Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 3

Issues with the new sources
GIOSCali tried to add some sources while carrying out the whitewashing that DR noted was clearly against consensus. --Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources in question in the Trial and Verdict section (not including the already dismissed WP:UNDUE weight on SBS or Kim Do Hun) include:
 * Moon Il Seok, “Reconsideration Needed for the Case of Jung Myeong Seok.” Break News. 2010-2-15
 * The first source has been translated into Japanese here.


 * http://www.mjknews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=58073 “JMS President Jung Myeong Seok, is this a social or religious issue?” Monthly Politic and Economic. 2012-05-31
 * The link does not work. The Internet Archive version can be found here.   dismissed GIOSCali's assessment of the source in the DRN discussion.  It is a fact that Jung was convicted.  Whether it is right or wrong is a matter of opinion and doesn't matter.


 * “Why is the Spotlight on the Christian Gospel Mission Again?” Newsmaker. 2012-04-01. www.newsmaker.or.kr
 * An incomplete citation. Searching for 기독교복음선교회 or 정명석 on that site only pulls up this article.  That article does not appear to exist on that site.

--Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since I was pinged, I inserted additional info and corrections above (highlited gray).--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not sure why the above link is not working..it was when I made the post. I will see if I can find a substitute.
 * Also would like to submit the following source: “기독교복음선교회(JMS)와 정명석 총재, 가려진 10년의 진실 (The Truth Behind JMS and Jung Myeong Seok)" NewsDaily. 2010-10-12.
 * Includes photos of the court rulings, the Kim Do Hun admission letters, and relevance to the case. Again, open to manner in which info could be integrated into the article.
 * GIOSCali (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The archived discussion on Civil government article is rather inconclusive as to reliability.
 * But one major fact has beeen left out of discussion. The article was written by "Cha Jin Soo" (see "Retrial") who is the *publisher* of Civil Government magazine, therefore, that article is "self-published". It becomes farfetched to claim editorial oversight being present (that can overrule Cha's authority), thus compromising this magazine piece meeting RS criterion. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The publisher's name is Cha Jin Soo, but interestingly on the article itself, there is no name listed for the actual author of the article... it only show's the publications logo. I will look and see if there is more info to see if the publisher and actual author of the article were different.
 * GIOSCali (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was able to get in touch with a rep from the Civil Gov article, who said Cha Jin Soo was indeed the publisher of the source, but that each story was written by separate authors. It is common in South Korea for publications not to list the author's name in the article itself. GIOSCali (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Change Article Name to CGM
I am really open to suggestions here but I am thoroughly confused trying to read this article through at some points. Should we call this organization Providence, Christian Gospel Mission, JMS, or what? Since the lede suggests that the official name is CGM, can we not change its name to that? Phoenix0316 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What the article can't be titled is CGM, a disambiguation page, but I have added "Christian Gospel Mission" there. And we do have a redirect from Christian Gospel Mission to here. We also have a redirect from Jesus Morning Star and an entry on the JMS dab page. For the relevant policy, see Article titles. For a nutshell explanation of why the article is not titled the translation of the current, official Korean name, refer to Official names, quote: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I read Article titles and Sam Sailor is totally right. Phoenix0316 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC -- Does this information belong in the article?
Does the following information warrant inclusion in the article?


 * SBS, major media, in South Korea, was found guilty of broadcasting doctored videos of Jung Myeong Seok prior to his trial. One of Jung's sermons, in which he said the tithe of life was "one part in ten," it was broadcast with subtitles which said "one woman in ten." Also videos with males and females side by side were edited to show only females with Jung.
 * Kim Do Hyun( the founder of the anti-Providence NGO EXODUS), admitted to extorting Jung and fabricating his allegations of sexual abuse. He later apologized, and his pictures of his apology letters were published in several national publications in Korea.

GIOSCali (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, is it sourced? That would be first question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it due weight is another issue brought up at the DRN, and IIRC in the archives for this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some sources provided below. In addition to the above info, the fact that there was a significant push back following Jung's proceedings from a contingent both inside and outside the Providence group following is also noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in the article... this is common for pages on controversial criminal cases see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown.
 * I do believe the info should be properly sourced and weighted, and am open to opinions/means by which the info could be integrated into the article.
 * GIOSCali (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * SBS doesn't seem to be a reliable source given their broadcasting of "doctored videos". I know that isn't what this RfC is about but is this information published in secondary reliable sources? Meatsgains (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliability of SBS is a moot point, since SBS is not actually cited in the article. What SBS did is irrelevant in light of the facts that:
 * the courts still found Jung guilty,
 * Jung's other activities were reported on by other news sources (currently cited).
 * Bringing up the claims of the RFC in this article is like mentioning Brian Williams's fall from grace as if that implies that the Berlin Wall is still standing, wholly intact. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

SBS is major media in South Korea. The fact that major media broadcasted doctored videos on Jung is relevant in a wikipedia article about him, whether or not SBS is used a source in that article.

Ian.thomson, the object here is to post the facts.You may have your opinions on the implications of the RFC claims. But that is your private opinion.

If the object is to build an encyclopedia, and especially if the subject is a living human being, we have to list the relevant facts on the subject and keep our opinions out of it.

In this case, an individual was convicted of a crime after more than ten years of controversies on either side. We need to describe it accurately.

Even if you don't like the idea that the South Korean media mishandled Jung's case(as it has mishandled many cases), that is what happened. GIOSCali (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Current Editing Process on this Article
I'm concerned about the manner in which discussions/edits are proceeding with this article.

1. There have been several mass reverts of information on the article that were supported by RS sources, as well as reverts of info that was in dispute without in depth discussion by reverting editors on the talk page. Ex: The YTN retractions from 2015... this is a prominent 24 hour news network, why was this source removed?

2. I will say it again: the article in its current format is problematic.

It does not include any information that current editors deem favorable to the Providence group--i.e. broadcast infractions, etc. ( Claiming that a source that reports on these issues is "Pro-Providence" basically sums this up). Rather than mass revert, it would be helpful to find a way to include the info properly.

Also, the current article cites many claims/allegations against the group without making it clear that they were dropped, save for the single case against Jung with the four plaintiffs.


 * In other words, this article has become non-WP:NEUTRAL and editors are exercising WP:OWNERSHIP and getting away with it because this article does not get as much traffic as others. GIOSCali (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerns with this Article
Given that there have been extended discussions on this talk page for quite sometime, I wanted to compile a basic summary of some of the concerns that I have had regarding this article, in the hopes to facilitate more progress.

1. The article in its current states lends the impression that Jung is guilty of committing sexual crimes against thousands of women. I believe the article should rely more heavily on factual accounts of the proceedings, given that all charges of sexual assault against him were dropped, except the single case involving three plaintiffs, for which he now serves a ten year sentence.

2. Widespread broadcast violations during the time of the trial (including but not limited to SBS and YTN) are not mentioned in the article. (Perhaps the editors are unfamiliar, but in Korea, many media outlets are paid more for reporting on religious matters. Not only with JMS, but with other religious groups, there has often been similar cases of broadcast violations).

3. The anti-Providence group EXODUS is mentioned frequently in this article, and was the first to bring major public charges against the Providence group. The fact that the founder of the group was found to extorted JMS for 2 billion won would therefore also belong in the article.

4. Reactions following the trial are not included in the article, from individuals inside or outside of the Providence group. While some of the sources are reports and others are op-ed pieces, the fact that several prominent members outside the Providence group criticized the processing of Jung following His sentencing is itself noteworthy information that should be included in the article. This is common for wikipedia articles on controversial trials.

