Talk:Lee Man-hee

Notability
I did a brief search for reliable sources of information on the subject and cannot find any. The entire contents of the article seems to be based on the web site of the subject. If the author could explain more clearly why this subject is notable, that would be quite helpful; he seems to simply be a rather obscure lecturer and author on Biblical topics. --Amsci (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that this article is unsuitable for the policy of Wikipedia, pls tell us why in detail. We have to improve the article based on the objective position. Thanks. --Lightinme (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lee Man-hee is a rising cult leader in Korea, and having English resources is very useful for people who are being lured into his cult and many front organisations. It's clear that cult members are watching the page and heavily editing any materials that show up on here. Junganghansik (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Junganghansik and Lightinme, y'all both need to review WP:Notability (people) and WP:Reliable sources. So far as Lightinme's request "If you think that this article is unsuitable for the policy of Wikipedia, pls tell us why in detail," the answer is that the article does not provide proof of notability. Not literal "notability" as in "I think he's important", but meeting the rules of WP:N: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]. Now, it may very well be that LMH meets notability measures through some articles that Amsci couldn't find (for language reasons or whatnot), but the burden of proof is on the includer, not the deleter.


 * If nobody can provide mutliple, secondary, independent sources attesting that uninvolved legitimate information sources have written on LMH (not just his own church) then the article will have to be deleted until such time as such sources are provided. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an extensive amount of reporting on Lee Man-hee in the Korean-language Internet, yes. However, it paints a decidedly different picture of him than shown here; it seems that his followers have been staking out this page and making sure it portrays him positively. I'd like to update the information, but I also don't want to compete with them to be heard on this page. Junganghansik (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is up to you, you're certainly under no obligation to get involved. But if you do have content meeting WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and it gets deleted by pro-subject partisans, we other editors can help you by filing WP:POV Noticeboard complaints, and if necessary get the article locked to prevent tampering if one faction of opinion is not editing fairly, or censoring the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I started slow, adding in the fact that he is the honorary chairman of Mannam. I previously added that, but didn't include a source (because his other volunteer works didn't contain a source), and it was deleted promptly. I hope this one sticks around. Junganghansik (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I added two sentences, each with three sources ranging from Washington Post to Korea Herald to Christian Broadcasting News, and both received hostile deletions. One was that Lee is the honorary chairman of Mannam Volunteer Association--a well-known fact--and the other was that he believes he's spoken directly to Jesus, which is backed up by SCJ beliefs. Please intervene. Junganghansik (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a little harder to intervene since your sources thus far are not great (and you used the Washington Times, not the Post). You had at least one item linked to YouTube, which is not easy to defend. Also "yorkblog" does not sound authoritative either. I'm completely sympathetic to the issue that religious articles are contentious, particularly those for "new religious movements", but that means we need to maintain a really high bar for evidence. I've also removed some pro-Lee materials taken from SCJ sources, so I'm applying these high evidence standards to both sides of opinion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and folks, when you add footnotes, add them immediately after the stated fact, not at the end of the section/paragraph. So if Footnote A says Ted Smith is an actor, and Footnote B says he's a writer, you type "Smith is an actor[Footnote A] and writer[Footnote B]." Not "...actor and writer[A][B]." We want to be able to specifically see what facts are supported by what footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done, and thanks for fixing my own citation errors. The YouTube videos, while hosted on YouTube, are recordings of broadcasts by TV news channels that would otherwise be unavailable to the non-Korean Internet, so I'm a bit disappointed they can't be used. Junganghansik (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a complete ban on YouTube, but a lot of folks tend to remove them on sight unless they're explicitly explained. See YOUTUBE for the basic consensus. I'm not an expert or admin, but I would imagine YouTube clips might be okay if the clip is posted by the owner of the video (that is, an account run by the news network or whatever) and the link is clearly labeled as "XYZ broadcast of Y date" or similar, and maybe put in a hidden message noting that it's on the copyright holder's account and not pirated. YouTube is just tough because so much stuff there isn't there legally. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality: Time for a source roundup!
A complaint about this article has been filed at the NPOV noticeboard. I think at least some of it is founded. While we are allowed to use the subject's own website for information about himself per WP:ABOUTSELF, the material must not be "unduly self-serving." "Served in the special forces," for example, is a very flattering and impressive fact, and it should be backed up with an additional source. There must also be "no reasonable doubt as to [the information's] authenticity," and, most importantly, "the article must not be primarily based on such sources." The answer is simple: Time to review existing sources and, if necessary, find more. Fixing up these partial refs into full would make it easier to see which ones are RS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed two sources per WP:DEEPLINK, meaning I removed them because 1) the link led to a main page rather than to the actual sub-page used as a source and 2) there wasn't enough other information (such as the source's date or actual title) to find the actual source page. This removal does not mean that you can't re-insert the source.  Just use a more specific link and include the article's title, author, date, accessdate, etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just did some general cleanup by deleting content which was inappropriately copied or unsourced. I also came here in response to the NPOV noticeboard post.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the cult allegations section is neutral enough? Firstly "a number of sources" implies that there are many however only two references are given and they are not the most reliable, secondly the wording "are cults" is not neutral. I think the sentence would be more neutral written as "Some sources have accused Mr Lee's organisations of being cults".
