Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 4

Civil Government mag self-published
Continued from archived #Civil government magazine - monthly (merged from JMS talk page)

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

This is easily verifiable.


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

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

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


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


 * As for the rehash claims, some, not all, of the other articles reference the Civil Gov article, but they also offer independent reporting/separate evidence.

GIOSCali (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Civil Government piece is a WP:SELFPUB piece, and that assessment should stand.


 * GIOSCali, the feedback you got back on your phone call is the purest form of WP:Original Research. As is your brazen claim that Moon "misreported" on this.  But we do not need to heed them. Stop wasting our time.


 * Moon goes on to say Cha has been following this case for 11 years, so he clearly has this specific person in mind as the writer of the piece. Which makes it doubly doubtful such gross clerical error could have been made. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * CollinsBK, I assume you relied completely on a machine translator, and as a result you made a good faith error.


 * However, please double-check more thoroughly before you start posting misinformation. Your conclusion that "Cha Jin Soo" was a translator's insertion is patently false.


 * The very first paragraph of Moon's article in the original Korean clearly states "Cha Jin Soo" (차진수), and "Reporter Cha" (차 기자):


 * If you want to verify the above tabulated results, just go to https://translate.google.com/ and first translate the Korean text into Japanese, then the Japanese text into English.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * On a separate but related point: it becomes problematic to begin viewing articles on similar subject matter strictly as rehashes, particularly when it comes to investigative reporting. By this same logic, several existing sources on the article would be "rehashes" of initial reports of accusations against Jung. (See Schreiber's article).
 * The Civil Gov article was written by a reporter who followed the JMS case since 1999 and was the first to highlight some of these issues we have been discussing -- its natural that other publications which decided to report on those events might refer to the publication that first addressed them, but it doesn't compromise the integrity of those publications or the material in question. This of course includes the NewsDaily source, which does reference the Civil Gov article but offers its own reporting. GIOSCali (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am surprised at this name of "Jungjik Lee" (이정직) surfacing as the author of the Civil Government piece.
 * But this is not at all credible information. The circumstantial evidence simply doesn't add up:


 * 1) A sitewide search on "site:www.mjnews.co.kr" "이정직" does turn up Lee/Yi Jung-jik (이정직) as a reporter for Civil Government magazine. But the stories found are short pieces mostly on ecology, climate, systems, with only a couple on police matters. So he fails to convincingly fit the profile.


 * 2) The author of the Civil Government, refers to the 1999 JMS attack on defector Ms. Whang/Hwang, and is quoted as saying I wrote an article in Police Journal.
 * But this Police Journal(「경찰저널」) was also "published/edited by Cha Jin-soo" (발행인/편집인 : 車眞受).
 * As for reporters for other than Cha, none can be found for 1999, as bylines ("취재") naming other reporters all date from 2002+ period.
 * I found four reporters beside Cha named in the 50~60 search results checked, but none of them was "Lee/Yi Jung-jik".


 * Conclusion: It was no "Lee/Yi Jung-jik" but Cha Jin-soo himself who wrote the Police Journal piece in 1999, therefore, Cha was the one who wrote the Civil Government piece. Moon did not misreport. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there is a bit more fleshing out to do. First, the author of the Civil Gov article claims to have been following the JMS case behind the scenes since 1999-- it seems unlikely that the publisher of not only the Civil Gov publication, but apparently the Police Journal as well, would be able to follow a case like an investigative reporter... Second, given the practice of not listing author's names in S Korea, it's not surprising that the article is often tied back to the publisher-- but this does not conclusively prove that cha wrote it. GIOSCali (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no double-time burden, since Cha published and wrote formerly for the Police Journal which existed 1995-2003.
 * Cha wrote pieces in it, i.e., reported on the police as a journalist.
 * Moon does not identify Cha as publisher, but calls him an "active reporter", a needless qualifier unless speaking of someone who is senior management or retiree. So it all fits. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Kiyoweap, respectfully, I suggest that you also contact the MinJeong magazine to verify whether Cha Jin Soo wrote the article or not. It's not unreasonable that Jung-jik Lee does not appear on the MinJeong website given that the article was published more than 5 years ago. I did what was considerably the most appropriate means of verifying the author of the article by contacting the magazine directly, by which the fact was established that another author wrote the article, not Cha Jin Soo. CollinsBK (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