I originally suggested a criticism section be included, but perhaps a better way to integrate the information would be through a section that features reactions and the events that took place following the trial. GIOSCali (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * More clear phrasing of your complaints would definitely help. First, I dispute the initial point as I myself don't see where you get the impression of which you speak. Your second point refers to "violations" of some sort - please indicate in what way those broadcasts were "violations," as I don't see anything in the article to indicate that. Your third point is, frankly, off topic. That information is more reasonably included in the biographies involved, unless you can find prominent overviews in the reliable sources about Providence which give that matter significant attention as part of their overview. Your fourth point seems to relate to allegations of a flawed trial. In such matters, comments from legal experts might qualify. Also, if a source even is an op-ed, but gives pretty much neutral information, it can reasonably be used until better sources are found. Please provide evidence in independent reliable sources questioning the legitimacy of the decision and/or discussion of those who objected to the decision. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks John Carter. To clarify a bit more:
 * 1. The article is a bit sloppy in its presentation of the allegations and the trial. At one point, several former members did make allegations of widespread sexual abuse, but these charges were all dropped for lack of evidence. The trial itself involved four plaintiffs. In the current article, these two points are tossed together and make the facts unclear.
 * 2. By violations, am referring to the broadcasting of incorrect information/ doctored videos/photographs including but not limited to YTN and SBS as discussed which are not currently mentioned on the article itself.
 * 3. I respect your opinion, but this is definitely not off topic. The actions of an anti-Providence NGO are directly related to the subject of Providence. Per your suggestion, I could see the info being included on relevant biographies, but not excluded from the article itself. (As an additional example of why EXODUS info is relevant to the subject, several female members of the Providence group won lawsuits against those NGOs for photoshopping their faces onto provocative pictures of other women and distributing them publicly).
 * 4. To clarify, what I mean is that the article is not up to date. It does not mention significant events following the trial, including but not limited to further investigations, additional legal proceedings, reactions by individuals inside/outside the Prov group, media statements, etc. GIOSCali (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

These matters have been repeatedly discussed and the objections to changing the article have been based on varied reasons, including ‘whitewashing’, ‘verifiability of sources,’ and ‘irrelevance’. It is unclear to me what the real reason is for not including these articles. I took some time to review the history of the changes to this article and the talk history.

Firstly, the Civil Government article is a reliable source and has been recognised as one in an archived talk page. It gives insight on the ‘violations’ of the media, the successful lawsuits brought by CGM against the media companies, and concerns regarding the conduct of the trial, and extortion from Exodus, all of which GIOScali have been attempting to include in the article. Given that the article is a reliable source and not a self-published article, there is technically no reason for not including its content in some form.

Secondly, the term’ violations’ was the translated term for a court order made in relation to a civil lawsuit between CGM and a media company. The court used the term ‘violations’, as in ‘violations of a court order’ made against the media company, in relation to its broadcast of CGM. Therefore, it would be fair to say that those orders were ‘violated’ during the time of the trial.

The post-trial articles that have been published should not be ignored, even if they cast a different light to the current tenor of the article. CollinsBK (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsBK (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 August 2015‎ (UTC)


 * The Civil Government piece is self-published by Cha Jin-Soo, contary to what CollinsBK says, as I indicated on 2 August. Since this information was evidently overlooked in the maze of postings above, I have now created below.


 * As to CollinsBK thinking that "post-trial articles that have been published should not be ignored", when you pin them down, these are probably just the Civil Gov't piece, and rehashes thereof (BreakNews, Newsmaker magazine, NewsDaily). And such rehashes are still inadmissable under WP:SELFPUB rules.


 * Let us set the SELFPUB matter aside for a minute, and pretending there were no WP:RS issues here. Still there remains a persistent neutrality problem with how GIOSCali the Civil Government article contextualizes this matter as "extortion" by Kim.
 * Kim Do-hyun's letter of apology to Jung (including offer to settle for $2 million) may plausibly be genuine, I will grant that. But it is grossly prejudicial to mention this without referring to the fact that Kim Do-hyun's father was brutally assaulted with an iron bar presumably by JMS members, which Mr. Kim might is plausible enough reason why Kim Do-hyung might have written such groveling letter[s] in the first place.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)--corrected 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Self pub claims addressed below.


 * Are there RS sources for the assault? When it comes to Do Hun, there is a lot of info that should be included in the article. Following Jung's trial, many former Prov members won lawsuits against the anti Prov NGOs for photoshopping their faces onto provocative pictures of other women and disseminated publicly... point being, the 2million USD extortion was not the only controversial thing he/EXODUS did. Again perhaps the best way to make all of this clear is to reorganize the article chronologically-- then it will be easier to deal with claims regarding undue weight etc. GIOSCali (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Do-hyung

 * {|style="background-color:#fafafa"

Discussion reactivated from premature archiving. Thread above transcluded from earlier discussion. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC); Wording completely revised 05:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - valign="top"
 * }

Assuming that the letters of apology requesting settlement money were genuine, I doubt Kim Do-hyung "admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM". He said that if settlement money were paid to take care of him, he would drop the charges (and quit being an anti-JMS activist?).

It is Cha Jin-soo's spin of the situation that this was cold calculated "extortion"(협박, 脅迫) "plan" (계획, 計画). But there are more obvious explanations. Namely, crusaders of causes can cave to threats, and in this case, Kim Do-hyun had his father attacked by JMS members.

So it is extremely prejudicial to make edits about the apology letters, while suppressing the attack on Kim's father (he was bashed with a metal pipe while speaking on the other end of the phone with him, to be more precise), which would explain how Kim received such a traumatizing jolt as to have a change of heart. For now I just tagged with inline POV statement to indicate this POV.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, what you are describing is the definition of extortion. Do Hun did not go through a lawyer to arrange a settlement, but sent private letters for money without the knowledge or consent of the four women accusing Jung.
 * I think all of the info on DO Hun should be included because of his ties with EXODUS and the fact that he orchestrated the press conference with the four women.
 * However, Kiyoweap bear in mind that this means including the photoshopping that do hun and members of exodus conducted, placing the faces of female Prov members onto provocative pictures of women and disseminating them publicly. Also, the allegations that the one accuser made under oath that Do Hun had bribed her also belong in the article. GIOSCali (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As above in section /Civil Government mag self-published/ please provide translation of the sources so they may be properly vetted. Until then I WP:CHALLENGE and oppose inclusion of text supported by these sources. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

SBS Broadcast Infractions
Cont. from #3. of #Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article (archive 2)

3. An original SBS broadcast 1999 depicted Jeong Myeong Seok as a religious leader with sexual problems by purposely editing the audio of one of his sermons. Additionally, videos were edited so that where males and females were both shown to show only females. CGM sued SBS for this and the court ordered the following: 1) the media must not use one-sided material provided by the informer and others; 2) the media must inform the organization 48 hours before broadcasting; 3) the media must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to [the Church] so that their rebuttal will also be aired; 4) if these orders are violated, the media must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won for each violation. The courts decisions acknowledging the media’s errors and biased reporting was not made widely known to viewers. Additionally, of the four original accusers in the trial for which Jeong Myeong Seok is currently serving a sentence, one of them claimed that she had committed perjury at the insistence of the leader of an anti-CGM organization. She has since been convicted of perjury. She also claimed that another one of the four witnesses had done the same. This same leader of the anti-CGM mission sent verified letters of apology to Jeong Myeong Seok and CGM in 1999 and twice in 2005. -- GIOSCali (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [This same point was also given at WP:DRN as key point] A2 (SBS committed certain broadcast infractions in 1999), but this is stale and trivial compared to what is known since trial in 2007. --above statement signed Kiyoweap (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Dispute resolution noticeboard permalink/656027570
 * Wait, why would it be considered "stale and trivial" that the Seoul Broadcasting System, major media in Korea, was found to have intentionally altered Jung's sermons and forced to pay reparations to the CGM? Why would that not belong on the page? Especially when broadcasts from the SBS are currently being cited on the article? --above statement signed GIOSCali (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Dispute resolution noticeboard permalink/656027570
 * What is reported in the news may potentially be featured in the article, but not with inflated significance, or in a sly way to mislead and insinuate.
 * SBS's infractions were not so serious as to undermine the core allegations. If true, please cite rival news organizations who should have made huge headlines out of them, and/or issued major retractions.
 * As of 1999 when the news broke, the cult leader is not guilty or "public figure". The Korean court may have reasonably judged SBS liable for "defamation" at that time. That defamation case has been eclipsed by news in 2007 and thereafter, when details emerged in criminal trial about what members were subjected to. That's what I mean by "stale".
 * Saying that prosecutors absolved JMS of all counts on "sexual assault" against minors is extremely prejudicial and misleading, when the actual case had to do with a modeling school that JMS ran, where it was alleged that teenage students had lewd photos taken of them.----above statement signed Kiyoweap (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Dispute resolution noticeboard permalink/656027570

Yes, would like to propose that only the specific infractions themselves be included in the article. Following the discussions on the dispute resolution noticeboard a few weeks back, the general consensus seems to be against creating a controversy or criticism section. Since this is the case, the information could simply be added in the timeline of the convictions section. GIOSCali (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the specific infractions themselves to the article page--

GIOSCali (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Media/SBS
Per the comments above, I integrated the SBS broadcast violations into the article, within an existing section.

