Advanced Search

Author Topic: wikipedia article  (Read 7858 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 17, 2006, 06:30:30 AM
Read 7858 times

Offline rb

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 289

    • View Profile
wikipedia article
« on: December 17, 2006, 06:30:30 AM »
Some American Providence member "Uptional" went and deleted most of the article, as Providence members tend to do. It doesn't really matter too much now that this site will be up soon. However it does appear the members are nervous about the authoritative stance wikipedia has, since they keep trying to delete it. This time he actually gave reasons for most of his deletions, and discussed it, so it's not obvious vandalism like the other times. However, the reasons he gives to delete only applies to negative material and not positive material, as he deleted the negative about quotes off wikiquote yet didn't delete the positive one that if the reason was valid should have been removed as well. I could have tried to trick him into making more obvious expressions of his bias and getting him banned, but I won't. He doesn't appear to be PJ, but he puts on a rational front like him.

Humorously, he asked for a third party to help, giving this comment:

    dispute exists regarding the Jung Myung Seok article. The biographry in question is of a relatively unknown religious figure, but may be used as a primary source of research for those concerned. Those who oppose the individual seem to employ the wiki article as a vehicle for propaganda, rather than as a neutral source for factual (and thereby credibly cited) information. Instead, they cite their own overtly malicious webpages as primary sources and claim vandalism when the offending citations are removed.

It's amazing. The members seem completely unaware of the view that so quickly and easily forms of their church when viewed from the "outside". I can imagine a Providence member saying, "so what we worship him as essentially God, we consider ourselves his brides, we do all we can to stop people from knowing he's a fugitive, he's wanted for rape by the international police, there's dozens of testimonies that by women who say they're been raped by him, they're found perverted pictures and letters where he was staying, there's a recorded perverted phone call of him, we bashed in the former EXODUS leader's father's head, he's hated across Korea Japan and Taiwan, most of the teachings are identical to Unification church's, and we routinely deceive people of our true motivations when holding sport/modeling events! This is all 'mundane everyday things that any other group would have'. Please, someone independent, please help us to produce a positive article on perhaps the most hated man in East Asia! Thanks, best wishes, Joe."

Anyway, here's a link to the version before it was largely deleted by the member. Here's the version he finished deleting stuff (or at least, had a break from). At the moment I just changed the page and added the 30 lessons part back, so it's quite small. Here's the wikipedia page, but of course it may be different when you read this to when I write this.

December 17, 2006, 01:57:56 PM
Reply #1

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2489

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: wikipedia article
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2006, 01:57:56 PM »
Hey guys,
Been in Seoul all day today, just checked out the discussion at wiki.. wow great stuff rb,

December 18, 2006, 03:49:58 AM
Reply #2

Offline Peter

  • Administrator

  • *****

  • 2489

    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog & Site
Re: wikipedia article
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2006, 03:49:58 AM »
I think this is too good to not copy and paste here!
I will respond rb, but I've still got a hectic few days coming up...
Yeap, that has to be PJ, sounds exactly like him.

    [edit] An open letter in regards to my recent edits (15 December 2006):
    I don't claim to be unbiased and neither should any of the authors of this article. As an adherent of Jung’s teaching I realize that there is an ongoing judicial investigation involving accusations against him. That information should be included in this biography, of course, but opinions and conjecture concerning it should not be. Those opinions and conjecture, whether in support of Jung or against Jung, should be reserved for personal websites.

    In addition, citations which lead to public or “un-moderated” message boards and/or private websites which exist to either promote or slander Jung are, by wikipedia standards, "unverifiable". What they purport may or may not be true, but owing to the fact that they are not professionally scrutinized, they should not be employed as sources of information for this article. If you disagree with this policy, consider this litmus test: would a university professor accept your citation and source for a research/term paper? In many cases concerning this article the answer was ‘no.’

    In all sincerity I have no wish to turn this article into a tit-for-tat edit war. So, in the spirit of conciliation let us all agree to stick to verifiably sourced factual information that has been professionally scrutinized. Those who come to this site seeking a bit of credible information should leave having a greater understanding of the man and the controversy surrounding him. Of course, ultimately every visitor is personally responsible for what they read, but let us strive to not deceive them with misinformation or hearsay.

    A brief word to those who misuse this article to propagate negative opinions: Do not judge. Instead, let time decide who is wrong and who is right. By this I mean, if Providence is a "dangerous cult" as one author claims, then surely those who adhere to it as a religion will exhibit dangerous behaviour. Until they do and that dangerous behaviour is properly evidenced (ie. NOT hearsay), by what standard can you judge?

    So here is a simple request. Let us act with maturity and with honest intent to make this article concerning Jung an attempt to provide a non-biased biography of the man himself. Both sides of this debate may create as many partisan websites as they can, but let's all agree to keep this particular site free from personal attack, slander, innuendo, and ignorance.

    In anticipation of this,


    Uptional 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


    In all honesty I cannot see how you didn't just use any excuse to delete as much as you could of the article without careful thought.