CollinsBK, contacting this pro-Providence magazine and divulging my personal information such as telephone number etc. is a highly unwise option, and I flatly decline. It is totally up to whoever wants to legitimize Civil Government to prove it is legit. Do not shift the burden of proof.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's not a pro-Providence magazine. The magazine publisher and all its journalists have no affiliations with Providence. The reporter independently investigated the highly publicized affairs involving Jung and Providence. The journal is published for Korea's government agencies and is therefore unequivocally, non-religious. Secondly, you are not required to divulge any of your personal information to the magazine when you call them to enquire about the author of the article in question. Thirdly, I have established the fact of who the author is by enquiring with the magazine. Any further disputes in relation to this should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard. In the meantime, the edits in relation to the Civil Government Article and the News Daily Article should be restored to this Wikipedia article. The persistent deletions that are without proper basis suggests that there are editors who are in positions of bias against Providence and its founder and is more interested in defaming, than to present all the relevant facts. CollinsBK (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Civil Gov a third party source, just bc it reports on controversies committed by Do Hun doesn't mean its pro-Providence, but that assessment speaks to why the author may have chosen to remain anonymous GIOSCali (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there was no consensus to excluding the Civil Government article and the News Daily article from this encyclopaedia article. Both sources satisfy the verifiability requirements. As such, I have added the information back in. However, in the interest of neutrality, I have modified GIOSCali's wording with more neutral wording. CollinsBK (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are too many questions and too few answers in regards to these sources, such as who are the writers and are the publishers notable and reliable etc. Since the sources are in Korean, the majority of Wikipedians are here excluded from vetting the sources and confirming that they support what they are saying.


 * I oppose and WP:CHALLENGE inclusion of text based on these sources until those matters are settled. Please provide adequate translations and collapse them below. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Kiyoweap. As for, the description is incomplete. Your insults are really unhelpful. I removed this quote because it is strange that the only thing out of that whole correspondence that makes it into the article is about tax-exempt status. There are actually several answers provided in that transcript, so the statement is quite misleading.


 * As for translations, I will do as you request. I did not put them on this talk page since it is already so bloated. I did not think translating a few sentences would be so burdensome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Article Structure
Suggesting that the article be re-organized in chronological order, as originally suggest in past DR/N discussions. Current structure is a bit arbitrary, organizing it this way would prevent any structural bias and also clear up some of the duplicate sourcing concerns as well. GIOSCali (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how restructuring the article could improve the article that much. The bias seems to come more from the content and tone of the article rather than the structure. However, the article is hard to follow and the events, not being in chronological order, makes the big picture difficult to see. So I have no objections. CollinsBK (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article opens with a section on theology. The content of that section has been disputed heavily and is very controversial, presenting it within the overall history of the group would give it more context. Also, it would allow the article to be more clear on the charges for which Jung was accused, charges that were dropped, and those for which he eventually stood trial.

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

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

Thank you,.

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

May 2, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Sailor Talk! 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (cont. to below)

Reverting to old version
(cont. from above on Crikey article) I am going to restore a previous, less colored, and much better sourced revision. Please observe WP:BRD

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

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


 * ✅. I'll get back to filing at AN/I in a little while to have more eyes looking at this challenge. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AN/I case found at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Sam Sailor Talk! 10:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Saw this on ANI - I took this off my watchlist because of the unrelenting whitewashing from editors with a clear COI. Ideally, this article should be reverted to a state before the last extensive whitewashing and fully protected. Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * While I am not saying I agree with every edit recently made on this page, there are a number of controversies that took place throughout Jung's trial that merit inclusion in the article--recanted testimony, witness perjury, Do-hyun's retractions, and so forth. If the concern with the page is whitewashing, the pendulum should not swing so far in the other direction as to fail to include some of these facts.
 * My point is that every subject should be represented accurately. GIOSCali (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, as peter daly has made a career and received a lot of publicity from attacking this group, his statements should be met with the necessary skepticism.