The source used was the News Daily source. GIOSCali (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You brought up this matter at the Dispute resolution noticeboard in April. I was not a part of the discussion, but it closed on the note "there is a pretty clear 4 or 5 to one consensus against changes." (Link to archived DRN discussion). When that did not work out the way you wanted, you went forum shopping and opened both a Requests for comment on this talk page, and filed at Editor assistance/Requests in July (Link to archived EAR discussion). And when that didn't go your way either, you just went ahead and added it.


 * You have frankly stated that To be honest, I just disagree with your consensus. . I thank you for your honesty, but consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Accordingly I will remove your addition. For the record I find that this continued editing ignoring policies and guidelines is tendentious despite the efforts made by seasoned Wikipedians like, , , and myself to guide you in a more productive direction, cf. your user talk page. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor DR/N covered many topics; consensus was against creating a separate section with these edit. The sbs information as a stand alone edit, however, is undisputed and deserves representation on the page. And when it comes to consensus, WP:KOOLAID its about making this article as accurate as possible. GIOSCali (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

JMS sued SBS from broadcasting
Alas I'm finding this alleged "SBS infraction" thing to be a very flimsy claim originating with JMS/CGM/Providence.

The POV edit, and stated:

"'The Christian Gospel Mission [JMS/Providence] sued SBS for this, won the lawsuit, and received 900 million won in compensation($900,000 USD).' (Italics mine)"

But this ₩900 million figure appears nowhere even in Moon's article (Civil Government group of sources). So as it stands, this is a completely unsourced claim, and no more than a piece of fanciful fiction by GIOSCali.

This piece of misinformation led me into believing the court had ruled on SBS infractions on the "tithe/woman" matter as a point of fact. But upon scrutiny, I don't see this is the case, and Civil Government never states that the courts ruled on that "infraction". (They don't say where they got the tipoff. But if not a Providence leak, it may have been a Providence-produced video, which existed according to JMScult forum). So putting it bluntly, this alleged SBS infraction is even a faker claim than what I thought when I responded at "DR/N". --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * More than ever your findings, Kiyoweap, stresses the need to thoroughly scrutinize sources. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 22:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The figure/rulings are in the NewsDaily source among others. You can read the SBS apology letter and court rulings for yourself (I think you speak some Korean kiyoweap?)
 * Don't make claims that info is POV or "Pro-Providence" "fanciful fiction" based on analyzing one source that reports on separate subject matter. GIOSCali (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope. Sorry.
 * In NewsDaily, I don't see that SBS has been slapped with any 900 million won fine, or that it issued an apology letter.


 * So as it stands, this is "fanciful fiction": an unsourced and un-verifiable material that one editor fancies to be true.


 * All you have to do to refute me was provide the exact quote from NewsDaily (or some other source you forgot). I don't read Korean, so don't try to foist the overall leg-work on me.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a photo of the court rulings from the news daily source http://www.newsdaily.kr/news/photo/201010/33956_24798_460.jpg
 * I can get a copy of the apology letter.
 * Its not extra work, its natural that other editors would want to look at original source material. GIOSCali (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I already know the document image is on the NewsDaily webpage (though not on the Civil Government page).
 * What I need you to is to transcribe the part in Korean that says the court is awarding a 900 million won fine in the settlement, or indicate the location, such as the Xth line of the 2nd page.
 * Until you do this, the assumption will be that you can't do it because it is nonexistent.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex bribes
The term "sex bribes" actually appears in Song's original article, "Jung Myung-Seok orders terror on JMS defectors" (JMS 정명석, 탈퇴자에 대한 테러 지시), but is missing in Nathan Schwartzman translation "Seoul: Former JMS cult members tell their stories".

I refer you to the side by side comparison chart of translations given in #Translation by MrTownCar. Note that both Schwartzman ("AsianCorrespondent") and MrTownCar made the glaring omission of "seongsangnab daegijo" (성상납 ; Hanja: ); Google translation: "sex kickbacks daegijo"... where daegijo = "awaiting orders group", "reserve corps".

That is to say, the original passage doesn't just say "the ‘Evergreens’", it says "the ‘Evergreens’ [who are] the reserve corps for sex bribes".

When I introduced "sex bribe" into this wiki article, all I did was to address this omission.--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Lexical details added 03:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am glad it helped clarify, as I noticed your participation in the earlier discussion #Translation by MrTownCar.


 * I want to reemphasize to Wiki-editors that the material on "Evergreens" was inserted earlier by past editors, and MrTownCar though grudgingly engaged it by coping.


 * So it seems to me GIOSCali should take a lesson from him, instead of making on the basis that this is anWP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which MrTownCar never raised. It is worse yet that he continues to be unrelenting, even after EXEPTIONAL has been fully addressed by subsequent refimprovements.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim I raised was in regard to one specific comment: that 1,000 women are being groomed for sexual exploitation. The sources do not match the extremity of the claim. You would need in depth articles exposing the facilities, photos, etc; when what you have are former members saying "Hey this is happening." I'm sorry but they just do not meet encyclopedic standards. GIOSCali (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That is entirely your opinion. We have been over this time and time again with Providence members disrupting the article. I believe they at one point went so far as to say or imply, that women who claimed to have been forced to have sex with Jung had a COI and their testimonies should therefor not be trusted. Religious misogenic hogwash when it's worst. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a partcularly exceptional claim that there is a 1,000 women "reserve corps", representing candidates for future sexual vicitimization, when presented in context. Media has elsewhere reported large numbers of victims: "over 100 students" in Japan alone, according to the July 27, 2006 Asahi Shimbun.


 * And it is not part of the claim that Evergreens are rounded up in huge numbers into "facilities". GIOSCali has already repeated this misreading elsewhere saying "thousands of women are being held" in a "storehouse", but if he's claiming EXCEPTIONAL based on that false assessment, he needs to give up now. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Given JMS' history and the sources, that is not an exceptional claim. None of the four points in WP:REDFLAG fit. Jim1138 (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I made additions to the page, based on the pre-existing article from the Korean Times,, which reads: "Former members.. said followers choose.. victims as ‘sexual gifts’ and send photos of them to Jung."

I am convinced "sexual gifts" here refers to seong sangnap, and I judge it to be a more appropriate translation than "sex bribe" I've used so far. So I am inclined to switch (but probably give both side-by-side for now. avoid disruption).

Reuters piece also states "women were presented to Jung as ‘gifts’" was heard in Court, but on this I am less sure. And I have not been able to ascertain what precise Korean word or phrase was used here. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Theology
Looking at pages like |Mormonism, |Methodism, and, |Baptism, the Theology section is generally more about doctrine. The current line in the Theology section:

"In January 2008, the Supreme Court of South Korea ruled in one of several court cases finding Jung guilty of rape of female followers that forced sex 'is a religious behavior meant to save their souls.'[20] During the 2008 Seoul Central District Court (ko) case that led to Jung's prison conviction for raping female followers, former members told the court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual.[21]"

does not fit here even if it is somehow linked to the doctrine of the organization. This clearly relates more to other sections of the article.

