiries are made to ensure that it qualifies as a reliable source, per Wikipedia standard.

The article published in the Civil Government unquestionably falls within the scope of being a reliable source. While I understand that the News Daily article et al may be 'rehashes' of the Civil Government article, they are not strictly speaking, reprints of the Civil Government article. The WP on citation does not exclude them from being included. Moreover, I noticed that there are several sources currently listed in the article that appear to be 'rehashes' of the same content. If 'rehashes' are to be excluded, perhaps those sources should also be excluded. CollinsBK (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CollinsBK, I assume you relied completely on a machine translator, and as a result you made a good faith error.
However, please double-check more thoroughly before you start posting misinformation. Your conclusion that "Cha Jin Soo" was a translator's insertion is patently false.
The very first paragraph of Moon's article in the original Korean clearly states "Cha Jin Soo" (차진수), and "Reporter Cha" (차 기자):
Original Korean English (Google) English (revised) Japanese (Google tr.)
" 이 잡지의 진수 기자는" Car magazine is the essence of the journalist →Journalist Cha Jin Soo of this magazine この雑誌の車進記者は [Reporter Sha Shin of this magazine]
"이 기사를 지난 11년간에 걸쳐 추적 보도한 차 기자는 1995년부터 경찰을 출입한 현역 기자이다". Press reporter track cars over the past 11 years. This article is out of active duty police reporter since 1995. →Reporter Cha, who has followed and reported this story for the past 11 years, is an active (non-retired) reporter with on-the-beat) coverage of the police since 1995. この記事を過去11年間にわたって追跡報道した車記者は、1995年から警察を出入りした現役記者である
If you want to verify the above tabulated results, just go to https://translate.google.com/ and first translate the Korean text into Japanese, then the Japanese text into English.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kiyoweap for providing that translation, and indeed you are correct to point that the Break News article makes the reference that Cha Jin Soo is the reporter.

I have contacted and checked with a representative of the MinJeong magazine (the Civil Government Magazine) about who the investigative reporter was with respect to its article on Providence. The article was not written by Cha Jin Soo, the publisher of the magazine. The reporter of that article is in fact Jungjik Lee, and the article was approved by its publisher, Cha Jin Soo, for publication. It is part of the editorial policy of many magazines in Korea, including this magazine, to not include a by line in the articles published. Naturally, this makes it difficult to identify the reporter who wrote the article.

Break News is a small media organisation. In its re-hash article, (as you correctly pointed out) Cha Jin Soo was noted as the reporter for the likely reason that his name appears in the magazine, in place of the name of the actual reporter. The Break News article was not the product of an independent interview conducted with the reporter or the publisher of MinJeong. Reasonably, the name cited was Cha Jin Soo, which appears in the magazine. Upon enquiries made with MinJeong, the journalist of the article in question is confirmed by a senior editor of Minjeong to be not him, but Jungjik Lee.