    I don't see how there was opinion relating to the rape claim at all in the entire article.

    If I were to cite a message board in reference to a news story, I'd agree that would be unverifiable. However, I am using cites to include their belief. If I write "former members believe..." then it only makes sense to link to the ones who did, and I don't see any reasonable grounds to doubt that they did write that. Bias sources as you claim when you deleted the section that cites from the message board is a contradiction. How can someone be bias about their own view?

    You deleted the HK section with this comment "refrain from writing opinion and conjecture". Did you not realise that section was translated from the article from yahoo news? Or do you consider yahoo news to be bias in regards to your teacher?

    You deleted this "A former member estimates around 300-400 Providence members with another 200 GACP participants." with the reason "'A former member...' needs a citation and a name." How can I not think you are just deleting everything you can?

    You deleted the entire countries section without even giving a reason. (Though you kept heavily modified subsections each.)

    In regards to this "There were several GACP websites, however they were all recently taken down except for two following media attention." which you deleted as "opinion". Now you may have a point as it implies something, but you didn't use that as a reason. Perhaps you would have liked to change "following" to "soon after". But that is not opinion, as the GACP sites did go down soon after media attention exploded on your teacher.

    You deleted the reference to Unification church with this reason: "This is also editorializing. The 30 principles shares biblical interpretation with Mormons, JWs and Catholics, so why does the Unification church deserve special attention?" I find it hard to believe that you don't know that the 30 lessons are MUCH more similar to the Unification church that any other one you listed. It also deserves special attention because of this and that it is the religion that critics generally believe your religion is a offshoot of, as the article said.

    You deleted part of it relating to JMS group. The purpose of the page is both to relate to Jung and his organisations. You may have argued they should be split, but you did not, and just deleted half of it. We both know that Jung's organisations are highly centered around Jung's personality so I don't see it necessary to split the two. His group is JMS (Jesus Morning Star); his name is JMS (Jung Myung Seok). If anyone else in any way significantly controlled the direction of Jung's organisations with the three conditions: 1) they did it differently to Jung's will, 2) they did it openly and 3) they did not consider/or does not violate the fundamental principles of the group; then I would consider that maybe the organisation section should be separate to his name. However, we both know that this isn't the case.

    You changed 'hiding' in China to 'living' in China citing bias. He is hiding. If he were simply 'living', the police would find him and lock him up. He fled to China after he was released on bail in 2003 and has been unable to go anywhere else because he'd be locked up if he tried to. He is currently hiding from the police. That is in no way an opinion. Do you not remember that Jung has talked in his sermons about fleeing his house just before "danger comes", using that as an example God is protecting him?

    In regards to your plea on "requests for comments/biography": "[they] claim vandalism when the offending citations are removed.". I only realised it was against wiki rules after people with bots that scan for this sort of thing came in and were reversing edits made by your members deleting entire sections without discussion, and all they said was "reverting vandalism to..." as if it was an undebatable point. Some of them were admins. In other words I only started calling it vandalism after experienced wiki users and admins did. Unless you are to call them bias too?

    How do expect us to believe you have come to help the article be an accurate source of information of Jung Myung Seok, when you accuse us of bias even when we copy the admins' behaviour or word, claim opinion on a paragraph which is simply a translation of a news articles from Yahoo, and only discuss after you've deleted most of the page? If you were trying to contribute, why didn't you add anything? All you did was delete!

    I'm all for your simple request, however I am much more concerned with a person's actions than with his words. I did my best to make the article as accurate a picture as possible, while still being able to cite any controversial statements. Much of it was from resources from others, some of it was already on the wiki page, and several authors have made modifications of it since my major edit. Yet after all this, you go and delete most of it.

    PS: Please don't assume our motivations. My motivation is that I want people to know the facts so they can come up with a logical and independent conclusion. I am motivated because it is a fact that your members try not to let new recruits know these facts. I have no intention to make a false statement about Jung Myung Seok on this page or any other, and I'm not using the article as a "vehicle for propaganda". Anyone who wants to know is free to look at the page before Uptional deleted most of it. I don't deny that some statements may have needed challenging, either from me or someone else, but I'm confident that any independent author will see that your claim is not my intention. RB972 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    I have assumed "good faith" and produced a temporary page to encourage you to make constructive as opposed to simply deleting, even though it is so hard for me to believe you are acting in good faith. If you really wanted to produce a quality non-bias biography, why didn't you contribute instead of destroy? For example, surely you know the press conference happened. Why else would there be so many articles all across Korea and Japan? If you didn't like the citation, you could have found another one. Besides, that article can be considered an EXODUS press release, and seems to be translated mostly from a Chinese article. But instead you deleted the whole section. How am I, or anyone, not supposed to see that as just an attempt to delete undesirable information in your eyes? (Oops, I just assumed it was the wikinews article cited due to the way he justified his deletion. Actually, it was cited to an article by the Korean CNB news company, which makes his justification make even less sense.) RB972 06:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    I have been reading through the wiki guidelines and rules again to determine if the version which was mostly deleted by Uptional was inappropriate or not.