On another note, what does belong in this section are things related to actual theology (which could include beliefs and practice). Now, I am certain there are sources already in this article that can be used to justify simple claims such as the fact Providence eschatology is different from other religions. Without simple information like this, it is not easy to see how this organization really compares in terms of doctrine with other organizations. Therefore, I will be attempting to make this section mirror other articles on religion. Phoenix0316 (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. It does fit in, and very nicely so. The denialism of Jung and of the remaining adherents in Providence/CGM of the testimonies of former members and of the crimes for witch Jung has been convicted and members of Providence/CGM have been convicted is well documented and this denial is mentioned several times with sourced quotes in the article already. The court cases confirm the allegations that rape was institutionalized under the pretense of being part of the church's doctrine, and that Providence/CGM served this purpose. Or to quote an expert in the field:
 * "Every aspect of [Providence/CGM] served to help him rape young women and then intimidate them into silence. His organization was essentially a raping machine."
 * 2. Are you talking about reinserting this unsourced bit?:
 * Many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity such as the Abrahamic God, an existence of Heaven and Hell, and a hope in the second coming of Christ remain largely intact. These 30 Lessons starkly separate it from mainline Christianity particularly in its Christology, eschatology, and Soteriology.
 * That you have repeatedly inserted, and . In the first case it was in the lead conveniently at the same time deleting the double sourced
 * Providence has been widely referred to by the media as a cult.
 * The fact that you delete the mention that Providence has widely been referred to as a cult is not different from edits this article has already seen from now blocked Providence members trying to sanitize Wikipedia. But your insertion of the above unsourced bit begs the question: Were did you pick up this knowledge about the teachings of a highly secretive group?
 * Additions should be sourced. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sam Sailor.


 * 1) It genuinely sounds out of place to me. However, since you will clearly will not capitulate in this matter I will just leave it be. I will look for other ways to make this line properly fit in this section.
 * 2) Sure, I did not put a reference in my initial changes, but a few of the Sakurai references would be more than enough to qualify this one statement. Honestly, if you boil down this line to its core, it simply says it is a Christian-like organization. I did not even make any detailed statements about its Christology, Eschatology, and Soteriology. These are umbrella terms created by theologians to attempt to properly compare religious organizations.
 * 3) As for the line about Providence being referred to by the media as a cult, I removed it because there was no discussion about why it was re-added with your blanket reversions. For the record, I changed it, you reverted without significant discussion or reason, so I reverted it back.
 * Cult is a term that naturally makes headlines. Academics have tried to change this word into new religious movements, but this has naturally not gained much traction in the media. When it comes to differentiating religious organizations, the word "cult" does not carry that much meaning. Christians can call Buddhists a cult. Buddhists can call other Buddhists cults. For example, it's no coincidence that the books that have been used as an authority about the doctrine of this organization are clearly published by Christian organizations. It's these books that authoritatively call this organization a cult in the theological sense. However, in such cases, this only means that one organization views another as significantly different than itself. Therefore, mentioning that this organization has been referred to as a cult in the media really only serves to maintain a particular point of view rather than give further detail about the organization. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 03:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate Sam Sailor's #1: Whether it was heard in South Korean courts, these are still former members describing what they are taught by Providence instructors.

This merely reflects the fact that we have not found scholarly papers in English comparable to Sakurai's papers. Sakurai has relied on documented statements, as well as interviewed former members, and obtaining notes from their bible study (now added to page). Such a source in English would be preferable, but is elusive. So as the next best source, we are using court statements reported in some English newspapers.

The details specifying which court etc is distracting, and make it seem off-topic as Phoenix points out, so I have tucked them away in efn Explanatory Notes. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say 'we have not found scholarly papers' and 'we are using court statements', by 'we' are you referring to you and Sam-sailor or you and others (non-editors), or who does 'we' refer to?CollinsBK (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On the next point. Well, what if Providence believes Abrahamic God or Heaven and Hell. I don't see how it is worthwhile pointing that out.
 * So I too am of the opinion that you need to provide source to show that a scholar considers it worth noting, etc. Othewise it is totally WP:UNDUE weight.


 * And it does raise a red flag, when you put such a statement in the lede. It suggests you are trying to artificially bloat up the /*Theology*/ section with trite material (material generally applicable to any Christian sect).


 * This section starts off by comparison with the theology section in Wiki articles for Mormon or Methodist Church.
 * What Phoenix0316 appears to be saying here is that Providence somehow deserves an equally in-depth coverage. But it doesn't. Providence is a fringe sect, and does not have comparable noteworthiness.
 * So please do not take license to expand this section with material you can't source that demonstrates due weight.--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue I am pointing out with the article by adding Abrahamic God is that the article, and more specifically the Theology section, is too narrowly focused. The material I have added definitely does not fall under WP:UNDUE. Almost every source that relates Providence to Jesus, God, the Bible, or any other Christian organization can be used to support this. A reader more interested in philosophy or theology would be sorely unsatisfied attempting to classify this organization since so little is included about its theology -- other than some conclusions which do not seem to be well developed by this article. Even though theological points may not be the focus of the articles, that does not mean that these claims are unsupported or are somehow given too much weight if the ideas are indeed presented in the sources.


 * I'm not certain you would call it a fringe sect in the way I see it if it has received enough attention from a few scholars in Christianity. Also, I'm not attempting to give it the same level of in-depth coverage. There are tens to even hundreds of articles on various aspects of Theology and sects of Christianity. I am adding only a few sections -- and attempting to put only the things which differentiate it from others. Eschatology, Soteriology, and other theological terms are examples of relevant material to any religious organization. You are suggesting that because these subjects are relevant to every Christian sect they should not be included. However, these are subjects that need to be included because they are indeed relevant. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 04:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix claims to be "attempting to put only the things which differentiate it from others", but as long as he dwells on "Abrahamic God" which is the opposite of differentiating, I remain unconvinced. So please stick to edits that are differentiating and significant.

Due or undue weight should be based on material on Providence. Not on "hundreds of articles on various aspects of Theology and sects of Christianity". Relying on the latter, and making your own judgment what's "relevant" to Providence is what I meant when I said you're taking license.

When you added "Abrahamic God" in the lede, this raises a red flag. It indicated that you were subsequently going to drone on and on about this in the body of the article. This sort of padding is inappropriately UNDUE for any ordinary Christian sects. In the latter case it is rather harmless, whereas in the case of Providence it is unduly whitewashing as well.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, let's follow those rules. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 06:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Explanatory notes with refs cause error message
I have used of footnotes embeded in explantory notes. The template Refn with group="lower-alpha" parameter accomodates this nested footnote construction. But the error-detection javascript red tags these as errors.

In the current version the red flags occur as:
 * Cite error: A list-defined reference named "song-joongang" is not used in the content (see the help page).
 * Cite error: A list-defined reference named "song-nocut" is not used in the content (see the help page).

But if I remove these nested footnotes, it red-flags the shift to the next set as
 * Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Christian-times-mushrooms" is not used in the content (see the help page).
 * Cite error: A list-defined reference named "jeong-newsnjoy-naked" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Ohter editors please be aware of this glitch if you also have the error-detection script loaded for you wiki editing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Source by Mark Schreiber
I do not believe this article is reliable as it is clearly written like an Op-ed. The article was listed under the 'Tokyo Confidential' column of Japan Times as evidenced by the bottom of the archived page. The Tokyo Confidential column was under under editorial review because it 'translated and reported odd stories from japan's sleazy tabloid magazines.. the column was presented in a manner that made it very clear to readers cited were from sleazy tabloids.' This is further evidenced by this book. The taking down of articles must have occurred in 2008. Since then, the Japan Times has pulled all the articles under Tokyo Confidential from its site. Phoenix0316 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While it is not an op-ed, and hardly reports anything that is not reported elsewhere - except maybe for the details of the sexual act between the woman and Jung at their Osaka meeting in July 2000 - I find the reasons given for removing this reference are legitimate, and I will remove it for now. Comments are welcome, if there are counter-arguments to take into consideration. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly Shukan Post is a sub-optimal source as a news outlet, in general. But namecalling the magazine as "sleazy" aside, Japanese scholars have acknowledged the importance of its reporting on the matter of Providence.