Moreover, the policy on self-published and questionable sources has the purpose of restricting works of such nature as personal web pages, self-published books, blogs and newsletters, which are not subject to fact-checks. The magazine MinJeong is a third party, non-religious publication, published mainly for government agencies in Korea. Hence, its articles written by the MinJeong reporters are subject to a fact checking process prior to publication to ensure credibility, and is categorically within the scope of reliable sources. CollinsBK (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, WP:NOR is specifically about synthesizing facts from reliable sources. However, the fact of whether or not this source is reliable is not a fact that will be presented in this article explicitly. It seems to me that not allowing people to confirm the self-published nature of a source is not a proper application of WP:NOR. CollinsBK has put in a substantial effort to find out whether or not this source is really reliable. I believe at this point it's a better use of everyone's time if discussions about this are brought to some appropriate noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the discussion about whether the News Daily article is a reliable source, the question of reliability is based on considerations of 1)the type of work, 2) the creator of the work, and 3) the publisher of the work. The News Daily article is third party published material by a well-established news organization. While it does resemble the contents of the Civil Government article, it is written by another journalist and published by another publishing authority. This makes it an entirely independent source. The fact that its content overlaps with another article is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a reliable source, per WP: Verifiability. Moreover, the fact that one news organization corroborates information published by another news organizations, reinforces the reliability of both sources. CollinsBK (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate but related point: it becomes problematic to begin viewing articles on similar subject matter strictly as rehashes, particularly when it comes to investigative reporting. By this same logic, several existing sources on the article would be "rehashes" of initial reports of accusations against Jung. (See Schreiber's article).
The Civil Gov article was written by a reporter who followed the JMS case since 1999 and was the first to highlight some of these issues we have been discussing -- its natural that other publications which decided to report on those events might refer to the publication that first addressed them, but it doesn't compromise the integrity of those publications or the material in question. This of course includes the NewsDaily source, which does reference the Civil Gov article but offers its own reporting. GIOSCali (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised at this name of "Jungjik Lee" (이정직) surfacing as the author of the Civil Government piece.
But this is not at all credible information. The circumstantial evidence simply doesn't add up:
1) A sitewide search on "site:www.mjnews.co.kr" "이정직" does turn up Lee/Yi Jung-jik (이정직) as a reporter for Civil Government magazine. But the stories found are short pieces mostly on ecology, climate, systems, with only a couple on police matters. So he fails to convincingly fit the profile.
2) The author of the Civil Government, refers to the 1999 JMS attack on defector Ms. Whang/Hwang, and is quoted as saying I wrote an article in Police Journal.
But this Police Journal(「경찰저널」) was also "published/edited by Cha Jin-soo" (발행인/편집인 : 車眞受).
As for reporters for other than Cha, none can be found for 1999, as bylines ("취재") naming other reporters all date from 2002+ period.
I found four reporters beside Cha named in the 50~60 search results checked, but none of them was "Lee/Yi Jung-jik".
Conclusion: It was no "Lee/Yi Jung-jik" but Cha Jin-soo himself who wrote the Police Journal piece in 1999, therefore, Cha was the one who wrote the Civil Government piece. Moon did not misreport. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a bit more fleshing out to do. First, the author of the Civil Gov article claims to have been following the JMS case behind the scenes since 1999-- it seems unlikely that the publisher of not only the Civil Gov publication, but apparently the Police Journal as well, would be able to follow a case like an investigative reporter... Second, given the practice of not listing author's names in S Korea, it's not surprising that the article is often tied back to the publisher-- but this does not conclusively prove that cha wrote it. GIOSCali (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no double-time burden, since Cha published and wrote formerly for the Police Journal which existed 1995-2003.
Cha wrote pieces in it, i.e., reported on the police as a journalist.
Moon does not identify Cha as publisher, but calls him an "active reporter", a needless qualifier unless speaking of someone who is senior management or retiree. So it all fits. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoweap, respectfully, I suggest that you also contact the MinJeong magazine to verify whether Cha Jin Soo wrote the article or not. It's not unreasonable that Jung-jik Lee does not appear on the MinJeong website given that the article was published more than 5 years ago. I did what was considerably the most appropriate means of verifying the author of the article by contacting the magazine directly, by which the fact was established that another author wrote the article, not Cha Jin Soo. CollinsBK (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CollinsBK, contacting this pro-Providence magazine and divulging my personal information such as telephone number etc. is a highly unwise option, and I flatly decline. It is totally up to whoever wants to legitimize Civil Government to prove it is legit. Do not shift the burden of proof.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's not a pro-Providence magazine. The magazine publisher and all its journalists have no affiliations with Providence. The reporter independently investigated the highly publicized affairs involving Jung and Providence. The journal is published for Korea's government agencies and is therefore unequivocally, non-religious. Secondly, you are not required to divulge any of your personal information to the magazine when you call them to enquire about the author of the article in question. Thirdly, I have established the fact of who the author is by enquiring with the magazine. Any further disputes in relation to this should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard. In the meantime, the edits in relation to the Civil Government Article and the News Daily Article should be restored to this Wikipedia article. The persistent deletions that are without proper basis suggests that there are editors who are in positions of bias against Providence and its founder and is more interested in defaming, than to present all the relevant facts. CollinsBK (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Civil Gov a third party source, just bc it reports on controversies committed by Do Hun doesn't mean its pro-Providence, but that assessment speaks to why the author may have chosen to remain anonymous GIOSCali (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there was no consensus to excluding the Civil Government article and the News Daily article from this encyclopaedia article. Both sources satisfy the verifiability requirements. As such, I have added the information back in. However, in the interest of neutrality, I have modified GIOSCali's wording with more neutral wording. CollinsBK (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many questions and too few answers in regards to these sources, such as who are the writers and are the publishers notable and reliable etc. Since the sources are in Korean, the majority of Wikipedians are here excluded from vetting the sources and confirming that they support what they are saying.
I oppose and WP:CHALLENGE inclusion of text based on these sources until those matters are settled. Please provide adequate translations and collapse them below. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working on obtaining the necessary translations. Likewise, several existing sources on the page also present the same concerns and so will require translations to be provided as well, or will be unfit for inclusion GIOSCali (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to what translations are being prepared to be provided. What I myself asked for was a transcription of the parts of the <Court-imposed settlement decision> that says 900million won is being awarded to Providence.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for source translations

I see now that Phoenix0316 has acted on GIOSCali's suggestion, tagging {{source needs translation}} on a couple of places. But this template refers you to WP:NOENG policy, which you should re-read. This tag should be used to request a quote on a specific claim you somehow doubt that it is in the source. You should identify the claim on this talk page, and say specifically you couldn't find it, etc. to make the request.
I will not stint on unreasonable requests, but I am feeling averse about spending time to quote and translate whatever Phoenix says he's unable to find. Because in as in this diff here he evidently is not capably able to discover what is plainly verifiable in the footnotes given. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap. As for this diff, the description is incomplete. Your insults are really unhelpful. I removed this quote because it is strange that the only thing out of that whole correspondence that makes it into the article is about tax-exempt status. There are actually several answers provided in that transcript, so the statement is quite misleading.
As for translations, I will do as you request. I did not put them on this talk page since it is already so bloated. I did not think translating a few sentences would be so burdensome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two {{source needs translation}} are now removed after inserting relevant quotes (which I'm guessing are the ones you want).

1. The "numerology" statement. 2. The "vice president" faction rift statement.

Neither statement was edited by me, BTW, I only enhanced the status of the sources. And on statement 1., I must have given the wrong page number. Sorry.

Sttement 2. originally began with the atttribution "According to Information Network on Christian Heresy.." (acronym: INCH).
This INCH, to clarify, is the English title given on the website forHyundae jongkyo (Modern Religion) monthly mag (http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr). And this magazine published the Korean book being footnoted (Self-proclaimed Messiahs of S. Korea, 2002).