    wiki: reliable sources says that message boards should not be used as sources. However, it is a guideline, which means common sense exceptions exist. Nobody doubts that the speeches on the message board are really speeches by him, Uptional himself used one of the speeches to expand a quote on the wikiquote page, and infact the statements that use citations from the message board are not very controversial. The 30 lessons section, for example. I agree that events shouldn't use a message board as a source, unless the message board contains the article in full with the original link so that one may view the original news article (with or google cache if necessary), or a translation of the news article, with the original link so one may compare an automatic translation (eg. babelfish). I consider this all common sense.

    According to WP:NPOV wikipedia articles should equally represent all points of views, without putting undue weight on them. Therefore the page Uptional mostly deleted was not wrong in reporting the critical view, as it also reported the supportive view, and both were marked clearly as POVs. If anything, it was bias towards the positive, as it may have put undue weight due to the critical view being the overpowering view in countries where Jung is widely known (Korea, Japan, Taiwan). However, it can be argued that the positive view has a special weight because the members of his organisation take it; in fact I would argue this as well.

    Your comments Uptional on Requests for comment/Biographies and JMS wikiquote talk page violated WP:AGF. You may believe that anyone who criticizes "R" is evil and possessed by Satan as your teacher claims, but I will advise this behaviour will not win you many friends on wikipedia. This is not a warning, just some advise. I also suggest your behaviour in general was very rude, that you deleted most of the page, and your request for a third-party (which you made even before any discussion or conflict occurred involving you) made strong unbacked accusations. I don't appreciate this.

    I further recommend that you are fully aware you are strongly within a conflict of interest. "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." You mentioned that you were a follower of his. That means you are not just in his organisation, but also much more closer and vulnerable to bias than an article about a relative due to your view of him, and we both know what that view is. So I suggest you be very careful not to let this conflict of interest inference. Be aware that you deleted the HK section saying it was bias; you didn't know it was actually a Yahoo news article that you were calling bias as it was simply a translation. You also accused us of claiming vandalism when poorly sourced information is cited, again you didn't know it was actually the admins and experienced wiki editors that watch all wiki pages you were really accusing, as no one claimed vandalism on anything until admins/wiki users with bots that don't even know who JMS is already labeled it as such.

    I very much encourage any independent authors to come help with the page, especially people familiar with the news in Korea (or at least one of other countries around there) and know Korean. I don't fear people testing me to see if my words match up to my actions. My motivation, as I've always said, is to report the facts so that individuals may made independent conclusions and so that any attempts by members to manipulate anyone through restricting the flow of information to fails. And many people have many modifications to this article besides me without any problems, until Uptional came along and had a problem with almost everything.

    I understand and care about you members a whole lot more than any will know, at least not while they're still members. Sometimes what is so obvious to people on the outside looking in is so hard to see for the person on the inside looking out. I can understand why you think the article is bias, since you're so convinced Jung can do no wrong, and therefore comments like former members consistently testify psychological abuse looks wrong immediately so you don't bother to check. So I'm not angry at you for deleting all the stuff, and I appreciate your humility to state that you are bias, and I will make the humble request you be prepared to accept that maybe that bias is distorting your view of people like me and the things we say. I will also humbly take the request upon myself, as I won't deny sometimes I am full of anger about what I believe this man has done, which goes far beyond what has ever been written by me or anyone else on the wikipedia article.

    I want to revert the article back to what it was. Perhaps not the countries section, but the POVs former members/current members/critics. The current page is just temporary, I desire the rest of the information to be placed back as well. I expect Uptional will reply to this, and perhaps someone else will come in, we'll see. RB972 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    I gave you a chance to discuss, yet you again removed things without any discussion, and leaving the formatting messed up as you did on the wikiquotes page as well.

    You came in here and immediately removed most of the material, accusing all other editors of seeming to employ "the wiki article as a vehicle for propaganda, rather than as a neutral source for factual (and thereby credibly cited) information. Instead, they cite their own overtly malicious webpages as primary sources and claim vandalism when the offending citations are removed." [1]. I assumed good faith by forming a small article and hoping discussions could form, but even then you continue to delete and not add or discuss.

    I suggest you rethink your bias which you admitted to having. Do you not know that the webpages you label as "overtly malicious" are the same sources and run by the same people people that reporters go to to produce news reports and documentaries? Or do you think those news reports and documentaries are overtly malicious as well?

    Despite deleting almost everything, you failed to delete the most obvious violation, the link to PJ's blog, as he put it there himself, it was to a blog, and it current serves only as an attack page on another author. This similar behaviour was also observed on the wikiquotes page where you deleted two negative quotes about JMS because they didn't specific exactly who said it, and just "former follower", you failed to remove the positive quote that had the same issue, quoted to "follower". Are you acting to make it an unbias article?