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

 (Moved here from below)  I was not able to actively participate in the recent bout at the incidents noticeboard. It appears there is a clear consensus to revert to previous versions of this article, but I do not believe that the current reversion is appropriate because there were many appropriate edits between October of 2015 and January of 2015 that do not deserve to be reverted. Therefore, I am suggesting that a more recent version be adopted. Bo ur ke M  Converse! 05:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The version of Sept 2015 was an appropriate choice for initial revert on a prima facie basis, because users were still reporting their activity or intents on Talk page.
 * Jan 2016 version is from a time when many of the debates stopped being active. This suggests active members may not have been keepuing up-to-date. So it is a poor choice for initial revert.
 * If you want to re-instate some of the contents between Sept 2015 and Jan 2016, no one is forbidding you from doing so, just reintroduce them under your own responsibility, and if possibly controversial, try to journalize what you are doing properly in edit summary or talk page. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating revert to 24 Oct '15 version
I want to update from the reverted version (26 Sept 2015) to a later version (24 Oct 2015) and in the process of doing this by section.

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

Theology section

 * The last 2 sections contained info poorly cited and not demonstratively noteworthy info, and had been removed earlier by me or somebody else. The meat was in the first 2 sections and nothing was really removed, as tabulated below.


 * I decided to remove one source, Pastor Toyoshige Aizawa for various reasons. He is quoted in "Love cult" piece which is in English and I find that useful, some issues were raised using a rehash of Shukan Post pieces. Toyoshige himself also wrote a piece for the Shukan Shunju magazine.


 * I also restored the paragraph on Sakurai obtaining his info from himself contacting ex-members and obtaining ex-member notes, but I prefaced it by saying  to clarify the purpose of the statement, since deleted it as irrelevant in his edit 21:59, 18 October 2015. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . Sam Sailor Talk! 06:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have restored an English-language source to the claim that Providence resembles Unification Church's theology. There are 3 other RS citations but they are all in different foreign languages (Fr, Ko, and Ja).
 * It must be conceded however that this English source is somewhat RS but somewhat not RS.
 * It is RS insofar as this is actually a Kyodo News Service feed, similar to AP/UPI news feed.
 * Criss-Cross News's kuchikomi "word-of-mouth" section had nothing to do with authorship of the piece, so it need not receive mention at all, so 's was on false pretext, and I replaced the URL that mentioned Criss-Cross to avoid confusion.
 * There are RS issues however, because Kyodo story relies on the 7/28/2006 issue of Friday (ja:フライデー) weekly magazine, and provides opinion attributed to Friday rather than a specific scholar or a published author on the subject.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I trust you entirely in what you do here,, once again thank you for your neutral editing. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Cha / Moon accuses SBS News / "A media" of engaging in a sleazy piece of journalism rigging the tape . This was a claim that came from Providence circles. No other reliable sources agreed such rigging took place. Upshot is, court said there was some inbalance in coverage, so SBS created a follow-up episode to give Providence 5% of air-time, end of story. No fines actually assessed (even though some editor(s) fantasized about a 900 million won judgment).


 * Cha/Moon's presentation of events regarding Kim Do-Hyung/ “the informer” is eyeball-rollingly distorted. What Cha/Moon conceal is the news of Oct 2003: Father of EXODUS (Anti-JMS NGO) Founder Bashed With Steel Pipe. I believe Kim Do-hyung was on the phone talking to his father, who was scolding him for wasting his life on this anti-religion crusade when he heard this "oh .. oh" on the other end of the line as the attackers did their business. Following such a traumatizing episode, it is perfectly understandable for Kim Do-Hyung to have written some groveling letter to Jung Myeong-suk to spare his family further harm, and to ask for monetary settlement as a means of closure. But Cha/Moon's paints him as a cold, calculating extortionist.