This book is cited by Sakurai (2006) who gives a brief descriptio of the "vice president" factional rift situation. So I've quoted him. But note that Sakurai only roughly corresponds to Statement 2 (e.g. Sakurai says late 1980's vs. 1986). So the source that precisely match down to detail is not Sakurai. It must be either the Korean book, or, some {{cite web}} "INCH" website @ hdjongkyo.co.kr.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Structure

Suggesting that the article be re-organized in chronological order, as originally suggest in past DR/N discussions. Current structure is a bit arbitrary, organizing it this way would prevent any structural bias and also clear up some of the duplicate sourcing concerns as well. GIOSCali (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how restructuring the article could improve the article that much. The bias seems to come more from the content and tone of the article rather than the structure. However, the article is hard to follow and the events, not being in chronological order, makes the big picture difficult to see. So I have no objections. CollinsBK (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the article opens with a section on theology. The content of that section has been disputed heavily and is very controversial, presenting it within the overall history of the group would give it more context. Also, it would allow the article to be more clear on the charges for which Jung was accused, charges that were dropped, and those for which he eventually stood trial.

If the article is not arranged in chronological order, then its structure is subjective and someone will always claim issue with it.GIOSCali (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage of this article

http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/05/02/wikipedia-page-rapist-cult-whitewashed-inside-ato/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.124.110 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, 14.203.124.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

The article in Crikey sheds more light on the deliberate whitewashing Providence and its remaining members have attempted for years on Wikipedia.

Crikey article

May 2, 2016

Wikipedia page of rapist-led cult whitewashed from inside the ATO

An ATO employee has been using a work computer to whitewash the Wikipedia page of a South Korean cult, whose leader is in prison for multiple counts of rape. Freelance journalist John Power reports.

An Australian Tax Office computer has been used to whitewash information online about a South Korean cult that has recruited Aussie women as “spiritual brides” for its leader, a convicted rapist.

Crikey can reveal an ATO employee has used her work computer to make favourable edits to the Wikipedia page of Providence, also known by the names Jesus Morning Star (JMS) and Christian Gospel Mission.

Under a pseudonym, a lawyer with the ATO has gone to considerable lengths to beautify the Christian sect’s Wikipedia page since August last year. Crikey has chosen not to name the ATO lawyer involved.

The effort has included scrubbing references to Jeong Myeong-seok’s sexual assaults and an incident in which cult members broke into and trashed a newspaper office in South Korea in retaliation for negative press, as well as mentions of the term “cult”. Jeong was charged with rape in 2001 and was captured in Hong Kong in 2003 but vanished while out on bail. He resurfaced in 2007 and was found guilty of rape in 2008. An appeals courtadded four years to the original six-year sentence in 2009.

The ATO lawyer also changed the Wikipedia page to challenge the integrity of Jeong’s conviction and South Korea’s justice system and insert glowing passages about the founder’s character and art, describing his poetry as conveying “the freedom within God’s truth and love”. Several times the lawyer revealed she was editing the Wikipedia page from an ATO IP address, and she edited the page at all times of day and night, including during the week.

Crikey can further reveal that the same lawyer tried to have material about Providence removed from the website jmscult.com, run by Peter Daley, claiming it had breached copyright by using images and videos of the sect.

The lawyer did not claim an ATO affiliation in the letter, instead referring to herself as an “authorized representative of Christian Gospel Mission”.

When contacted by Crikey, the ATO employee initially denied responsibility, but then admitted to both editing the page and sending the letter.

But she said her personal beliefs had nothing to do with the ATO and that most of the Wikipedia editing had been done outside of work. She also said she had done most editing in her “down time”, though Crikey can confirm the IP address associated with some of the edits to the Wikipedia page is an ATO computer.

The lawyer also denied Providence was a cult or even controversial, claiming it had been persecuted and that Jeong’s conviction was faulty.

“Just because he was convicted for an offence doesn’t mean the organisation is bad,” she said.

A former Providence member, who previously described being left suicidal by her time in the sect, told Crikey she lived with the lawyer and several other members at a house in Canberra in 2012. According to the ex-member, the lawyer at the ATO would talk openly about promoting the cult at work.

The ex-follower, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, said the Canberra crew moved to Melbourne following an expose on Providence by SBS’ The Feed in 2014.

The program found Providence had encouraged young female members to see Jeong as the messiah and their lover, and several women had visited the 71-year-old in prison in South Korea. Providence failed to respond to most allegations against it, but it has insisted it is a legitimate Christian church.

Daley, who recently beat defamation charges pursued by several cult members in South Korea, said Providence had tried to silence information about its inner workings for years.

“With the leader due for release next year and with growing awareness, the group is involved in an international effort to whitewash the internet and stifle free speech in order to aid their recruitment efforts and their indoctrination program,” he told Crikey.

“Criminal complaints against me and other outspoken critics are the most obvious attempts to silence critics, but behind that are the issuing of dozens of false copyright claims directed at YouTube videos, emails threatening further legal action — one sent to my work email, which isn’t so easy to come by — and the efforts to whitewash Wikipedia are all part of a wider organised effort.”