 * Part of the issue is that an objective definition of the word "cult" is hard to come by. Webster goes with "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous," and the O.E.D. goes with "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." Either way, the term essentially boils down to "many people think this group is kooky." Hence the term is almost inherently reliant on weasel-words, and probably should be avoided on wikipedia.108.45.17.30 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shinchonji meets any definition of destructive cult you can find online. Junganghansik (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually think the whole section should be removed though since it seems to be breaking Wiki policy regarding WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The example given states "multiple major newspapers". I do not believe that the two references given are major, or particularly reliable sources. More importantly the two sources given are not actually accusing Mr Lee's organisations to be cults, they merely state that the organisation is an alleged cult, but there is no source which actually supports the cult allegation. Also please note the following piece of Wiki policy "in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable" since the allegation of Mr Lee's organisations being cult organisations is defamatory, repeating the claim could be actionable. Please feel free to comment, or just remove the section if you are in agreement. Chemclean (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked out those sources during my first round. Korea Observer and The National UAE look like respectable mainstream newspapers to me, but you could ask about them at the Reliable sources noticeboard.  Be sure to say that this article is a WP:BLP, biography of a living person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank's for your response, they looked reasonably respectable to me too but I was unsure about how mainstream/major they were. I think the bigger question I have is: are those two articles actually making the claim that he is a cult leader (or that the organisations are cults)? From my reading of the articles they state he is an alleged cult leader, but is this the same as them making the actual allegation? They are saying he is alleged to be a leader of a cult, then surely that means there should be an original source that actually makes the claim he is a cult leader (i.e. making the claim, as opposed to stating that someone else has alleged he is a cult leader)?
 * I hope you can understand my question? Because it's easy for a source to write that someone is alleged to be something (they are not actually putting themselves on the line to be accountable for the claim) but it is a different thing to actually make the claim initially. And my point is shouldn't the references be the original claim, maybe there is no difference as far as the required references are concerned? But if it were me who was being accused of being a cult leader I would want to know who had actually made the initial claim if you know what I mean. Chemclean (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. You do know that you're allowed to change the way the information is phrased, right?  Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I know of course that I can edit the phrasing, but I thought it was better to try and engage in a balanced discussion as opposed to starting an edit war. Having read those articles again and doing a bit more research I am not sure the The National UAE can be considered a reliable source since it's main source for the article is quoted as saying: “They are just PR stunts to be seen alongside world leaders, with no actual peace agreements signed.” However there are many mainstream sources on line which are opposed to this statement,   which in my view renders the article unreliable.
 * Again though my point is, that as you say these references make the statement that Lee has been accused of leading a cult. The statement in this section currently reads "A number of sources suggest Mr Lee's organisations are cults" the following references should therefore be those sources that are suggesting the organisations are cults, but the current references are not suggesting the organisations are cults directly just repeating a claim (although without actually referencing who is calling the organisations cults). It seems like they are being very careful not to be in a position of being accused of defamation, which is something I think we need to be very careful of too, therefore I suggest that the section be removed until appropriate sources can be found.
 * Furthermore the situation is I think made more difficult bearing in mind that the according to the wiki page for Cult "The word "cult" has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices, which lacks a clear or consistent definition.[6][7]" So I believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to avoid using the term. Chemclean (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The most reputable article that cites the cult allegations of Shinchonji, Lee Man-hee's church, is in Yonhap News by Curtis File . Yonhap is Korea's largest news agency. The article explains how SCJ lured foreign residents of Korea to its events under the false front "Mannam." The writer attended the September 16, 2012 mass games event which was billed to foreigners as a peace festival, but was actually a ceremony for the church commemorating Lee's birthday. Junganghansik (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Korea Times, one of the main English-language daily newspapers of Korea, also reported on it in 2014 . Between this and Yonhap, this is as mainstream as Korean English news gets. Both articles were cut from the Shinchonji Wiki page. Junganghansik (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

reliable sources please
the majority of the content of this article is sourced from blogs, sourced from dead links, or self published. find some reliable third party sources please. to be honest, I think without all the poorly sourced content there will not be enough left to form an article, but let's see. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned the article. To be honest, it was based on a lot of self published crap, it didn't deserve to be on wikipedia and I am having trouble having good faith about the editors who made/contributed towards this article. They obviously have some form of connection to this (alleged) cult. But hey, it's much shorter now, I mean who cares about the personal history of some weird cult leader who is struggling for notability? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