 * Cha (but not Moon) also repeated another Providence assertion claiming one victim to be a hoax. I believe this is the matter reported as Providence's intrigue in this article:  Basically, Providence produced a doctor's note stating that one of the claiming victims was still a virgin, but it turned out that the doctor was a JMS-member who had performed reconstructive surgery on her. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you comments, . Oct 2003: Father of EXODUS (Anti-JMS NGO) Founder Bashed With Steel Pipe contains numerous links the news articles regarding supposed attacks by Providence members of former members and their relatives, and this seems to warrant an inclusion here. Do we have some Korean speaking editors who wish to work on this task? Sam Sailor Talk! 17:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. Kim Do-hyung, the leader of EXODUS is a key figure, but info on him has never been really developed in the Providence article. There was a EXODUS (NGO) stub article, as Sam may recall. An independent article on KDh or EXODUS might be hard, since I didnt find much info written about the org's history beyond WP:OWN websites or blogs. But Providence members committting violence against EXODUS and other defectors certainly does warrant coverage, since KDh's father is not an isolated case. Peter Daley's board features picture of a colleague Kim Young-su with a swelling black eye. Here's also an article witha photo of KDh himself bloodied up as well.


 * For the record, Kim Do-hyung's letter demanding money is something I've seen posted on an EXODUS site as well, and it is well-established. But I didnt find it written up in mainstream media, so due weight is rather flimsy. In the absence of mainstream citations, I argued against using Civil Government distorted article, which characterizes KDh's "apology letter" as admission of wrong-doing and "extortionist" activity, conveniently leaving out the fact of the attack, because obviously most people would then see the "apology letter" as a typical case of a whistleblower bowing to pressure and violent tactics. I already argued this point against GIOSCali last year (archive 3) --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * The hallmarks of church members who previously tried to whitewash this article have been the removal or modification of negative material and material that contradicts church doctrines, and the addition of trivial flattery, poorly sourced fringe opinion aimed to cast doubt about the conviction of Jung, or outright hagiography praising Jung. Single-purpose accounts that repeat the same editing patterns, and do so again, and again , and again , and again should neither expect the Wikipedia community will treat it as constructive editing, nor that any regular editor will take the bait and explain what has already been explained multiple times and for which a source-based consensus has been established and remained firm for years. — Sam Sailor Talk! 15:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This does not address the reliability of the sources that have been removed, so I am putting them back. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 04:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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


 * As I noted this article is about Providence not Jung.  You  wrote "This article is about Jung Myeong Seok and Providence. There have been suggestions to make more than one article, but since they have not been followed through, this belongs here."
 * I have again removed it here. Phoenix please leave this out until we come to consensus on whether this belongs.
 * What are others' thoughts on whether this belongs in this article? Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, Jung Myeong Seok was originally a separate article, which in 2014 was merged with this and made into a redirect, on the argument that the two topics are inextricably entwined. (That is in fact the reason that BLP discretionary sanctions apply to this article, see the top banners above.) So Phoenix0316 is correct in saying this article is about Jung Myeong Seok and Providence. That said, it hardly makes it appropriate for Phoenix to persistently edit-war unsourced propaganda into the article. (Who says Jung's poetry is "best-selling"?) It's certainly doubtful whether the paragraph belongs in the article. Possibly one sentence, without all the promotional quotes. The poetry isn't notable outside the ranks of Jung's followers, and no secondary sources are offered to suggest they are. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC).