Following a tip-off by Daley, the ATO’s Fraud Prevention and Internal Investigations Unit looked into the lawyer but declined to take any action. It did not provide a reason for its decision in correspondence with Daley.

Crikey has lodged a freedom of information request with the ATO to see the results of the internal inquiry into the lawyer and the rationale for taking no action.

Several attempts to contact the head of the unit, Brett Irwin, were unsuccessful. An employee at the unit, however, said that information about its investigations could not be released over the phone due to thePrivacy Act.

Sam Sailor Talk! 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(cont. to #Reverting to old version below)


Reverting to old version

(cont. from #News coverage of this article above on Crikey article) I am going to restore a previous, less colored, and much better sourced revision. Please observe WP:BRD

Editors should make themselves acquainted with our Conflict of interest guideline.

Church members may also ponder on a simple little question: does these endeavours just make our reputation worse? Sam Sailor Talk! 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this on ANI - I took this off my watchlist because of the unrelenting whitewashing from editors with a clear COI. Ideally, this article should be reverted to a state before the last extensive whitewashing and fully protected. Ravensfire (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not saying I agree with every edit recently made on this page, there are a number of controversies that took place throughout Jung's trial that merit inclusion in the article--recanted testimony, witness perjury, Do-hyun's retractions, and so forth. If the concern with the page is whitewashing, the pendulum should not swing so far in the other direction as to fail to include some of these facts.
My point is that every subject should be represented accurately. GIOSCali (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as peter daly has made a career and received a lot of publicity from attacking this group, his statements should be met with the necessary skepticism.

My suggestion is to revert to a prior section in between, one which includes the controversies. GIOSCali (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved here from #Updating revert to 24 Oct '15 version below)
I was not able to actively participate in the recent bout at the incidents noticeboard. It appears there is a clear consensus to revert to previous versions of this article, but I do not believe that the current reversion is appropriate because there were many appropriate edits between October of 2015 and January of 2015 that do not deserve to be reverted. Therefore, I am suggesting that a more recent version be adopted. BourkeM Converse! 05:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Sept 2015 was an appropriate choice for initial revert on a prima facie basis, because users were still reporting their activity or intents on Talk page.
Jan 2016 version is from a time when many of the debates stopped being active. This suggests active members may not have been keepuing up-to-date. So it is a poor choice for initial revert.
If you want to re-instate some of the contents between Sept 2015 and Jan 2016, no one is forbidding you from doing so, just reintroduce them under your own responsibility, and if possibly controversial, try to journalize what you are doing properly in edit summary or talk page. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating revert to 24 Oct '15 version

I want to update from the reverted version (26 Sept 2015) to a later version (24 Oct 2015) and in the process of doing this by section.

I just did the #Theology section. I received comment about whether I might have removed significant material. The Sept version had 4 subsections, but these subsection headers were removed.

Theology section

  • The last 2 sections contained info poorly cited and not demonstratively noteworthy info, and had been removed earlier by me or somebody else. The meat was in the first 2 sections and nothing was really removed, as tabulated below.
Sept '15 ver vs. Oct '15 vers
Recent Revert /682797618 (03:18 26 Sep '15 Kiyoweap) Update/687302339 (17:46 24 Oct '15 /GIOSCali)
A) Providence's teachings are similal.. 1) Providence's teachings are similar to those..
**See C)** 2) One lesson implies that those who do not "meet"
— 3) During the instruction of the advanced level[a] of the 30..
B) Some diff..Jung as Messiah 4) Like the Unification Church,.. but identifies Jung as
C) It is also explained that those who do not "meet" **2) above**
— 5) Providence furthermore allegorize..
-- D) That Jung forced female followers.. 6) Jung was found to have forced female ..
-- E) In 2012, Jo Gyeong-suk, former head .. 7) **Moved to Explanatory notes**..
-- F) Additional confirmation comes from religious scholar Yoshihide Sakurai,[13] and a Christian anti-cult activist, Toyoshige Aizawa. 8)Although some of the teachings are held secret to within the sect, scholars such as Yoshihide Sakurai (ja) [got info from ex-member interviews and notebooks]
  • I decided to remove one source, Pastor Toyoshige Aizawa for various reasons. He is quoted in "Love cult" piece which is in English and I find that useful, some issues were raised using a rehash of Shukan Post pieces. Toyoshige himself also wrote a piece for the Shukan Shunju magazine.
  • I also restored the paragraph on Sakurai obtaining his info from himself contacting ex-members and obtaining ex-member notes, but I prefaced it by saying <Although some of the teachings are held secret, Sakurai obtained them from..> to clarify the purpose of the statement, since Borock deleted it as irrelevant in his edit 21:59, 18 October 2015. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kiyoweap. Sam Sailor Talk! 06:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored an English-language source to the claim that Providence resembles Unification Church's theology. There are 3 other RS citations but they are all in different foreign languages (Fr, Ko, and Ja).
It must be conceded however that this English source is somewhat RS but somewhat not RS.
It is RS insofar as this is actually a Kyodo News Service feed, similar to AP/UPI news feed.
Criss-Cross News's kuchikomi "word-of-mouth" section had nothing to do with authorship of the piece, so it need not receive mention at all, so Phoenix0316's deletion on 12:30, 6 October 2015 was on false pretext, and I replaced the URL that mentioned Criss-Cross to avoid confusion.
There are RS issues however, because Kyodo story relies on the 7/28/2006 issue of Friday (ja:フライデー) weekly magazine, and provides opinion attributed to Friday rather than a specific scholar or a published author on the subject.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you entirely in what you do here, Kiyoweap, once again thank you for your neutral editing. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Sexual allegations in media

The older September 2015 edit began by saying the Sisa Journal and SBS television reported on the scandal. This seems misleading. While I was able to find sources crediting SBS for breaking the news to wide audience in March 1999, I could not find substantiation that Sisa journal broke the news in 1999 (the Sisa article provided dated to 2006).