Sakurai's 2006 paper pointed out Shukan Post reported on Providence back in 2002 when none of the Japanese newspaper touched it ("宗教団体の性的スキャンダルは、従来週刊誌の記事になることが多く、週刊ポストが..") So it was the one who effectively broke the story in Japan. Prof. Kawashima Kenji (川島堅二) of Keisen University who's published on religious groups calls the 5-part series "reliable".here --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I rely on your fair judgement and have no objections if you add the source again. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, I suppose we can leave it out for now.
 * We just inconvenience English-only speaking editor's ease of verifiability, but there is no immediate sourcing issues resulting from the elimination.
 * Shukan Post is a magazine that carries swimwear centerfold type photos (nudity in the past), and a NY Times editorial described it as "between Playboy and The National Enquirer". So I'm not surewe are past the appearance of impropriety in the eyes of other editors, at this point in time.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

YTN retractions
Would also like to submit an additional source for consideration, entitled "정명석 총재 관련 보도에 대한 정정보도문 (Corrections on the Reporting of Jung Myeong Seok)." http://ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201503161004314232http://ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201503161004314232 The source comes from YTN, a 24 hour news network which in 2014 reported on some of the claims against Jung. In this article, YTN retracts reports that Jung fled the country, "stowed away" in China before being repatriated ,and accepted sexual favors from members as bribes. The article cites that it was "verified" that Jung returned to Korea frequently and was investigated multiple times by law enforcement during the period in question. Moreover it states that its reporting was "different from the facts", as every charge of sexual assault against Jung were dropped(except those organized by Do Hun).

The source again supports important WP:ALIVE information not currently represented in the article. GIOSCali (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Requesting input from   and others on the above. Thanks. GIOSCali (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Has been more than one week since most recent source was added. Pinging    for input on the NewsDaily and YTN sources. If no response soon, will proceed editing the main article. GIOSCali (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Silence is not consent, it's just a sign that everyone is tired of dealing with your continual attempts at POV-pushing. The latest link you provided does nothing.  YTN is not cited in this article, so their retractions would be out of context (another problem with your citations). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if YTN is already cited in the article. Their retractions are another example of the fallout following the JMS trial, which as of yet has gone unrepresented in the article. Here is an English translation:

''Between May 22 and July 26, 2014, the news station broadcasted as follows about President Jung Myeong Seok: “President Jung Myeong Seok of JMS sexually assaulted female members and then fled to various foreign countries, but was eventually captured by the Chinese police when he was in China and repatriated to Korea,” “He stowed away,” and “He accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members.”

''However, after verifying the truth, it was confirmed that the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved, and he was able to travel overseas lawfully. He returned to Korea several times during his travels and was investigated by the prosecutors about his travels. In these ways, the news broadcasted about Jung was different from the facts. Even the charge of him accepting sexual favors as bribes was also dropped. It is evident that the reportings on Jung were not entirely based on fact. Hence, we made the appropriate corrections.

''Additionally, it was confirmed that the name JMS is not in fact the ministry’s official name. Hence, we correct it to the ministry’s actual official name, The Christian Gospel Mission.''


 * It is not POV - pushing to articulate that a significant minority viewpoint, for which I am providing new sources, warrants inclusion in the article.
 * And I'm not asking if the source is reliable-- I am submitting a reliable source to open discussion as to how to include the info in the article.
 * I think the best way is to include a separate section on the aftermath of the trial -- this is common for controversial criminal trials. The YTN retractions would fall under this section.
 * Also, you have not addressed the info provided in the News Daily source. GIOSCali (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The YTN link above is yet another dead link, requiring me to first to track down YTN's "correction" (3/16/2015).


 * Having looked at it, this isn't a decent reliable source, because it wasn't even correcting news that was mainly about Providence. The news series that was specifically "corrected" includes such piece as the 5/22/2014 검찰과 유병언의 '숨바꼭질' "Prosecutors and Yoo Byung-eun 'Hide-and-Seek'".


 * The main subject was Yoo Byung-eun, the shipping magnate held responsible for the Sewol sinking. Since Yoo was a businessman as well as a cult leader, parallels were naturally drawn with Providence's Jung Myung-Seok.


 * There is no major weight on this as a source for this article, since it's covering some other story.


 * The "stow away" issue is a paltry matter of a misuse of a word. The word milhang 밀항, 密航 is literally "secretly travel" but the point is being made that the strict meanings (1. "stow away", i.e., travel without paying fare by concealing oneself, or 2. travel without authority) did not apply to Jung's situation.


 * The "correction" also includes a major misstatement, conveniently skipped over by GIOSCali when he gives us his English translation.
 * It reads "정 총재의 성폭행 혐의는 검찰에서 무혐의 " i.e., it states that "Prosecutors have dropped charges on allegations that [cult] leader had sexually violated [women]", which is obviously contrary to the cold hard fact that Jung was convicted of sexually violating.
 * Therefore I don't see strong reason to believe the other claim this "correction" makes, that prosecutors also dropped charges on Jung accepting sexual favors. Someone will have to cite a better source, such as an article that specifically reports this (naming names and dates) for this to go into the article. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

As I have stated, I am open as to how the info could be included into the article, but the fact is it should be included, even, as I suggested, a sub section containing the significant minority viewpoint that processing of Jung was poorly conducted. GIOSCali (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , 밀항 does mean stow away. I believe in earlier discussions you said you were using google translate as an aid for Korean. If you look up 밀항 in google translate, stow away will be the first translation you get.
 * The media (and this article) originally reported Jung was hiding in China, when in fact he frequently returned to Korea during the time in question, so the info does apply.
 * The info that prosecutors dropped sexual abuse charges against Jung is valid, as I've been saying: all the major charges against him were dropped, except those orchestrated by Do Hun. yet you continue to ignore this.
 * Lastly, YTN made corrections on a few several topics, but this article was specifically about the broadcasts on Jung.
 * GIOSCali, given your constant bombardment of non-RS here, I suspect it will be awhile before these latest sources will be vetted. Please avoid adding them to the article before then. Jim1138 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the problem is that even for info that is RS, it is being blocked under claims of "undue weight" without a reasonable alternative suggestion as to how it could be included. Other RS sources provided (such as the NewsDaily article) have been ignored completely.
 * Second, several sources are being mislabeled as non-RS (such as the YTN source) do to a lack of understanding of the Korean or a general distrust of new information.


 * I am not interested in an endless back and forth on this, and I'm sure the other editors are not either. If the editors can address the following concerns regarding Jung's proceedings, there will be no need to continue this set of discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs)


 * I decided to insert near the top an analysis breakdown of what was added or deleted in the "whitewashing" series of edits that Ian.thomson to clarify what topic was within original scope of this thread and what was digression.


 * Re #4, the deletion of "" material, GIOSCali brought in a YTN retraction to try to justify his deletion.
 * However, the source used Song Ju-youl's article "Jung Myung-Seok orders terror on JMS defectors" from CBS's "No Cut News". And you cannot apply a retraction of another media outlet to another source. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Kiyoweap I think you're getting two separate issues mixed up: the media violations, and the portion on the article I stated was an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim regarding evergreens. The YTN source is not intended for the latter.

GIOSCali (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * GIOSCali: The "sex bribes" material is clearly within scope of this discussion section, because your purging of "sex bribes" material comprises a significant part (#4 above) of the diff that Ian.thomson cited to initiate this discussion.


 * Furthermore, you posted the translation of YTN's retraction, including its apology for broadcasting that "He accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members" as fact rather than allegation. This added to the relevancy.


 * You may have cited YTN solely with the intent to corroborate your other edits ( material, #3. above). But you can't silence other editors from discussing other matters on sources you bring up, as long as it is topical. You don't get to be that controlling.


 * However, I do apologize for not making the clarification much earlier that GIOSCali's purge of "sex bribes" material was a major part of this series of edits and was topical. It might have seemed like I was dwelling on an off-topic subject topic in the interim. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay, my apologies Kiyoweap I see the connection. To expand a bit more on your point:

I wouldn't exactly call it purging; I was removing a specific statement in the article that said that as of 2012, one thousand women were still being held for sexual exploitation. If this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim was true, then you would expect several mainstream sources to be following up on it, but I havent been able to find any. Something that extreme would be worldwide news.

Regarding the material on sexual favors: yes, there are several sources including the YTN source that do criticize the claims of widespread sexual bribes taking place throughout the CGM, as you mentioned. So if there are several sources with claims by former members that say these crimes took place, and several like YTN that say they did not, how do you proceed from there?