    Despite many editors have contributed to this article, and many people who don't know anything about JMS have read it, you seem to think that the vast majority of it is an obvious violation. You also deleted quotes off wikipedia despite that experienced wikiquote users including admins helped the initial construction and would have easily seen it if it was so obvious a problem that it could be deleted before removed. The admin certainly didn't: he added it to the main page. And many experienced wikiquote users must see it too since it's been linked there for quite some time, but they don't see a problem with the article.

    Your behaviour to remove the majority of the article without even discussing until after you did it, then failing to discuss and continuing to delete further when I attempted reconcilation, along side your comments on the other editors in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies and wikiquote talk page are extremely rude.

    Furthermore, if you are PJ, and you sure talk a lot like him -- then I will warn you/PJ about his previous behaviour in regards to placing in effect a "disclaimer" on the actual wikipedia page near the top attacking who he thought was the main editor, Peter, and as if to imply the article should be ignored for the reasons he gave. You/he also placed a link to his own blog which currently serves only as an attack page on the editor Peter, which violates this rules/guidelines: posting your own webpage, linking to a blog, and linking to a page to attack an editor.

    I will warn you now, though I refrained to before, that I find your behaviour entirely destructive to the wikipedia article and simply indecent. I suggest you are not seeing past your conflict of interest, due to being a follower of him. It's not the same as being merely a follower or any religion; we both know there's few religions whose followers see the leader in a greater way than Providence church. Therefore your conflict of interest is very serious indeed. Now, I'm all for you working out of that conflict and making decent contributions. In all honesty I am, whether you believe me or not. However I suggest you make more attempts to see past your bias, as your behaviour now is inappropriate and unfriendly. If you are PJ, then consider this two warnings, due to repeated rudeness. I also attempted to discuss with PJ and failed. It if it not, that you made a call for a third party by accusing all other editors of bias during your first edits made around the same time does not speak highly of you.

    There are a lot of things that could have been said on the wikipedia page that wasn't. Things much stronger and giving a more negative impression, and could be cited as well. However, I didn't add them, as an attempt to avoid conflicts and the appearance of bias.

    I can imagine how bias you would think this addition is:

    "Members are required to submit the results of health checks. Women are personally interviewed by Jung and asked about past romances.

    Jung sometimes sexually assaulted the women during those interviews, former cultists said.

    Members who pass the checks are allowed to join in parties where they must choose a marriage partner.

    Once couples are formed, they are interviewed again by Jung. He sometimes told couples to separate based on what he heard from God, sources said.

    At a July 2003 mass wedding, Jung was not there in person. Via a big-screen Internet connection, he urged the couples to have babies to increase the number of Setsuri members. He was wanted by South Korean authorities on rape charges at the time. "

    yet that was from the second most circulated national newspaper in Japan [2]. I purposely kept the wikipedia article toned down to avoid conflicts. Can't you see the same arguments you make against the wikipedia page actually more strongly apply to the news articles reported in major news sources? Do you really believe they are all biased, and "overtly malicious"? It seems you do when you deleted the Hong Kong section claiming opinion as I mentioned before which was in fact mostly a translation from a Yahoo news article, which you probably didn't know at the time.

    So I suggest again you reconsider your conflict of interest and either stop editing the wikipedia or make an honest attempt to be an unbias contributor. As it stands, your behaviour is very unfriendly, and your arguments speak more strongly of news articles by major news sources than it does the article, so you're going to have to discuss this sort of stuff here if you really believe the news articles are biased.

    I will continue to be meek and leave the small article as it stands, and I will again wait for Uptional to discuss his modifications here. However, if he does not, I will revert the article back to before Uptional began deleting. I would keep his contributions, however he made essentially no actual contributions (deleting is destroying, not contributing).RB972 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    You've continued, again, and even deleted some of the media articles and the descriptions of the critical links. RB972 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] To: RB972

    [edit] Re: Edits of 16 December
    It’s obvious to anyone reading these pages that we both hold contrary views on the person of Jung, his faith, his teachings and what we both believe to be facts concerning his legal circumstances. In short: you believe him to be guilty while I believe him to innocent. You believe he fled to China because he is guilty, I believe he fled to China because his life was threatened. Neither of us need pretend otherwise. Fortunately, in many countries throughout the world the accused are afforded legal council and are deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You interpret his actions as an admission of guilt, but you have not been afforded all the information, so as Jesus said, ‘do not judge’. Let’s leave that to people who are professionals at it. Let’s both assume that the legal system will (hopefully) fairly judge the accusations made against Jung and be patient for that moment. Until then, let us afford him the human dignity and respect given to any other person who has had accusations (especially from an anonymous source) brought against him—an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Let us also reflect that assumption in this article, while still presenting the facts, lest we prematurely condemn an innocent man.