Next, I wanted to try to clarify details on the SBS news broadcast. The actual name of the new show, the number and dates of broadcast. The show is 그것이 알고 싶다 ("[I] want to know it" / "The Unanswered").

These are the events as far as I understand, but I am not sure i have all the facts right: Providence tried to block SBS's March 20, 1999, seeking a court injunction prohibiting the airing, but was not successful, and it aired. However, the Court did rule there was lack of fair balance, and ruled that the Providence side of the story should be given some coverage, at least 5%. In order to comply, SBS created a part two (May 29, 1999) containing 5 minutes segment where Providence was allowed to have a 5 minute say. I believe the show is 50 minutes long, so by making it a 2-parter, 100 minutes vs. 5 minutes, SBS was able to fulfill the Court's request.

However, after this aired, JMS (Providence) started to advertise "SBS admitted to erroneous [reporting]", which confused viewership into thinking it was some kind of a retraction ("correction report"). SBS countered by creating a sequel (broadcast July 24, 1999) refuting JMS's claims (PD journal [4]). PD refers to the producer-director, but there are other news stories on this sequel from not so much an inside-the-show perspective.[5] --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So-called investigative reporters

Not necessarily to pinpoint this recent edit 06:17, 15 June 2016 by BourkeM that got reverted by Jytdog, but in general, I am not sure where you are finding faith in stating "several investigative reporters have begun to call into question the rulings".

There are no "investigative reporters" in the plural, AFAIC. There is just the one article by Cha Jin Soo (#Civil Government mag self-published) in the Feb-2010 issue of "Civil Government", which gave a very distorted, facts-supressed, lop-sided, pro-Providence account of things. The rest are just rehashers. Moon Il Seok's "Retrial Needed" is forthcoming about doing a rehash, others (the Newsmaker weekly piece and the minor web news sites) are not.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had Jytdog not reverted BourkeM's edit, I would have. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Government article's distortions

With the Civil Government (Feb 2010) article, I didn't get very far beyond trying to establish this piece written by the publisher Cha Jin Soo because of denialists. But WP:SELFPUB isn't the only problem with the piece. The presentation of facts are very distorted and echoes Providence propaganda, frankly.

  • Cha / Moon accuses SBS News / "A media" of engaging in a sleazy piece of journalism rigging the tape . This was a claim that came from Providence circles. No other reliable sources agreed such rigging took place. Upshot is, court said there was some inbalance in coverage, so SBS created a follow-up episode to give Providence 5% of air-time, end of story. No fines actually assessed (even though some editor(s) fantasized about a 900 million won judgment).
  • Cha/Moon's presentation of events regarding Kim Do-Hyung/ “the informer” is eyeball-rollingly distorted. What Cha/Moon conceal is the news of Oct 2003: Father of EXODUS (Anti-JMS NGO) Founder Bashed With Steel Pipe. I believe Kim Do-hyung was on the phone talking to his father, who was scolding him for wasting his life on this anti-religion crusade when he heard this "oh .. oh" on the other end of the line as the attackers did their business. Following such a traumatizing episode, it is perfectly understandable for Kim Do-Hyung to have written some groveling letter to Jung Myeong-suk to spare his family further harm, and to ask for monetary settlement as a means of closure. But Cha/Moon's paints him as a cold, calculating extortionist.
  • Cha (but not Moon) also repeated another Providence assertion claiming one victim to be a hoax. I believe this is the matter reported as Providence's intrigue in this article: Jung, Yeol (정열 / passion) (July 21, 1999). "SBS「그것이 알고싶다」`JMS, 그후'" (in Korean). Yonhap. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Basically, Providence produced a doctor's note stating that one of the claiming victims was still a virgin, but it turned out that the doctor was a JMS-member who had performed reconstructive surgery on her. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you comments, Kiyoweap. Oct 2003: Father of EXODUS (Anti-JMS NGO) Founder Bashed With Steel Pipe contains numerous links the news articles regarding supposed attacks by Providence members of former members and their relatives, and this seems to warrant an inclusion here. Do we have some Korean speaking editors who wish to work on this task? Sam Sailor Talk! 17:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kim Do-hyung, the leader of EXODUS is a key figure, but info on him has never been really developed in the Providence article. There was a EXODUS (NGO) stub article, as Sam may recall. An independent article on KDh or EXODUS might be hard, since I didnt find much info written about the org's history beyond WP:OWN websites or blogs. But Providence members committting violence against EXODUS and other defectors certainly does warrant coverage, since KDh's father is not an isolated case. Peter Daley's board features picture of a colleague Kim Young-su with a swelling black eye. Here's also an article witha photo of KDh himself bloodied up as well.[6]
For the record, Kim Do-hyung's letter demanding money is something I've seen posted on an EXODUS site as well, and it is well-established. But I didnt find it written up in mainstream media, so due weight is rather flimsy. In the absence of mainstream citations, I argued against using Civil Government distorted article, which characterizes KDh's "apology letter" as admission of wrong-doing and "extortionist" activity, conveniently leaving out the fact of the attack, because obviously most people would then see the "apology letter" as a typical case of a whistleblower bowing to pressure and violent tactics. I already argued this point against GIOSCali last year (archive 3) --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