This case in a nutshell: there were a lot of claims of varying degrees being thrown around during the controversy, but only the single trial with the four plaintiffs. If claims are portrayed as facts, then sources like YTN will seem like they contradict basic facts, when in fact they don't-- they challenge claims. Hope thats not too confusing GIOSCali (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The crucial difference is that YTN reported "He accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members" as fact, which prompted their retraction.
 * In contrast, the article has always framed this as an allegation from former members so there was fundamentally never any problem AFAIC (Though I just modified the wording in article, maybe to clarify further).


 * Sexual impropriety allegations can be placed in the article if properly sourced, as seen by example such as Bill Cosby with numerous allegations or Paula Jones's accusation of Clinton, neither having landed convictions.
 * There is no rule that sexual assault allegation must be left out of Wiki articles unless they have culminated in a criminal conviction, as you seem to imagine.


 * As for your WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, it can be laid to rest, since there are now multiple sources, written by 3 different reporters.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not saying allegations can't be included in the article-- but the structure and presentation of the allegations can be problematic if not organized clearly. In this case, perhaps the best way to organize the article is chronologically, as suggested(I believe in DR). That way you don't have allegations, trial info, then more allegations, more trial info, and so on presented in a way that could cause confusion.


 * Regarding WP:EXCEPTIONAL, not quite... an exceptional claim must be matched by equally exceptional sources. While there are two mainstream sources for the article, they reference allegations by former members as evidence--- does not match the level of the claim itself. If thousands of women are being held, you need in depth articles with evidence-- when did the police break into this place? The statements of former members aren't of enough quality to be used as evidence for a storehouse of 1000 people. GIOSCali (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite, , and arguing against the YTN source GIOSCali inserted the snip about YTN's supposed retraction on 9 September in. When it was removed on 12 September they returned a few hours later and reinserted the text in without any posts in this talk page thread.

The snip looked like this:

"In 2015, YTN, a 24 hour news network based in South Korea, officially retracted information it broadcast about Jung Myeong Seok and the Christian Gospel Mission between May and July of 2014, stating that its broadcasts were "not entirely based on fact." YTN stated that Jung had not "stowed away" in China, but had traveled overseas lawfully, and met several times with prosecutors bringing accusations against him."

Fairly innocent by the look of it. But whatever the reason was for YTN to retract anything regarding something that countless other sources confirmed years ago, the inclusion is irrelevant as remarked by.

It gets less innocent when CollinsBK in three days later on 15 September then changes the text to:

"In 2015, the Yonhap Television Network (YTN), a 24 hour news network based in South Korea, officially retracted information it broadcasted about Jung Myeong Seok and the Christian Gospel Mission between May and July of 2014. The news station originally broadcasted that Jung had 'stowed away' and that 'he accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members'. YTN later verified the facts and published a correction statement stating that its earlier reporting was not factual. The correction statement stated that the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved, and that his travel outside of Korea was lawful. YTN's corrections also stated that the sexual bribe charges were dropped by prosecutors. (My emphasis)"

Paradoxically CollinsBK has not participated in this section and discussed the YTN source. I'll refrain from voicing my opinion on what can be their motives, but the effect their changes have is to allude that Jung was not an internationally wanted refugee trying to escape the justice system in several countries and that he has not been found guilty of the crimes several court cases has convicted him for and for which he is still behind bars. The addition will be removed. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * GIOSCali came back after a four days hiatus and inserted for a third time in nine days (and still with no participation here) the same 621 byte snip, . The addition has been . -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yonhap Television News is not a small news organization. It covered multiple times stories related to Providence. Therefore, a retraction statement is unlikely to be made unless thorough verification processes have been undertaken. Its broadcast in 2014 about Providence is one of the more recent broadcasts. The fact that the retractions appear to alter a history of coverage about Providence is not unusual, as it is possible that with the passing of time, new evidence may have come to light and news change accordingly. Putting these assumptions aside, the primary reason that I made the edits on the YTN source is that the previous edits omitted information from the source with regards to the dropping of the sexual assault charges. Regardless of whether you agree those charges should be dropped or not, that is what the source says. Given that the source meets the requirements of reliability, that information should not be excluded. I also gave appropriate attribution to YTN retractions for that information in my edits. Can you please state your reasons as to why the retractions regarding the sexual assault charges should not be included in this article? What might be your personal opinion should not affect the accurate reflection of recent and reliable sources in this article. CollinsBK (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Has been stated by several users now, but I'll repeat the essence: whatever the reasons was for YTN to supposedly retract anything that multiple other sources confirmed years ago is irrelevant as we have not quoted YTN. But you should think that other news outlets had picked up a story like this. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 22:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * YTN retracted very specific information-- that Jung traveled overseas lawfully and that various allegations of abuse against him were dropped except those for which he currently serves a sentence. Nothing about this contradicts other sources. As it has been mentioned several times and in several sources, there were some issues in the reporting on this case.


 * YTN is a large network so its credibility can't just be dismissed. Sam Sailor whichever sources you are referring to, they may genuinely have reported allegations levied against Jung, but nothing about them negates that various charges against Jung were dropped or that he traveled overseas lawfully. GIOSCali (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As to why I had not responded on this thread: had been busy for several days, and added the info without seeing Sam Sailor had made a few posts. But on that note Sam Sailor, it would be great if you also would participate in talk page discussions before adding/removing large amounts of content from the page, which you have often failed to do. GIOSCali (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

YTN correction on its broadcast is the one-paragraph statement GIOSCali translated for us above. It is not a full article.

What's more, you're using the correction as a standalone, without identifying the original stories? This is highly irregular. I don't see how you can say with a straight-face that this constitutes proper sourcing.

At a minimum, identify to this discussion group what YTN's original stories were. Lacking this, the working assumption is that YTN did not broadcast any Providence feature in 2014 (but rather a sidenote mention in the 2014 Sewol sinking coverage, if I may reiterate). Thus no apparent WP:DUE weight.

It also means that you are supplying your own context and interpretation in a piece of info where context and detail is grossly lacking. Such POV editing is clearly a no-no, and editors such as Sam Sailor are perfectly justified in instantly reverting. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern sam sailor in regards to the original source not being used in this article. However, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and neutral point of view that prohibit the use of a retraction article, as a standalone source. It satisfies the criteria of reliable source, and given that it was pulished by a major news program, it is highly respectable. The fact that it differs from the contents of other articles is not a basis for exclusion. It is a newer source and hence, all the more reason why it should be included, as an update to the press releases on this organization.


 * You may dispute the contents of the retraction statement. But the statement, as published, is a standalone article and standalone source that can be referenced, without the original article also being a source to the Wikipedia article. The fact that the contents broadcasted were in the context of the Sewol Ferry incident, again doesn't preclude it from being useful for this article. I would be grateful if you could please pinpoint the precise statements in a WP for why this shouldn't be included. CollinsBK (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerns with Existing Source
I understand that all of you participating in this discussion are far more knowledgeable of the sources relevant to this subject than I am. Bearing that in mind, I would like to query one particular source cited in the article- source No.2 published by Nathan Schwartzman. That article was effectively written by Peter Daley and reproduced under Nathan Schwartzman's reporting, with no further information from Nathan Schwartzman himself. Peter Daley has been banned for having a conflict of interest. Is it possible that this article, which is effectively Peter Daley's article, could be a reliable source? While it is arguably not self-published, it question whether the source is reliable and neutral given that he has a conflict of interest and this is entirely his writing.I query whether it is appropriate to use such a source for this very sensitive article to which Peter is banned from editing. CollinsBK (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsBK (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 August 2015‎ (UTC)


 * I haven't been banned and I didn't write source 2. Nathan translated the Korean article listed at my request. I'm glad you admitted you're not that knowledgable, but I am curious how you came to think I wrote Nathan's translation? Obviously you have some connection to the subject of the article. Are a member of Providence?PeterDaley72 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72


 * May I correct a couple of misunderstandings here? The article in question and used currently as reference no. 2 was indeed neither "effectively written by Peter Daley" nor was it "reproduced under Nathan Schwartzman's reporting" or for that matter any of OP's following misinterpretations:
 * English translation by Nathan Schwartzman (02 April 2012)
 * Peter Daley is not topic banned from editing, although I can imagine it would have suited previous sect members well; they where both topic banned and indef-blocked. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the source here is the article in Korean by Mr. Song of CBS TV (No Cut News).
 * The English translation is strictly a courtesy link to help assist understanding it.