-- I have tried to edit and correct the information according to the trust in the media and news having public confidence. Spacecowboy420 This man also left his/her side sources. Is it okay regarding Wiki's rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Cult allegations
I have included details of the allegations that Lee Man-hee's organization is a cult, and provided a reliable source. If you don't think this should be here, please address your concerns on this talk page, rather than making single purpose accounts in an attempt to whitewash this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that this article is protected, could whoever really really really doesn't like the mention of cults on this article join some discussion about it? Constant sock puppets edits/reverts are not going to whitewash this article. Discussion might result in some form of compromise. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that now the sock accounts/IPs have been blocked, and the lack of response here, that the only objectors to my edits in regards to cult allegations, were made by a single purpose editor with a COI issue and total disregard of wikipedia policy. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't this article mention Shinchonji at all? Even if you want to keep cult allegations out, Lee is the leader of SCJ whether or not you consider it a cult. Junganghansik (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no point talking to the accounts who remove the cult allegations from this article. They don't respond.

They just remove things, get banned and make new accounts. Some form of article protection would help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ya. You have power. OMG. Who can believe Wikipedia? Only one way information like you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

-- Please provide readers more Neutrality sources and references. How and who can judge the "cult"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't judge a cult. SPI can however judge a sock account. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot understand "Wikipedia rules". What's matter? Spacecowboy420, she or he has a so much powerful authority like a GOD. she/He has also mentioned cult. Never allowed another side comments. Please read and watching other side articles and news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you can't understand Wikipedia rules. Let's make it fucking simple. You put relevant content in an article, that is from a reliable source. If there are different opinions, we try to balance the two opinions, with reliable sources. I can't say that anything is a cult, all I can do is find a reliable source that says it's a cult. If this is not simple enough, then I give up. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OMG. Please use controversial issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see these two news articles:

'Quo Vadis' challenges the mission of S. Korean churches http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-quo-vadis-south-korean-movie-20141203-story.html

Film: “Quo Vadis” asks where South Korean churches are going http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_entertainment/668412.html

Please don't say here harsh words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 10:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to see or confirm more reliable sources, I am able to provide you or here as mush as you want. If I submit more than 50 English version's articles, will you give up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Those articles are about a movie. They don't mention Lee Man Hee or his organization. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you have no fucking idea about how wikipedia works and what it is trying to do. This isn't the place to promote your church or beliefs. You don't put 50 lines of crap about a crappy cult/church that doesn't matter, or it's crappy cult leader. You put neutral, notable, reliable content, from neutral, mainstream sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So do you think your sources is neutral? You don't listen others. If you sincerely want to follow Wiki's rules, please make a more neutral way. Not only saying 'cult'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"If the media of a nation is upright, its nation and citizens will also be upright. No one should plant lies in peoples’ hearts nor should any lies be allowed to remain undisclosed. A public broadcast must not convey lies, and any false broadcasts should be shut down. Any false information that is broadcast via TV or radio must be corrected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facttrue (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I shall just wait for you to get blocked, in the same way that your previous accounts were blocked, and then I will revert all your edits on this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am trying to make a "neutral", but not you.

Controversial issues He is leader of Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony an organisation that has been accused of being a cult [16][17][18][19][20][21]. Because of very specialized Korean biblical cultures, along with some of the movement's other theological views, and his novel peaceful works, this led to a consensus among conservative evangelical Korean presbyterianism to regard it as a cult (Please see these articles how corrupt korean presbyterianism [22][23]).

whatever. indef blocked yet? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OMG. Are you Wiki administrator? Spacecowboy420 is keeping damage and disruption of this articles. Using harsh words and looks so danger. Facttrue (talk).


 * Until now, within this week, he has also some impact news for peace works.