Unsurprisingly, there has been some reversions and accusations following the addition of material that I recently added that shows this organization in a positive light in some way. Since resistance has only been done through vaguely worded edit messages, I cannot know what part of what I am doing is being opposed. Therefore, I posted what I believe should not be a problem. I will be bold in edits. You may be equally bold in reversions. However, since it is not myself who reverts, I cannot faithfully begin discussion. Please explain your reversions in detail. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hallmarks of church members who previously tried to whitewash this article have been the removal or modification of negative material and material that contradicts church doctrines, and the addition of trivial flattery, poorly sourced fringe opinion aimed to cast doubt about the conviction of Jung, or outright hagiography praising Jung. Single-purpose accounts that repeat the same editing patterns, and do so again (Diff of Providence (religious movement)), and again (Diff of Providence (religious movement)), and again (Diff of Providence (religious movement)), and again (Diff of Providence (religious movement)) should neither expect the Wikipedia community will treat it as constructive editing, nor that any regular editor will take the bait and explain what has already been explained multiple times and for which a source-based consensus has been established and remained firm for years. — Sam Sailor Talk! 15:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the reliability of the sources that have been removed, so I am putting them back. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 04:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poems and Books

Other works from Jung have been published. A series of best-selling poetry books titled Poems of Inspiration speaks in detail about culture, art, time, and life. Ten of his poems have been recorded in the 2011 edition of the Korean Dictionary of Poems, which is a collection of poems covering 100 years of Korean poetry history.[1] Jung has also written several books in a series called, "Heaven's Words My Words" that presents a variety of subjects such as art, culture, prayer, life, and the human heart in their respective relationships with the Creator. Four sections in this book have titles: "Culture and art are among the greatest gifts God has given to Man," "The door to a person is the heart, "Your life is a great treasure that only you can take and claim as your own," and "Think from before dawn. Thinking after the sun rises it too late." One quote from this book is: "There is no one in the world that does not need God." [2]

References

  1. ^ "정명석 시인, '시의 여인' '시로 말한다' 감각적 구상 그림 돋보여". 뉴스웨이브. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
  2. ^ Myeong Seok, Jeong. Heaven's Words, My Words. p. 111. ISBN 89-952666-2-7.


