Talk:Jung Myung-seok/Archive 2

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,

Thanks.

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 [b]translated from the article from yahoo news[/b]? 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 web.archive.org 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." . 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. 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)

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability: 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)

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.

CaptPorridge

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSuMe6MDH8U

"DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE OF DOGS" from Ralphs's blog http://www.xanga.com/r_eagle

"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?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

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.

CaprPorridge —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Comment
I'm fairly convinced now that you are indeed PJ Uptional. So that others may understand, this man is one of the highest leaders of Providence church in America, the head translator, or "voice" as they sometimes say, of Jung Myung Seok. The fact that this is true of you and that you deleted the majority of the article with the desire to rewrite it yourself doesn't look good. Your actions which I have mentioned in this page which you didn't reply to suggest bias as a result of your conflict of interest. The fact is that when the article gives a significantly less negative view of a person than what is routinely shown by major media (in Asia) I don't see how the argument that the article is full of opinion and bias as you suggest is so obvious to delete almost the entirety of it and neither does any of the other editors that I've talked to.

Making claims about all other editors as you did on the request for comments page and your implication on the wikiquote talk page is pretty impressive considering that the "overtly malicious" webpage you seem to have such a problem about and its contributors are in fact the site and people that media reporters go to for information, as has been seen many times with the brother site in Korean even by the major news agencies in Korea. I wish to bring attention to the fact that the author Uptional who desires to rewrite the entire article by himself, besides almost definitely being basically the "PR guy" for English speaking Providence, clearly sees the majority of news stories about his group by national news agencies even more bias than the wikipedia article which brings up questions of his interpretation s if he's even seeing that as bias. I make this conclusion due to the fact that media give an image of Jung which leaves a more negative impression than the wikipedia article did, and the fact that the editor Uptional deleted the Hong Kong section which was mostly translated from a HK Yahoo news article claiming it was conjecture and opinion.

I will wait to see if a third party comes, otherwise I may try to find some other way to resolve the conflict if you continue to insist that you must be the only editor of the page despite your obvious conflict of interest problems. RB972 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how this goes. Please understand PJ that the point of the talk page is to discuss edits instead of having an edit war on the actual page. I've tried to initiate discussion on several of your edits but you did not enter into discussion.

I also suggest to you that you must make it clear on the talk page your motivations for making each edit so that we may understand each other. Now, by that I mean the things we tell to our friends as to why we are making the modifications, not necessarily the ones we desire to be seen as to be making the modifications. I ask you, for example, why did you delete (JMS) after Jesus Morning Star in the listing of names but no other? That seems pretty hard to do accidentally. Is it because you are embarrassed the initials are the same as Jung's? Or perhaps because even someone who doesn't know Korean can pick up "JMS" in Korean documentaries and news reports as they use the English letters? Or maybe it's because you took Ralph's advise when publishing your books to not use Jung's full name so that people may not go on the Internet and see all the "crap" that's out there (like the wikipedia page before you deleted most of it) and used JMS as the author on the Parables Resource Book you published instead of his full name (though you did put your full name as the translator) and don't want potential recruits to find the wikipedia article? You see, whether or not your words show your real motivations your actions do. So I again ask you to humbly consider the question of whether your conflict of interest is warping your interpretation. RB972 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to make it clear to anyone reading this not familiar with JMS why I am bringing up his actions. I'm not trying to attack PJ and I don't believe his edits should be automatically disregarded due to his relation to Jung. But I've had enough experience to know that his words don't match up with his actions and I've seen too many times people be deceived because he speaks well. I know from past experience that what a member says publicly often contradicts what they say privately. How can we ever reach an agreement if one party refuses to show their real motivations? So I point out his actions. I however believe due to his conflict of interest, which his actions show he is not seeing past, he should be humble enough not to make major edits. He should let non-members edit for him. Unfortunately what he believes is bias actually applies to everyone who knows much about JMS and themselves are not a member, whether he realises this is the case or not.

Here is an example of his conflict of interest from his testimony that JMS knew his name to other members: "If God says, 'You, go and marry with Ho myung over there,' then that's the Will.' but do whatever you want." and he walked away. She was ashamed.