1. HWPL Peace Law; groundbreaking tool to attain world peace; http://en.mehrnews.com/news/115256/HWPL-Peace-Law-groundbreaking-tool-to-attain-world-peace

2. Powerful and Ground-Breaking Tool to Attain Humanity’s Goa; http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1603/S00034/powerful-and-ground-breaking-tool-to-attain-humanitys-goal.htm

3. Apelo à paz na Coreia do Sul; http://www.voaportugues.com/content/paz-apelo-coreia-do-sul--hwpl/3238770.html

4. HWPL: The Declaration of Peace to Embrace The New Era and New Life Full of Peace; http://mirajnews.com/76713-2/76713/

5. HWPL Held Seminar On World Peace & Terrorism On March 14th | South Korea | TV5 ; http://slidehot.net/2016/03/16/hwpl-held-seminar-on-world-peace-terrorism-on-march-14th-south-korea-tv5-news/

6. Zimbabwe: Calls for Global Peace Get Louder; http://allafrica.com/stories/201603150702.html

7. Youth Groups Host Peace Walk In Kano; http://leadership.ng/news/508786/youth-groups-host-peace-walk-kano

8. List of KOrean news; https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dnXWUflpUhx3UwMmWFq3asRr7r3lM&q=%22hwpl%22&lr=English&hl=ko&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi54rj-m8XLAhXBMqYKHfUvAQYQqgIIIDAB Facttrue (talk).


 * You might want to take a look at WP:RELIABLE and in particular WP:NEWSORG - the above sources don't seem to have a reputation worth talking about. It's not that they are lying, it's more to do with notability. Just because some random news site published something does not make it worthy of being wikipedia content. If something is important enough to become wikipedia content, then it will be published by a major news site, with a good reputation. When I do a good search for HWPL the first two results are HWPL's own websites, the third result is this wikipedia article, and the fourth result in something saying that HWPL are a cult. Let me just repeat that. The first source that is not wikipedia or HWPL calls it a fucking cult! That shows you what HWPL are notable for.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So, your sources also don't seem to make Wiki worthy. How could you are sure or confident of your sources or information?

Are you sure that google first page? it is telling you everything is correct information. Don't lie man.Facttrue (talk).

This is google first page when you enter "HWPL" Facttrue (talk). https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=hwpl&oq=hwpl&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l5.3759j0j7 — Preceding Facttrue (talk).

Please see these links for "HWPL" news using google news searching (past year). https://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=633&tbs=qdr%3Ay&tbm=nws&q=%22hwpl%22&oq=%22hwpl%22&gs_l=serp.3...0.0.0.1179.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.2DVXTTARdFA Facttrue (talk).

thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries bro. May peace be with you. I wish we can make this article more neutrality of the style. Facttrue (talk).

"The Works" of Lee Man-hee
I think nearly all of this section needs to be deleted. Is there any RS that actually supports this? Why are treaty signings and summits being attributed to one person? Was it his work? Or the front organisation?
 * I think the content in the lede about the front organisation should come down into this section. It is WP:Undue in the lede. Alokibees (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Internationally his diplomacy work is under the banner of HWPL, but domestically, internally, and in Korean it is aimed at his SCJ followers as a work of the church. Junganghansik (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversial Issues Section Questionable
First of all, I have been watching this page and it seems like Mr. Man Lee has been getting a lot biased edits. This has been especially present in the negative aspects.

First of all the controversial issues section talks about groups more than Man Lee's involvement within those organizations. I don't see how this Shinchonji, Mannam, and other organizations directly reflect who Mr. Man Lee is.

I also did some research on some of the organizations that "MANY" are claiming to be negative. I have been able to find some evidence that these edits are very biased on the negative aspects.

Here are my explanations.

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. (FROM WIKIPEDIA) --> There are more negative aspects about Mr. Man Lee than the positive, but most of all none of the things written about Mr. Man Lee are actually explaining what he did within those organizations or what he has done personally to explain who he is.

Opposing views in comparison to the sources stated and edits made 1. "Controversial religious group holds int'l peace event in Seoul". koreatimes.co.kr. 18 September 2014. The article claims that the icd leader did not attend, however the leader did speak. This shows the unreliability of the source.