 * I apologize for having introduced the mistake that Peter Daley was the translator, facilitating user:CollinsBK's misconception, but I had already corrected this 3 days ago.


 * The translation (or a passage used from it) was assessed in Nov 2013 under #Translation by MrTownCar.
 * The "sex bribes reserve corps" mentioned in the original was omitted in the translation, and was later added into the Wiki article by me.
 * (Details continued to )--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) edited; some details moved to new section17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I apologize for mis-stating that it was written by Peter Daley. I am clear that it was not written by him. As for whether I am a Providence member, I am not. Having gone through some of the sources, I am sympathetic of the matters raised by GiosCALI, which are relevant. If this article were to be of an encyclopaedic nature, the suggestions proposed ought to be included. I hope that it is by no means the case that by holding such a view, I could be assumed to be a 'Providence member'.

Furthermore, another source that I would like to raise and query whether it is appropriate for the same reason being that it was written by Peter Daley is source no.23, titled, 'How to spot a Woolly Woof', published by the Keimyung Gazette. Peter Daley's name is in the byline. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would mean that he was the author. CollinsBK (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, is that a joke? If it is, I consider it tasteless, and ask you to stop and rectify. Peter Daley did not write an article titled, "How to spot a Woolly Woof"! I hope this is a Freudian slip; if so please use the "Show preview" in the future. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, the title would appear to be a play on "wolf in sheep's clothing". I don't see any homosexual references in the article, so I think the Urban Dict meaning might be unfamiliar to Peter Daley. Jim1138 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no intention of making any joke of this. The byline clearly states 'Peter Daley', with his email address next to it. To any reasonable person, the article is unmistakably written by Peter Daley. To be clear, the source I am referring to is listed as source 24 in the Providence (religious movement) article. If not Peter Daley, please advise who wrote this article.  |title=How to Spot a Woolly Wolf |publisher=The Keimyung Gazette |date=2006-08-18 |accessdate=2014-03-01 | [[User:CollinsBK|CollinsBK] (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with the article? It is not a blog and appears to be published by a reputable source. Jim1138 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is problematic for the following reasons:

1) it was written by Peter Daley who is known to have a conflict of interest with respect to CGM. This is evident in his websites, his blogs, podcasts, and also recognized by a Wikipedia administrator in an archived talk page. As a result, there is clear bias. Moreover, much of what is written is his personal experience and personal research. written in first person. It is not a secondary source and the material appears to be self-serving. There is no neutrality to the source. Weighing that against the gravity of a BLP, the source should not be used.

2) The Keimyoung Gazette is a university journal, not an academic journal. Therefore, because of the opinion/'free speech' quality of a university newsletter it is not subject to any rigorous fact checking process.3) Given Peter Daley's position, Wikipedia policy strongly recommends against his involvement in editing biographical content. Citing a source that was written by him is contrary to that policy.

3) The article is published in the Keimyoung Gazette, which after having done some research, is also the university that Peter Daley is a lecturer of. This would also make it a potentially self-published source.

Under WP: BLP, content that fails to meet verifiability requirements, that is contentious and libelous, and are self-published can be removed immediately. Therefore, I am deleting that source in accordance with that policy. CollinsBK (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As it says on WP:COI, "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships..." given that Peter Daly is directly connected to anti-cult orgs in South Korea, manages the anti-JMS websites, and has made it his career, he has at least as much of a conflict of interest as Providence members who were banned from editing this article.


 * Oh, and Sam Sailor--- you should be checking the sources before writing a response like that. You were so sure it couldn't be real article, but it was. Check next time. The same thing has happened when I have submitted seemingly controversial but valid info, much in the way collinsbk did. Be sure to check in detail. GIOSCali (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, you thought you got me there? But you are blatantly wrong, and your triumphant little melody of victory is out of tune and off-beat in all its loquacious ineptitude. "You were so sure it couldn't be real article, [sic] but it was." That's utter nonsense! I have said none of that, in fact I have offered no opinion on the source. I have corrected CollinsBK's initial misreadings of one source, and I have inquired as to why CollinsBK would in effect re-title another source to "How to Spot a Homosexual". And as they said it was not intended as a joke, but without explaining why they did so, I further 12 days ago, but they have not replied.


 * Not to my surprise you are in agreement with CollinsBK regarding Peter Daley. Please open a case at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect, I would appreciate that editors here would refrain from making attacks at each other. To be honest I do not understand why Sam Sailor would claim that I re-titled the source to "how to spot a homosexual". The article was called, "How to spot a Woolly Wolf". Forgive me, but I do not understand your comment about me citing anything about homosexuality, I clearly typed 'Woolly Wolf' to this talk page at the time of discussing it. I'm sorry if you were in any way offended. I would appreciate it if you can make some clarifications.  CollinsBK (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up Sources
I have been studying the sources recently and noticed that many of them are worded quite similarly. After further research, I found that indeed, some of them are taken from the same source. Under WP:NEWSORG, it states that "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." And according to WP:OVERCITE, in certain instances, needless citations should be deleted. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to simply take the most comprehensive or most reliable source among those that talk about the same story.

Articles about the initial arrest in China

Articles about the extradition from China

Articles about the initial six-year sentence

The date was wrong for the first source. They were all published within a day of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NEWSORG is typically applied in cases where the same news story from a news agency is printed by several outlets. That does not appear to be the case with any of the above. WP:OVERCITE is a matter of case-to-case judgement. Few if any would argue that does not suffer from citation overkill. That is not the case with the Providence article. Rather contrary it needs to be well sourced to avoid disputes about whether this or that is sufficiently sourced. This applies to the big issues such as the court given testimonies by former female followers that forced sex was canonical as confirmed by the Supreme Court given judgement that sex with Jung "is a religious behavior meant to save their souls", something active Providence/CGM members violently tried to suppress in the media, and all the way down to the small details such as the media frequently describing the organization as a cult.


 * Phoenix0316 posted the above unsigned message on 06:48, 3 September 2015 and began removing sources less than 24 hours later on 05:23, 4 September 2015.


 * In regards to the point of the article being sufficiently sourced: the article had 81 references which Phoenix0316 through a series of edits reduced by 14 to 67 . They then return four days later to slam a  onto the /History/ section . The only thing in that section that needed additional references, and therefore was need of immediate attention, was the poorly sourced quasi-libelous addition by GIOSCali in . But that had previously also been added by Phoenix0316 in their very first edit on 21 July.


 * In regards to the organization being described as a cult: the article in edit mode contained the string "cult" a total of 73 times before Phoenix0316's edits . By the time they were done, this count was down to 59 . They then return two days later on 6 September to erase the sourced mention about cult in the lead, and they stick in a couple of unsourced lines regarding the organization's teachings.


 * I will revert the "source cleaning" and remove the poorly sourced POV-additions. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 23:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sam Sailor. Your recent [||blanket reversions] have included changes that I believe are genuinely helpful to the article. I have made these edits in WP:GOODFAITH by spending many hours in reading through both the sources listed above and other sources. Therefore, I will revert edits that I do not believe you have adequately addressed.