@Jytdog: You reverted additions to the Theology section that have legitimate sources from my understanding. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As I noted this article is about Providence not Jung. You wrote "This article is about Jung Myeong Seok and Providence. There have been suggestions to make more than one article, but since they have not been followed through, this belongs here."
I have again removed it here. Phoenix please leave this out until we come to consensus on whether this belongs.
What are others' thoughts on whether this belongs in this article? Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, Jung Myeong Seok was originally a separate article, which in 2014 was merged with this and made into a redirect, on the argument that the two topics are inextricably entwined. (That is in fact the reason that BLP discretionary sanctions apply to this article, see the top banners above.) So Phoenix0316 is correct in saying this article is about Jung Myeong Seok and Providence. That said, it hardly makes it appropriate for Phoenix to persistently edit-war unsourced propaganda into the article. (Who says Jung's poetry is "best-selling"?) It's certainly doubtful whether the paragraph belongs in the article. Possibly one sentence, without all the promotional quotes. The poetry isn't notable outside the ranks of Jung's followers, and no secondary sources are offered to suggest they are. Bishonen | talk 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I would support that (very, very brief mention). This article has been the target of excessive promotion, white-washing and civil POV pushing by WP:SPA editors for a long time seeking to put Providence and Seok in a highly positive light. Small changes here and there, and suddenly everything is wondrous and great. I think one or two sentences that the books have been written is sufficient. The version by Phoenix0316 is clearly excessively promotional. Ravensfire (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that a very brief mention with cite book link. Special:BookSources/89-952666-2-7 search does not return any hits on the Online text (Goggle, Amazon, Open library) nor the first six Online databases. Is that an actual ISBN number? Is there really such a set of books? This line: One quote from this book is: "There is no one in the world that does not need God." is not encyclopedic nor appropriate in this context. Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncollapsing the original post containing the original addition to the article, because I want to address its sources wrt to the poetry being best-selling. Phoenix0316 calls them "legitimate sources". Obviously the Jung poetry book isn't a reliable secondary source, and doesn't speak to notability. The other reference, to newswave.kr[7], does via Google translate have the words "climbing the paperback best-seller". But also the words "News Report and Press Release" down at the bottom. How about it, @Kiyoweap:, if you're around? Is Newswave.kr a reliable source, or is the linked review/interview simply a press release (which it kind of sounds like)? Bishonen | talk 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
"NewsWave 뉴스웨이브" seems to yet another web-based news outlet. If you cant find similar content in more clearly legit news or book review, I think it is suspect as to notablility.
This story says JMS's book got on the Kyobo Book Centre (ko:교보문고) best-seller list, but this is just a big bookstore chain. It's the same as being on "Barnes & Noble" or Amazon bestseller. And this on its own doesnt automatically earn notability.
The by-line is 김시현 Kim Si-hyeon, and unless this person can be established to be a staff writer for a reputable Book Review, or an eminent author, academic, or poet in her own right, etc., it's just a book report by a non-entity. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jung has published numerous books (Naver.com author search), let's start by identifying the works in the suggested addition:
  1. A series of poetry books titled Poems of Inspiration
  2. Korean Dictionary of Poems where ten of Jung's poems have been included.
  3. A book series titled Heaven's Words, My Words
Identifying #1: The Poems of Inspiration poetry books are titled 영감의 시 in Korean, and there are four in the series according to the Korean article on Jung. This is confirmed here. They were published in 1989 (vol. 1), 1996 (vol. 2), and in 2013 (vols. 3 and 4). They have not been translated AFAICT.
Identifying #2: What Phoenix0316 calls Korean Dictionary of Poems is 한국 시 대사전 in Korean, and is actually titled The Encyclopedia of Korean Poetry right on the front cover, see AbeBooks. ISBN 10: 8996612707, ISBN 13: 9788996612704. Here is its entry in the National Library of Korea database. The book is e.g. found in the Stanford University Library.
Identifying #3: The book series Heaven's Words, My Words are titled 하늘말 내말. According to the Korean article on Jung there are nine in the series. Naver.com title search here. National Library of Korea database search here. Complete list of ISB numbers courtesy Kiyoweap was posted a year ago and is now found at Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 2#Follow up on Book on Salvation.
The first suggested addition is "A series of best-selling poetry books titled Poems of Inspiration speaks in detail about culture, art, time, and life." Even if we take out the dubious "best-selling" puffery, I can not see it is a relevant fact anywhere in the article, let alone in the /* Theology */ section where it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the sect.
The mention of Poems of Inspiration, the book series Heaven's Words, My Words, and Jung's inclusion in The Encyclopedia of Korean Poetry added on 15 August 2016 by Phoenix0316 and then re-added the yesterday without any talk page discussion is however not a new thing. It was previously added to the article in essentially the same form in February 2014 by the disclosed church member Macauthor (talk · contribs). When they were blocked and topic banned, a new single purpose account, GIOSCali, popped up and added the same contents five times later in 2014, here, here, here, here, and here, despite the objections from other editors on the talk page, cf. the discussion found at Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 2#Background Edits.
I notice the sentence "Ten of his poems have been recorded in the 2011 edition of the Korean Dictionary of Poems" sounds a lot like the article Poet Jung Myeong-seok officially chosen as a poet in Korea’s 100 years of poetry on the website God21.net, a site run by adherents of Jung.
I'm open to inclusion of this material, if it has been discussed by reliable, secondary sources in a non-partisan manner, and if it is relevant for the article. — Sam Sailor Talk! 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We now know Korean Encyclopedia of Poetry is a 4-volume reference running 3,500 pages -- thanks to Sam Sailor, and finding a listing of 10 of Jung's poems in such a huge almanac does not impress me as being all that significant.
But even lacking that information, we all know Jung's poetry-writing gets minor coverage, and never merited a place prominently near the top of the article. It was a clear abuse of "prominence of placement" explicity discouraged in WP:UNDUE. Given there was not just 1, but a mass of prominently placed WP:CRUFT, Jytdog was well-justified.
I would concede is poetry matter is borderline between minutiae and cruft, and agree with Ravensfire and Jim1138 it might be given a brief notion somewhere in the bottom. The material occurs in the Japanese wiki article, but rather unobtrusively in a chronological list. It is sourced to the Japanese translation of the same Newswave article[8] ("Jung Myung Seok the poet, Woman of the Poem, Spoken through Poetry, marked by image[ry] of sensual conceptualization"), at god21.net.
Since a considerable number of Newwave articles are promotions and plugs for Providence/Jung, that find their way to the god21.net, it's hard to regard them as maintaining neutrality comparable to mainstream media. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks everyone for your feedback Sam Sailor, Ravensfire, Jim1138, and Kiyoweap. To bring this discussion to a close, I'd like to add a brief notion of his poems somewhere in the bottom. How's this: Jung also published ten of his poems in the 2011 edition of the Korean Encyclopedia of Poetry, which is a 4-volume reference running 3,500 pages that collects poems covering 100 years of Korean culture, prayer, and life. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 07:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J4U Sources

I attempted to add these sources, but I do not understand why they were removed. Are they not reliable?

Sources

  1. "J4U Bringing Love and Peace to Countryside Far Region of Ray-bay Elementary". Sina News. 2016/08/03.
  2. "1,000 Members Taiwanese, Korean, and Japanese Gathered for a Soccer Festival". The Gread News Daily. April 4, 2016.
  3. ""Love, No Boundaries Between Nations, and Coming Closer Together", Caring for Children Around the World and Fighting for HIV Youth.". PChome News. June 26, 2016.
  4. Kuo Po, Jay (May 31, 2016). "Morning Light Youth Group and Harmony Home Association Brings Warmth to Families". Today News.

Content supported

Just 4 You (J4U) is one of Providence's many organizations formed for the purpose of serving others and spreading Heavenly culture. (1) Formed in Taiwan, this organization serves both young and old through hosting soccer campus with inspirational messages and activities that inspire harmony.