But I was so happy. I was standing there minding my own business sweeping the floor and suddenly, there it was. Confirmation. R did know my name! He actually called me by name!!!! I was amazed. I was happy. I was on cloud nine. http://www.jungmyungseok.com/falsemessiah.proboards23.com/index0fc6.html?board=personalexp&action=display&thread=1149671444 It is clear the conflict of interest is no little one and I would recommend to PJ he is more cautious about his edits. RB972 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the media links, I added which ones were translated or hosted by jungmyungseok.com. Since they are external links and not references I don't see why the argument they are to a forum is relevant, and now the descriptions of the links are more accurate if that is a concern to anyone. I linked to the forum version instead of the newspaper site's version because the newspaper website's version is full of typos. I used this also in a reference, as I didn't want the quote to be full of typos. I don't believe the argument that "anyone could have wrote it" applies since it was posted by the administrator of the forum, which is Peter Daley, the author of the article. Furthermore the post contained a picture of the article and a link to the original and it can be seen that the forum post is the fully accurate version while the newspaper site one is not. RB972 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from jungmyungseok.com
On PJ's blog we have confirmation that the posts on www.jungmyungseok.com attributed to cult members, are real quotes:

http://www.whoisjungmyungseok.blogspot.com/

So I can't see how anyone can claim those quotes aren't legit. CaptPorridge 05:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)CaptPorridge / Peter Daley

User:CaptPorridge and User:RB972, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

CaptPorridge and RB972:

Perhaps I disappoint you, but no I am not PJ. However, I find it distressing that you found it necessary to publish someone's name here. Please refer to the NPA policy above and clean up your act.

I made some edits to the article today, mostly reverting what I thought were better representations of verifiable information. The citations stand, of course. Please may I remind us to not lose sight of our goal, which is to present an ariticle on the biography of this man. Wikipedia is not vehicle for me to promote the man, nor for you to defame him. Let us publish only that which is verifiable, and not located on private non-scrutinized websites. Additionally I removed one section because it only served to repeat the same controversial information found above. Repeating something for the sole reason that we can does not lend to a NPOV article. Imagine if I were to write a section that detailed all the wonderful things about Jung already contained elsewhere, it wouldn't fly would it?

Please review my earlier comments regarding verifiability and citations if you question my motives. Also, do review the wikipedia policy on verifiability in order to answer your questions regarding what is a good source and, especially, HOW to cite it.

Good day,

Uptional 06:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is going to go around in circles until you discuss your edits here and recognise that you are one author with a conflict of interest constantly deleting and rewriting the works of several editor with no conflict of interest.

-Each church that follows the teaching of Jung has it’s own name. While it's true there are specific names of each church, there's many names given to the general church umbrella name itself which are listed. This name is said to be different in different countries, even though each one claims to be a church with churches in many other countries. Also, sometimes that name has changed, especially in Korea where it changed several times.

-You didn't list all the churches I believe it is necessary to have all the names the church introduce themselves as, or have. Just because the large list of names make Jung look bad isn't a valid reason to list only some. It is necessary for completeness. It is likely a person will only know one name, so each and everyone one must be mentioned so they are aware the article is talking about the religion they know.

-Your 30 lessons reads like an advertisement What I wrote was a simple description in no more words than necessary. I don't see why it is necessary to add justifications to his teaches.

-"little m" messiah There is no little m in the 30 lessons, Jung rarely if ever makes a distinction between Lord of Second Coming "Messiah" and Jesus "Messiah"

-The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed. What? What facts are disputed? Except for your "little m" I don't see any disputed facts. You didn't dispute any facts so why add it?

If you really want to make it a factual article why don't you go and make a webpage and publish the real facts? Then we can cite it here and improve the wikipedia article. You and me both know that the things told to a newcomer to Providence and a long-running member are very different. So why don't you go publish those secrets to we can cite them on the wiki page so we can have an accurate description if your motives are pure as you say.

RB972 11:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt my behaviour was threatening Uptional. That was not my intention. But the point is you cannot set yourself up as the sole editor deeming all other editors incapable of reporting accurately, especially considering your conflict of interest in that you consider God expresses Himself through this man. The point of the discussion page is to resolve conflicts. That you insist of enforcing the page into your desired idea without discussion is unappreciated.

I removed the factual accuracy section because the individual facts are not disputed, as I understand it you dispute the presentation of those facts.

RB972 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources?
After finishing elementary school he spent years living a secluded life of prayer in the mountain surrounding his hometown.

What is the source for that? It's interesting you complain of unverified sources, but post something like that, which I can only describe as cult propaganda and I am sure false. If you would add "His followers believe that he.." I think that would be an improvement.

Regarding PJ's name, his user ID at youtube is his real name, so I don't see a problem with writing his name here, since he put it on the web himself and contacted me via that account. He also was interviewed in the UC San Diego article referenced on the main page in which he told the reporter his surname. He also stated his name on his own blog which he provided a link to on the main page. His name was also divulged by himself on the shopping site where is books are for sale. So how you find the use of his name here as in any way "distrubing" is a mystery to me. Yes, I can see how someone aiding a wanted fugitive would not want his name posted on the Internet, but I would remind you that he posted his name himself.