    I am glad to read that you have consulted the wiki policy on use of sources (verifiability, etc.). You are right in saying that some partisan private websites, which may or may not also contain message boards, do contain what appear to be primary source material. For the sake of the article I will not object to those. I do object, however, to material coming from anonymous sources, especially those published on partisan private websites. For this reason I edited many sections of the article. To quote the wiki official policy Biographical claims about living people need special care because of the effect they could have on someone's life, and because they could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to the website as a whole, not only to the main namespace. I hope that clears up your confusion. I did follow all the links to see where they took me, and then searched those web-pages for any primary sources. If I made mistakes, please correct them. I will then re-check the article.

    Regarding the testimony of “former members”, let us refer to the wiki policy (from the same page): “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.” Claims made by anonymous “former members” are not only self-published, but they also are not verifiable because they are not professionally scrutinized sources, that is, there is no discernable measure of veracity. This is a very important point RB972, because without it, do you not know see that someone could start a wiki biography about you simply by stringing together some false testimony from conjured-up friends, old employers, or childhood teachers, all of which would be anonymous?

    Please understand the term conjecture properly. Conjecture is when an opinion is expressed based on dubious or incomplete information. For this reason it has no place in this article, nor does the incomplete information that issued it. For example, your belief that Jung is guilty is conjecture because you haven’t all the information (most importantly, a ruling from a judge).

    As to why I have not added to the article, I offer this very simple answer: I do not have verifiable, professionally scrutinized electronic sources to cite. When I obtain them, rest assured that I most certainly will add to it. In the meantime I ask that you govern yourself similarly and add only that which we have agreed upon in these discussions. For myself, I will only edit and help to explain that which you have written with your primary sources.

    I have written too much already—let’s both strive to edit ourselves for brevity. These discussions are getting long!

    PS – Please note that Jung Myung Seok is the Korean form of his name, and when presented in English would read: Myung Seok Jung. Point being: his last name is Jung, Seok being his first name. Let’s agree to refer to him using his last name in order to stave off more confusion.

    Uptional 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    You ignored most of what I tried to discuss with you. The point is you deleted the majority of the page after many people added to it, without first discussing it. You state that "anything that would pass by professional standards, such as in a university or for a major publication, I will not delete." yet you ignore that media articles contain much more "bias" than the wikipedia article. In fact you deleted a section claiming it was opinion and conjecture when it was translated from a news article.RB972 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    I edited the content based on wiki policy, which needs no discussion. If it was contrary to policy, it should never have been added. Consider this passage from the Reliable Sources policy page:

    "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page."

    I think that answers your question. Major media articles are professionally scrutinized, or at least attempt to be, so I have not removed them in order to be conciliatory to your point-of-view.

    Uptional 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Misleading addition
    In April of 2006, a press conference was held in which four unidentified and disguised women accused Jung of organised sex crimes against themselves and other women.[11] This resulted in media attention across news networks in China and Korea. Some of the articles have been translated and can be found in the external links section. In August of 2006, this spread to Japan, making headlines in several of Japan's major news sources. Several of these articles have been produced in English by the original publishers, linked below.

    The above quote infers that the pubicity in Japan stemmed from the 4 acusers in Korea, but nothing in the published articles suggests that, nor even mentions the 4 women.

    The news in Japan was related to further allegations of sexual assault by more than 100 Japanese female members and the activities of the cult in Japan in general, which has nothing to do with the Korean women's testimonies.

    There is no relation between the April news from Korea and the Japan news, other than that they concern the same man and cult.


    Retrieved from ""

    December 18, 2006, 04:00:00 PM
    Reply #3

    Offline Peter

    • Administrator

    • *****

    • 2489

      • View Profile
      • Personal Blog & Site
    Re: wikipedia article
    « Reply #3 on: December 18, 2006, 04:00:00 PM »
    A few of my responces to pj,

    Wiki discussion responces to JMS leader... I did these quickly:


    Responce to some of Uptional's comments
    Uptional wrote

    Fortunately, in many countries throughout the world the accused are afforded legal council and are deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You interpret his actions as an admission of guilt, but you have not been afforded all the information, so as Jesus said, ‘do not judge’. Let’s leave that to people who are professionals at it. Let’s both assume that the legal system will (hopefully) fairly judge the accusations made against Jung and be patient for that moment. Until then, let us afford him the human dignity and respect given to any other person who has had accusations (especially from an anonymous source) brought against him—an assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    While I can understand believing someone innocent until proven guilty, it is worth pointing out here that Jung is guilty of breaking bail in Hong Kong, and when that happened extradiction was granted in his absence. So you may feel he is innocent of rape, but he did break bail in Hong Kong and that is an act which in my opinion, is not that of an innocent man. Unless you think the one armed man raped those girls.

    Yes, I hope the legal system will judge him fairly too, if you truely want that to happen, then I hope you suggest to Jung that he give himself up to authorities so that we can see courts go to work. His repeated flights from justice do not help his reputation outside his cult. Why must we wait? And what are we waiting for? Do you expect these rape charges to disappear?