 * As for the above sources, I have noted that many of them not only have the exact same structure, but phrase certain statements in the exact same way. In some cases, they actually cite each other. This has resulted in an article that has unnecessary redundancy cited by redundant citations. I will continue going in this direction while discussing on this page.  Phoenix0316 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I urge you to not. Follow WP:BRD. Your edits were unhelpful. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 01:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sam Sailor in that the claims in the article must be properly cited. However, the state of the source list prior to Phoenix0316's edits was such that it appeared (misleadingly) that there were more sources than was the case in reality. Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press. Under the WP NEWSORG policy, the re-print articles are not counted as separate sources, but as 1 source and the policy on OVERCITE requires that for ensuring that an article is good standard, the re-print sources be removed. Hence, the number of actual sources that substantiate the contents of the article are made clear. Those sources should be deleted, or else we can take this to the relevant noticeboard for further discussion. CollinsBK (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * adds this large list of articles, then adds that "some of them are similar", but does not list which ones are similar. I went through a few of them and found them substantially different. Don't expect others nor myself to compare each source with every other source.
 * That they were "all published within a day of each other" would indicate that the news sources are doing their job. The events occurred and the news services reported. What else would you expect? Jim1138 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You write Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press. The possibility of me overlooking something can not be ruled out, but please post a list of these many reprints, preferably grouped together by duping. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sam Sailor I would not mind using WP:BRD as a guideline for editing this article, but it seems previous efforts, as evidenced by bouts through dispute resolution, that the discussion portion of this cycle is met with only very one-sided efforts. That does not mean we cannot or should not discuss, but I am saying that adopting this optional method of reaching concensus will need some wiggle-room for it to work here. Phoenix0316 (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

On 02:18, 12 September 2015 claimed that Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press and they went on to say that sources should be deleted, or else we can take this to the relevant noticeboard for further discussion.

On 06:58, 14 September 2015‎ in I followed up here in this thread by PINGing CollinsBK and asking them to provide a list of  these supposed dupes. CollinsBK did not reply.

On 06:32, 15 September 2015‎ in  posts on Reliable sources/Noticeboard repeating more or less  here above. They did not notify any other user about their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They did not PING any user in their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Despite that, CollinsBK only c. 90 minutes later on 08:09, 15 September 2015 in  replies at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

As the reliability of the sources has not been questioned here, RSN is the WP:Wrong Venue. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not responding to your PING. I'm not familiar with the PINGING tool as I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia. So please do not bite the newcomer. As for the reliable sources noticeboard matter, I noticed the post on the list of sources from Phoenix0316 and looked more closely at the sources and identified almost exact duplicates within that and provided my comments accordingly. It was done within absolute good faith. I consider the RS Noticeboard as appropriate because the WP:RS contains policy on news organizations and news sources that are reprints. If you have a view on what is posted there, please feel free to state your views on that noticeboard. CollinsBK (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please post those Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not ping you or any other editors because I did not see that being done for any of the other posts on that board. Additionally, I posted this there in the hope of getting more opinions since actually looking through the sources takes time that you are either reasonably unwilling or unable to put in. That said, I believe there are exact duplicates among these sources -- as CollinsBK pointed out. In the first section, articles 3 and 5 appear to be duplicates. From the "initial six year sentence" sentence," citation 4 and 1 appear to be duplicates. As for the rest of the articles, it appears that they are not exact duplicates, but just many news agencies reporting the same story in a similar way. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 05:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As Phoenix0316 has already reiterated the sources I identified as duplicates, I will no longer repeat that. There has been no further discussions on this. I will proceed to delete the duplicate sources, as per WP NEWSORG- multiple republished sources are not indicative of there been multiple sources by one source. CollinsBK (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, Phoenix0316 did not add that sources no.2 and 4 under the section on extradition to China is also a repulication. CollinsBK (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note for other editors here re socking
the following accounts have been blocked as socks of one another Am going to do a bunch of archiving now. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Disheartening but unsurprising. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh what a shock. I was thinking about initiating an investigation myself. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This user initiated a delete vote for Exodus, which is a group highly critical of Providence. The result was a redirect. They also made a lot of expansion to an article focusing on a retreat used by Providence. I would highly recommend going over the edits by this user's accounts and reviewing changes that they've made.


 * Articles for deletion/EXODUS (NGO)
 * Wolmyeongdong

Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not too worried about the Exodus article. There was only one other SPA that commented but multiple other editors that I would not imagine connected in any way.  And honestly, looking at an old version of that article shows significant BLP and sourcing problems.  A redirect would have been a very easy call. Wolmyeongdong isn't a terrible article but comes across overly promotional at the moment.  I think it meets WP:N easily, just needs some chopping. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Now does this represent any concerted co-ordinated effort to whitewash Providence articles or is this just several unrelated but motivated people? Also, is there any word on the quality of Providence articles in other languages? Other language wikis may have fewer users, so it may be easier to whitewash those articles without anyone doing anything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * for keeping this article on your watch pages. Sam Sailor 20:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

More concerning is the fact that you have censored several sources that warrant inclusion in the article-- no mention of any of the controversies surrounding Do-hyun, no detail on the perjury conviction in which the plaintiff stated on record that accusations against Jung had been fabricated, none of the investigative reports from Korean sources that followed up on the trial in the years following the conviction.

One example that is well sourced is the SBS doctoring of Providence material, in which SBS was forced to pay reparations. I will include it in the article GIOScali (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have brought this up several times in the past (see Talk:Providence_(religious_movement)/Archive_2), and nothing has occurred in the real world to change the response to your proposals. If you include them in the article you will be editing against clearly established consensus. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent sources
Here are a few recent articles which I think merit inclusion. And yes, to answer the question above. The vandalism over the years is part of a concerted effort from members of this group.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-11/the-bizarre-world-of-providence-cult-and-its-leader-jms/9224564

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11859132

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/gq9wxy/how-a-south-korean-cult-tried-and-failed-to-sue-an-australian-school-teacher-for-defamation PeterDaley72 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

One more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/how-a-promising-law-student-ended-up-in-a-sinister-cult/news-story/67878f2eefd15e0e944c92568085d0b7

PeterDaley72 (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have inserted text about New Zealand based on the NZH article provided above. Sam Sailor 10:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of edits without legit reason
Hi I added edits to this unbalanced page with proper citation. It was reverted by an editor without a good reason (making unproven accusations about socking is not a good reason). I reverted it and stated my reasons. If this editor had a problem with the content or citation, he should have noted it on the talk page without just reverting the article. It was once again reverted back without any reason. I would like to know why? AspiringCheetah (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
 * Please review the discussion above and the archives. You are the latest in a long line of editors adding ridiculously POV and UNDUE content promotional of this movement. You will need to get consensus for your edit and it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to get it Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the of the section § False claims and apologies from Media outlets as added by OP. The editorializing  is not backed by third-party sources and is in no way befitting our policy on neutral point of view. To me it sounds a lot like a summary of the deleted articles Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok and Media allegations, charges, and conviction of Jung Myung Seok created by now blocked editors. Jung Myung Seok is still serving 10 years in prison for raping young women, but is up for release on parole in early 2018,Ref so as I predicted back in  this renewed attempt to stick in apologetic content comes as no surprise. Sam Sailor 14:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting insight into JMS mindset regarding this Wiki
As Jeong nears the end of his 10-year sentence (Feb 18 or 23, 2018 are likely release dates), Providence is producing quite a lot of propaganda. This should be of interest to those editing this page as it offers quite a few insights into the group's worldview and how it differs from, well, reality. I have had very little involvement with this Wiki apart from offering a few articles and engaging with members on the Talk Page, but I'm the focus of this "Wiki is nonsense" piece.

It may not be worth including in the main article, but at the least it should be of interest to those editors that have helped keep this Wiki factual: https://jmsprovidence.com/2018/01/27/providence-wikipedia-page-nonsense/ PeterDaley72 (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC) PeterDaley72 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Until it's something handled by a reliable source, nope. And you know that's not a reliable source...  Ravensfire  (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ravensfire here. Sam Sailor 09:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding unreliable sources and lack of neutrality
I would like to work in good faith with editors who have the time and are willing to do so regarding the following issues:


 * the article makes no mention of points that are very relevant to the case; such as the admission on the part of major media corporations of doctoring videos and photos of Jung


 * many of the claims on this page are sensational in nature (i.e. thousands of women being held as slaves currently) and do not have the proper sourcing to meet those claims


 * many sources on this page are outdated and re-published photos that were found to have been doctored


 * there is not an accurate description of the trial on this page

I'm wondering how the editors on this article would like to address these concerns. If you are an editor like Harizotoh who says they do not have time, then it would be better to work with those editors who do have time to get the article correct.

Failure to do so would be to neglect the basic responsibility editors have when writing an article about a living person.

GIOScali (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)