Providence has hosted these kinds of events for decades. Often times these events seek to unite differing peoples within a country, such as the aboriginals of Taiwan, and as well as to unite peoples from many countries, specifically through the use of soccer and cultural activities. (2) Additionally, programs formed by the group have been used to care for young adults and infants born with HIV. (3)

Other events hosted by organization are more centered on helping ailing families that cannot receive help from their local government through providing expensive medical care.(4) Phoenix0316 (talk!) 08:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any RS that supports it being to "serve others" and not to promote the organization? Looks promotional to me - WP:NOTPROMOTION Jim1138 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Times ref

User: Phoenix0316 in this dif you removed a ref to Christian Times with edit note: "Removed a reference. The Christian Times (기독교타임즈) is a tabloid source so it is not a RS; see archives of RSN". I searched RSN under "Christian Times" and also searched under "kmctimes.com" and didn't find discussion of this. Can you please link to the discussion? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Jytdog Oops, you are right. I made a mistake in my reference. I meant to say see WP:PUS. Since Christian Times is a tabloid (On the info bar, you can see 판형 is 타블로이드배판. 타블로이드 means "tabloid") and potentially unreliable like Daily Mail, I removed it. Do you agree? If so or I don't hear back from you for three days, I'm planning on removing it again. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 03:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Tabloid (newspaper format) is a printing format, and not automatically a source of Tabloid journalism. AndroidCat (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on: "daily mail is not a RS; see archives of RSN where this is stated as community consensus dozens of times" Link please? Daily Fail can be uneven, but I'm dubious that there was a general ban on it. AndroidCat (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User: AndroidCat, thanks for clarifying! I was confused when User: Jytdog said that but I thought it was because it was a tabloid source, but I guess my assumption was wrong. Then, is there a way to tell if a news source is a source of tabloid journalism? It'll be important to keep the neutral pov. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 08:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been over a week and a link hasn't been provided yet to the reasons for removing the daily mail reference, then I will add it back as a resource and make the proper changes. Thanks! Phoenix0316 (talk!) 06:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail has been found unreliable a zillion times at RSN. Check it yourself. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User: Jytdog, I understand that Daily Mail has been found unreliable, but like User: AndroidCat said, it doesn't mean that there was a general ban on it. So, how do you discern when journalism becomes tabloid? Phoenix0316 (talk!) 07:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"add"

User: Phoenix0316, in this dif, with edit note "Add" you changed a bunch of refs in ways that are not clear, and added an EL to JMS Providence. I have reverted this, as I don't understand the changes to the refs and you said nothing about that in the edit note, and it looks to me like the additional EL shouldn't be here per WP:ELNO. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Jytdog, the external links section is part of the references section so when I added an EL to JMS Providence, it might have seemed like a changed a bunch of refs, but I didn't. The change of refs was when I removed the Christian Times reference since it was a WP:PUS. Besides that, can you tell me what part of WP:ELNO JMS Providence is violating? It seems okay to me. If there are no further discussions, I plan on re-adding the link. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 03:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You changed a bunch of refs in those diffs. Please explain the value of Providence website. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I looked at the revision history and I see what happened. I think the formatting changed for some reason with some of the references when I added the external link because they were in the same widget. I'd like to add just to external link so instead of reverting the change, I'll try to add the external link only. From what I read into the website, it seems to have other articles (e.g., from mjnews) that were seen as contentious in this wikipedia article. So I thought it was relevant. If you think it's unrelated, then please explain why. If there are no clear reasons, I plan on re-adding it. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 08:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is related sure - seems to some kind of site owned by the organization. Per ELNO we have one EL to the organization. We use cgm.or.kr in the infobox and if we are going to one in the EL section it should be that one. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. JMS Providence peddles the same claims about the "religious injustice faced by Providence and Pastor Jung Myung Seok" as do Providence Trial, the material being that which church members have tried to add to this article for a number of years. I will remove [http://www.providencetrial.com/ Providence Trial] – English language Providence related website authored by various members internationally from the External links section and add {{Official|cgm.or.kr}} per WP:ELNO. — Sam Sailor 16:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User: Jytdog, I reviewed WP:ELNO and it said this would normally be the case unless the other website provides additional info not provided by the official website. I checked the official website and since it is in Korean and also doesn't seem to include these news articles, I think it's appropriate to include JMS Providence. Though, as User: Sam Sailor has mentioned, it is similar to Providence Trial. So I reverted your edit User: Sam Sailor. I will add the official website to the external links on the bottom as well though. Also, I'll inquire further to the website owners to see if they are related to the official organization. It seems like members, but we'll see. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Phoenix two other editors disagree that this link adds any encyclopedic value. You will need an RfC to add that. Given the nature of the content, the chance that the community will find it a valid EL is about zero but you are free to try. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Jytdog on this. A good example would be the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. There are several websites on both sides that have extensive analysis and links to support their view but you don't see them listed as External links. That article has had some extremely high visibility and editing disputes and makes a very good example of who to handle similar situations. Ravensfire (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I also concur then about the JMS Providence website, but why take out the Providence Trial website then? User: Ravensfire, I checked out the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and in the External links, and it has at least one website that has a collection of articles. Providence Trial would at least include a collection of articles not provided on Wikipedia or the official website. Would you still say it does not provide any "encyclopedic" value, User: Jytdog? Phoenix0316 (talk!) 07:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Providence_(religious_movement)&oldid=754552912"