    I don't know whay you cling to these "anonymous source" statements, as though that somehow casts doubt on the charges the Korean Police have laid. The Korean prosecutors in charge of the case aren't "annonymous" and I'm sure they know the names of the victims.

    As you know, it is a traumatic event for a girl to be raped and then have news of that rape televised on national TV. They have shown the courage to go on national TV and testify to the crimes of Jung. I think it is disgusting you try to lessen their credibility by all this "annonymous" nonsense. If they were truely annonymous, the Police would not have pressed charges.

    Here is video footage of the April press conference, please watch the video of the woman and the reflect on these two comments made by senior American JMS members, one's yours I believe:

    JMS Victim Press Conference, Seoul 2006.

    "DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE OF DOGS" from Ralphs's blog

    "Dishonorable people make dishonorable allegations for dishonorable reasons" by Lee Ho-myong (from San Diego article)

    PJ, you talk about being ethical yet you and your fellows label such woman dishonorable and DOGS?

    Care to elaborate on what those "dishonarable intentions" are?

    What have they to gain. What do the hundreds of woman who have accused Jung in Korea, China, Japan and Taiwan, have to gain?

    Until then, let us afford him the human dignity and respect given to any other person who has had accusations (especially from an anonymous source) brought against him—an assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    And given the seriousness of the charges, how about you stop indoctrinating teenagers into beleiving Jung is the Messiah? How about you stop evengelising altogether until the chages are proved or disproved. Because if the accusations are true, and Jung really is a serial rapist, my God, think about what you have done with your life, are doing with your life. You are actively aiding a serial rapist. That is not something to be proud of Ho-myong.

    If you expect his critics to stop posting factual information lest he be innocent, are you prepared to stop evangelsing lest he be guilty? Do you have the moral courage to tell your flock to stop recruiting until the case is resolved? Rape is a serious crime, and you are actively recruiting teenagers into your cult. Serious question. Are you prepared to stop, as you would have us do?

    I'm guessing that your answer will be no, that you will continue to indoctrinate children, and continue to lie to them about Jung. Am I right?

    Some more
    Claims made by anonymous “former members” are not only self-published, but they also are not verifiable because they are not professionally scrutinized sources, that is, there is no discernable measure of veracity. This is a very important point RB972, because without it, do you not know see that someone could start a wiki biography about you simply by stringing together some false testimony from conjured-up friends, old employers, or childhood teachers, all of which would be anonymous?

    Yes but would the Korean Police press formal charges and issue Interpol alerts based on annonymous allegations posted on websites? I doubt it. Would rb flee the country and tell his followers his accusers are influenced by Satan? I doubt it.

    Would every major Japanese newspaper and network run with that story, digging up 100 of their own annonymous allegations? I doubt it. Do you think the woman in the news clips are all actors, or all liars?

    PJ, the charges against Jung are real, the allegations are real, the people making them are real, and I say with more than a touch of certainty, the crimes are real too.

    February 17, 2007, 01:24:40 PM
    Reply #4

    Offline WasNotWas

    • Lunch

    • *

    • 65

      • View Profile
    Re: wikipedia article
    « Reply #4 on: February 17, 2007, 01:24:40 PM »
    Whoa - Just checked into Wikipedia to see that there's been quite a lot going on behind the scenes so I thought I'd update this thread.

    Solidsnake also posted a riposte to some comments made by providence on Wikipedia here, and got a very silly response from PJ

    Basically the Wikipedia page is now locked. As I understand it, and RB can correct me if I'm wrong this is the story. Since two users - QCA and Uptional have continually been attempting to add uncertainty to the page and remove particularly damaging evidence from it RB put in a request under standard Wikipedia procedure for a senior editor to have a look at it and give a 'third opinion'. This is what he said:

    Third opinion (as requested by RB972)

    After some reading in the article's history, I would conclude the following: QCA has indeed persistently been trying to put a biased spin on matters which were already presented in a fairly neutral way. That is, as neutral as it gets when writing about a wanted fugitive, charged with multiple cases of rape. I'd also like to point out, that QCA's contributions are entirely limited to this article and its talk page and this sort of exclusiveness often indicates a certain level of obsessive dedication, found in fans and zealots. I don't know about my fellow Wikipedians, but my ability to assume good faith runs very thin very quickly, with such people. One a side note: I would suggest to get rid of the External media section, incorporating most of its content into the article's references and leaving a few more general sites in an External links section. Just my two cents regarding common practice. Oh, and the links to the Asahi articles have changed. - Cyrus XIII 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    Rather amusingly QCA didn't really understand what was going on and invented another Sock Puppet (ie fake user id - inteded to create the impression of an additional independent voice) called HJen, who posted a long and rambling justification of QCA's edits and requested that the article be unlocked so that editing could continue. It took less than 2 hours for Cyrus XIII to come back and point out what had happened - I guess they get this all the time on Wikipedia ::)

    This shows (as if we needed any further evidence) how desperate the leaders of English Language Providence are to remove any critical information and how readily they resort to underhand and deceptive practices. The various sock puppets have continually protested too much that none of them is who they are being accused of being, and frankly it doesn't matter too much who's who. One of them is most likely PJ, another will probably be Naomi Kim who runs the ProvidenceTrial website - 'by their fruits you shall know them', just like Jung.