2A. On this occasion, they also invited many international guests who all believed they were attending a secular "World Peace Summit". As the two events took place simultaneously and in the same venue, it led to significant confusion and embarrassment for international guests who had been misled. •	http://onevoicemovement.org/news/view/three-days-in-seoul-summit-unites-leaders-for-world-peace •	I was completely overwhelmed. I have never experienced anything close to this and I could see the same expression in the eyes of the people walking beside me into the Olympic stadium in Seoul…Thousands of voices were chanting at once: “WE WANT PEACE, WE NEED PEACE.” I thought at that very moment that we were one step closer to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. >>Watch Wasim's WARP Summit Speech! •	My colleague Mohammad Asideh and I had the privilege to not only represent OneVoice, but Palestine as well, at the World Alliance of Religions’ Peace Summit (WARP) in Seoul, South Korea from September 17 – 19. •	Earlier that day, we were informed that the opening ceremony will take place inside a stadium, but I could never imagine this huge number of people standing and cheering for us, representatives of the world’s youth organizations. Thousands of voices were chanting at once: “WE WANT PEACE, WE NEED PEACE.” I thought at that very moment that we were one step closer to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

2B. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1272161: Shows otherwise

The Summit featured VVIP’s and high-profile and high-quality speakers and was manned by wonderful and highly-organized staff, coupled with fabulous food and entertainment. The youth and women were given importance and were strongly encouraged to be heard and participate in the summit which to me is very laudable, as I, being a staunch advocate of youth and women empowerment.” In the summit, Princess Maria met Dr. HP Kanoria, Rahul Varma and Khil Raj Regmi, all three Global Officials of Dignity (GOD) Awardees for 2015. Ministers and Former Chief Justice of Nepal, delivered a congratulatory message. “The initiatives of HWPL are exemplary to the entire world, as the activities of HWPL for advocating peace is unique and effective in all spheres. I have a firm belief that HWPL has been able to continue its activities for global peace with inspiring guidance, motivation, and the leadership of Chairman Lee. I appreciate the idea of Chairman Man Hee Lee who expressly emphasized it and determined that a separate convention for peace is a need of the present world. I am optimistic that the conference will serve as an impetus for the codification and declaration of the international convention for peace.”

Please reread Mr. Man Lee's Wikipedia page, and ask yourself if you are able to know more about who Mr. Man Lee is or if you are knowing more about the groups possibly associated. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiitupandown (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * None of the above sources are reliable. The criticism of this dubious character is fine. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep it neutrality
Hi all, What is the "cult"? Who can judge? according to what reason? Please do not judge by our own opinions. Please see these list "List of 21st-century religious leaders" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_21st-century_religious_leaders Would you can say these leaders are all cult leader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfoxes (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Waterfoxes (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No editor judges anything. Content related to a "cult" is supported by verifiable and reliable sources, as per Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Personally, I would happily add every religion in the world (and Apple) (maybe Trump's supporters) (and perhaps people who buy hybrid vehicles) (oh...and people who like crap music) to the "cult" category, but there isn't a source to support that. For Lee Man-hee there is a source, and that's why the content is there. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If you do not change anything from my information, I will not change your side information. Maybe other editors can handle it this more neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfoxes (talk • contribs) 12:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Waterfoxes (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Spacecowboy420 Even he does not read the modified texts and search on anythings. he just removes whatever he does not want and want to see.Waterfoxes (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're not here to make an encyclopedia, you're here to push your opinion. You're probably another block evading sock puppet. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Timothyjosephwood Spacecowboy420 Who did disruptive edits? You have authority and power to judge the WiKi world. Are you guys really God in this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfoxes (talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Waterfoxes (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edits, besides being in generally poor English, are fairly evidently an attempt to push a particular point of view that seems overly enamored with the subject of the article, and are generally promotional in tone. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Waterfoxes (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So, Wiki is only for native English people, is it right? If you are really loving wiki, could you check-up, search, and confirm all truth information. Please do not see one side point of view. Waterfoxes (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Spacecowboy420 TimothyjosephwoodWaterfoxes (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not only for native English speakers, but there is a reason that I don't contribute on the Spanish or Japanese versions of Wikipedia, because my language proficiency is not sufficient to do so. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Waterfoxes, have you ever had another account here? Is this your first account? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Spacecowboy420 what is the true reason for keeping editing and roll back this article so much much negative way? You do not want peace? or you just because?


 * Firstly, have you ever had another account here? Secondly, I want a neutral article, that isn't whitewashed by supporters of whatever religious group/leader. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert
Probably want to be a touch more careful when reverting that you're not also taking out useful bits, or restoring things that don't necessarily make so much sense. The German article currently appears to be much more comprehensive than the English one, at least through machine translation, and there's really not much indication that the COI tag is terribly relevant two years later, at least not that I can tell. Timothy Joseph Wood 11:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 신천지예수교총회장님.jpg

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Félix An (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting sourced content
User:131.170.5.5, why did you remove the cited content that stated LMH is a cult leader? To assume that SCJ is a legitimate religion gives WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. Félix An (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)