Regarding the speeches: What about Jung's speeches that I have on my site and video files of? The one's in which he praises Hitler and threatens death to those who leave the cult. If we are going to put a "fair" picture of Jung, then let's show the material he presents to members. What could be fairer than that?

Since you are a follower, can we agree that those speeches are real?

I am perfectly willing to share privately with the higher powers here video excerpts of Jung's speeches translated by PJ and I'd sign a Stat Dec, stating that the material is real.

Regarding your section about the 30 Principles:

Just as a new revelation is preached by men of God in each time period, Jung teaches that upon Jesus’ spiritual return new revelations will be given that are unlike teaching found in the New Testament and Old Testament.[9]

The phrase "upon Jesus' spiritual return" is misleading, Jung claims to be the one who brings these new "revelations" According to Jung, he himself is this "Jesus spiritual return" personified.

The above quote infers that "Jesus's spirtual return" will come in a being other than Jung, and that this "return" is yet to happen. Misleading and false.

Peter / CaptPorridge

The prayer mountain bit has been there since the creation of the article, though Uptional rewrote it. Jung does say it, and although there is motive for him to lie, since he uses it to prove he "set the condition" for God to use Him as His body, similar according to Jung that Jesus "set the condition" by fasting for 40 days, I'm not so sure it's false. He must have been doing something then, since he says he didn't go to school or get a job, so talking to "spirits" in the mountains doesn't sound unreasonable. I'm happy to just to leave it.

This statement however: It is invariably described as a denomination of Christianity by adherents.

Is no more true as Christians invariably describe themselves as a denomination of Judaism. Well, there is a difference, because Christians don't initially describe themselves as Christians and change the story later.

I have offered you peace offerings all along the way by being meek to revert your edits, even though you have basically rewritten the entire article which was contributed to by several editors over a period of time before you came along. You have been unfriendly in your behaviour. Making the claims you did with your first ever edits with the username on request for comment -- which was only about a week ago, by the way -- was not a good start. I looked over the history and I found at least 2 users have been banned for vandalism specifically targeting this page, so that we have used the word "vandalism" is not a fault. I've also tried to remind you that stating a page is "opinion" when it presents a weaker case than national news is a bold claim that should be discussed as it means the national news in Korea and Japan etc are also opinion. That may be true, or it may be true you have too much conflict of interest. I suggest the humble approach is to discuss first.

Here's what I ask of you: You LISTEN to our reason, you are HONEST, you are OPEN, and you DISCUSS your edits so we can reach a resolution on the talk page and not have an edit war.

When, however, you try to sneak "under the radar" so to speak, by taking advantage of the lack of public official publications by Providence church to insert lies, like this: "It is invariably described as a denomination of Christianity by adherents." when as far as Jung is concerned Christianity is the "old history" and Christians are "spiritual toddlers" -- that doesn't speak well of your motives as far as I am concerned. If you want to produce an accurate article, why don't you state the facts as they are, REGARDLESS of if this will scare of potential recruits or not.

RB972 13:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Preach on Brothers!!!!!!!!! [--unsigned]

I'm not going to wait forever until you discuss. I waited for about 5 days for you, Uptional, to respond to the problems. Since you haven't, I went and fixed them myself.

Let me write something so it's clear to someone reading this who doesn't know about JMS to understand what is going on. Jung has quite a bit of media coverage in his birthplace of Korea. Now, this coverage states certain things that cause Koreans to hate him and consider his organisation a terrorist organisation and sex cult. Assuming that the media coverage isn't biased, then this wikipage is not complete unless it can be seen why people are coming to such a conclusion. That's not to report the conclusion as fact, but to report the facts that the media are doing that cause people to come to the conclusion. To accuse us of using the wikipage as "overtly malicious propaganda" and a "vehicle for defamation" for our desire to include those particular facts makes no sense UNLESS the mainstream national media in Korea/Japan/Taiwan is biased and people are falling for the bias. Unlikely as this may be, especially considering your members have already sued one of these agencies (SBS) and failed, it might be possible. So if you believe the media coverage is bias then clear that up first, and let's discuss that. But otherwise accusing us of things when we only desire to present a representation of what is reported in mainstream media is strange if you motives are pure as you claim.

I doubt you are not well aware that the description presented to a potential member and the description presented to a full member are very different. So I can understand that you may want for the article to be consistent with the initial description of a Christian denomination that glorifies and follows Jesus. But I'm sorry, that's not what wikipedia is for, and it violates wiki principles to attempt this deception. If the page will be accurate, then it must show what members really believe, not what is told to non-members. Please be more honest and open about these things. We will never resolve the conflict through discussion unless you do.

RB972 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)