    The irony is that for an organisation which claims hundreds of loyal followers the leaders are reduced to creating fake identities online, because they are too paranoid to let their rank and file members see the full extent of the allegations against their messiah. I'm willing to bet they, and Jung, regularly threaten the members with blood curdling nonsense about the corrupting influence of the satanic tracts online, so that the inquisitive aren't tempted to have a look themselves. There are still no links from the ProvidenceTrial website to the very criticisms it claims to be responding to, which is the quickest way in an internet disagreement to find the side with the most to hide.

    Anyway, since the Wiki page has been locked the providence members have been throwing a bit of a tantrum, and invented another sock puppet - SteelFeather (no doubt, if you looked hard enough this will be a reference to something in the 30 lessons). Guys - haven't you ever heard the expression: 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'.

    Anyway - I thought that the new character SteelFeather's intervention was very interesting. Despite the dubious username he/she is very anxious not to appear to be a member of Providence:

    This simply shows some deep anguish you have for this Jung guy and I cannot help but think your purpose is not based to reveal facts, but this page is becoming a tool to vent something else.

    That was about Pete's YouTube videos (let's hope one day someone explains humour to these guys) I would guess from the unhealthy obsession with copyright that this is PJ talking. Anyway, it's his rant about 'this Jung guy' praising Hitler that I want to just take a look at (Btw he calls him 'this Jung guy' every time - nice one PJ, very casual  ;D):

    If he praised Hitler then what is the reasoning behind it? Its like seeing the after math. We can see a parent scolding a child, or maybe spanking a child in a parking lot. We may look at it and say abuse. But if we got to follow the parent and child prior to the spanking, we could've seen that the child keeps running from the parent toward a busy road. There must be a reasoning.. People are so quick to report the effect and not explain the cause... If your going to point out all the effects and add your opinion, then its not a ground of neutrality anymore. And as I have stated seems to become a personal vendetta. I am sure you and I would like to be understood and not people telling about what you and I did without any reasons as to why so. So please get back on the road of information without personal opnion. SteelFeather 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    Quite apart from the dreadful grammar and the various mistakes (it looks like he wrote it in a hurry - was he foaming at the mouth I wonder?), this is exactly the despicable Providence rationale for the Holocaust rehashed:

    Jesus came, the Jews - who were not sufficiently spiritually developed (i.e. children) killed him (completely inaccurate both historically and biblically but what do you expect?).
    God inexplicably waited a couple of thousand years before punishing them.

    I don't really need to emphasise how deeply disgusting, crass and offensive this is, it speaks for itself.

    February 17, 2007, 09:27:42 PM
    Reply #5

    Offline Peter

    • Administrator

    • *****

    • 2489

      • View Profile
      • Personal Blog & Site
    Re: wikipedia article
    « Reply #5 on: February 17, 2007, 09:27:42 PM »
    I don't really need to emphasise how deeply disgusting, crass and offensive this is, it speaks for itself.

    He compared the Holocaust to a parent spanking a child.
    I was left speechless myself

    Here's another one:

    The evidence of people changing their lives for the better overwhlems the individuals that have been mistreated.

    Translation: He raped a few women, so what?

    April 10, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
    Reply #6

    Offline Peter

    • Administrator

    • *****

    • 2489

      • View Profile
      • Personal Blog & Site
    Re: wikipedia article
    « Reply #6 on: April 10, 2014, 08:07:09 AM »
    Jeong's Wikipedia page was recently merged with the Wikipedia page for his "religious" organizations. Here's the new link:

    One of my favorite American members, a Mr MrTownCar (not his real name, I imagine), was just last week banned from Wikipedia. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia, but I do keep an eye on the page and its talk page every now and then. It's been wonderful to see JMS's efforts to whitewash the article have, yet again, ended in failure. Here are the Mr. MrTownCar's parting remarks:

    Fortunately I answer to a Holy God. My dignity is not denigrated by the actions of anonymous people at wikipedia. I have made mistakes here but have tried to learn from them. My heartfelt desire was to make this article truthful and informative. However, the ignorant and uninformed powers that be decided that I can no longer contribute to this page and have blocked me indefinitely. I see no hope in the immediate future but pray that someday this article will be written with no hyperbole and clear reflection of the teachings of JMS. His love for the Trinity and saving lives is unparalleled on this Earth.

    I had a few interesting interactions with him on YouTube about a year ago. He said he was a doctor! :o

    He did reply later that he meant "Spiritual Death," whatever that means. And just yesterday I came across a reference to his serial raping friend issuing that exact same threat to girls he had just raped:
    The girls said they were threatened with “spiritual death” if they spoke of their experiences.

    MrTownCar, if you're missing having a platform to spread the "good news" about your rapist friend, you're welcome to sign up and post here.

    And regarding that phallic symbol you don't think exists: Well, it's possible it has since been removed. I haven't been back since 2006, but it does appear now and then in photos and propaganda videos your cult produces. It certainly existed when I was last there. The first photo is mine; the second came from one of your cult's own sites:

    Trust me, when you're dealing with a serial rapist who claims to be Jesus, there's no need to make anything up. I certainly couldn't make up stuff this crazy.

    April 12, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
    Reply #7

    Offline Peter

    • Administrator

    • *****

    • 2489

      • View Profile
      • Personal Blog & Site
    Re: wikipedia article
    « Reply #7 on: April 12, 2014, 10:22:35 PM »
    Here are some of the discussions that led to the banning of MrTownCar (JMS member) and one other JMS member who went by the handle Macauthor:

    disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page

    Harizotoh9 reverted hours of work on the Jung myung seok page including edits by multiple contributors and lumped everything into one category. I will not participate in edit warring but would like an admin to offer a warning and a block to this behavior as it violates wiki policy. Furthermore on Richwales talk page the user acknowledges their lack of familiarity with wiki procedures. I posted on the users page that they should ask for help and not perform edit warring. I just noticed that this is not the first time for this user to participate in this behavior and has been warned by Rutebega in Feb 2013. I suppose a more significant block may be in order. Pease help. MrTownCar (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator observation) MrTownCar, judging from this, it seems like you're forum shopping because you're upset that the article doesn't look the way you want it to (no one owns articles on Wikipedia). Regardless of whether Harizotoh9 had been warned, you neglected to mention that you have been warned yourself about that article; and it definitely doesn't help that you insulted him afterwards. (You might want to read WP:POT.) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for the brilliant observation erpert. The difference is I learned to work within the rules of the system even if I don't like the system or what is posted in the article but I have made the effort. For some one to make a broad sweeping edit reversion reverting multiple contributors with opposing persectives and then claim ignorance about the process is quite ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. cheers.MrTownCar (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

    You've learned to work with the rules of the system? I don't know; this section makes me think differently. And after reading all the bickering on the article's talk page, it appears that the information that Hari removed was all based on unreliable sources. Basically, if you were tendentiously editing and another user reverted your edits in good faith, you can't then come to a noticeboard and expect people to want to overturn the reversion, much less block that user. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

    Regardless of all the rest, this is a BLP with some fairly serious stuff. In such a case, it's not unresonable to removal material which seems to be questionably sourced while discussion takes place. In any event you're apparently referring to a single edit (plus a merger request). Harizotoh9 hasn't edited the article since October before that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    This discussion has already been going on for over a year. The usual pattern is that a consensus is reached, and several months later the two SPAs start editing again simultaneously. Shii (tock) 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

    Even more reason why it's unlikely Harizotoh9 is going to be sanctioned in any way. (To be clear, I wasn't suggesting Harizotoh9 was necessarily editing without having discussed first but rather even without having to look carefully it's hard to see how there's anything on Harizotoh9's part warranting administrative attention since the OP is basically complaining about a single edit which was per the edit summary the removal of questionably source content and it was on a BLP.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

    Some background. On Dec 16th 2012 I came across the article. I had never heard of Providence or its leader before then. To my horror, I saw that a lot of the article uses primary sources from the Providence religion directly. Imagine an article on L Ron Hubbard that relied heavily on Scientology's official sources. I started to remove them and to restructure the article so it looked more like a standard wikipedia biography article. On the 29th, Macauthor reverted those edits. That's the pattern that has been going on forever. Eventually I thought that a consensus was reached about the unreliability of the Providence sources. Finally on Oct 28th of this year, I removed the final providence source from the article. With those gone, the work to refining and improving the article could begin. I stopped paying attention to the article. Then again, on Dec. 13th, I looked at the article again and was shocked to see those very same sources back in the article. So I reverted the article to a previous time.
    Read more about the edit warring here:
    Administrators noticeboard: Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok
    Sometimes you have to say that a spade is a spade. These are two single purpose accounts. They have only edited articles related to Providence. They continually re-insert primary sources, try to remove sources critical of Jung Myung Seok, and edit war. I made the post on RichWales' talk page out of frustration. I wasn't sure which noticeboard to contact. This is an ongoing issue, and no one seems to be doing anything about it. The article was semi-protected, and protected, but these are inadequate actions.

    At the very, very least more people need to have the articles on their watch list. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    I have reverted the massive repeat POV additions in the article. I second the observation made by Shii here above, and find this filing is a BOOMERANG. A suggestion of topic banning the two SPAs would have my support. Sam Sailor Sing 08:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    billiant idea ban the two people who are part of Providence and know the most about Providence from contributing to the article.MrTownCar (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)