 * I would support that (very, very brief mention). This article has been the target of excessive promotion, white-washing  and civil POV pushing by WP:SPA editors for a long time seeking to put Providence and Seok in a highly positive light.  Small changes here and there, and suddenly everything is wondrous and great.  I think one or two sentences that the books have been written is sufficient.  The version by Phoenix0316 is clearly excessively promotional. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree that a very brief mention with cite book link. Special:BookSources/89-952666-2-7 search does not return any hits on the Online text (Goggle, Amazon, Open library) nor the first six Online databases. Is that an actual ISBN number? Is there really such a set of books? This line: One quote from this book is: "There is no one in the world that does not need God." is not encyclopedic nor appropriate in this context. Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Uncollapsing the original post containing the original addition to the article, because I want to address its sources wrt to the poetry being best-selling. Phoenix0316 calls them "legitimate sources". Obviously the Jung poetry book isn't a reliable secondary source, and doesn't speak to notability. The other reference, to newswave.kr, does via Google translate have the words "climbing the paperback best-seller". But also the words "News Report and Press Release" down at the bottom. How about it,, if you're around? Is Newswave.kr a reliable source, or is the linked review/interview simply a press release (which it kind of sounds like)? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC).


 * "NewsWave 뉴스웨이브" seems to yet another web-based news outlet. If you cant find similar content in more clearly legit news or book review, I think it is suspect as to notablility.


 * This story says JMS's book got on the Kyobo Book Centre (교보문고) best-seller list, but this is just a big bookstore chain. It's the same as being on "Barnes & Noble" or Amazon bestseller. And this on its own doesnt automatically earn notability.


 * The by-line is 김시현 Kim Si-hyeon, and unless this person can be established to be a staff writer for a reputable Book Review, or an eminent author, academic, or poet in her own right, etc., it's just a book report by a non-entity. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Jung has published numerous books (Naver.com author search), let's start by identifying the works in the suggested addition:
 * A series of poetry books titled Poems of Inspiration
 * Korean Dictionary of Poems where ten of Jung's poems have been included.
 * A book series titled Heaven's Words, My Words
 * Identifying #1: The Poems of Inspiration poetry books are titled 영감의 시 in Korean, and there are four in the series according to the Korean article on Jung. This is confirmed here. They were published in 1989 (vol. 1), 1996 (vol. 2), and in 2013 (vols. 3 and 4). They have not been translated AFAICT.
 * Identifying #2: What Phoenix0316 calls Korean Dictionary of Poems is 한국 시 대사전 in Korean, and is actually titled The Encyclopedia of Korean Poetry right on the front cover, see AbeBooks. ISBN 10: 8996612707, ISBN 13: 9788996612704. Here is its entry in the National Library of Korea database. The book is e.g. found in the Stanford University Library.
 * Identifying #3: The book series Heaven's Words, My Words are titled 하늘말 내말. According to the Korean article on Jung there are nine in the series. Naver.com title search here. National Library of Korea database search here. Complete list of ISB numbers courtesy was posted a year ago and is now found at Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 2.
 * The first suggested addition is "A series of best-selling poetry books titled Poems of Inspiration speaks in detail about culture, art, time, and life." Even if we take out the dubious "best-selling" puffery, I can not see it is a relevant fact anywhere in the article, let alone in the /* Theology */ section where it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the sect.
 * The mention of Poems of Inspiration, the book series Heaven's Words, My Words, and Jung's inclusion in The Encyclopedia of Korean Poetry added by Phoenix0316 and then re-added the  without any talk page discussion is however not a new thing. It was previously added to the article in essentially the same form in  by the disclosed church member . When they were blocked and topic banned, a new single purpose account, GIOSCali, popped up and added the same contents five times later in 2014,, , , , and , despite the objections from other editors on the talk page, cf. the discussion found at Talk:Providence (religious movement)/Archive 2.
 * I notice the sentence "Ten of his poems have been recorded in the 2011 edition of the Korean Dictionary of Poems" sounds a lot like the article Poet Jung Myeong-seok officially chosen as a poet in Korea’s 100 years of poetry on the website God21.net, a site run by adherents of Jung.
 * I'm open to inclusion of this material, if it has been discussed by reliable, secondary sources in a non-partisan manner, and if it is relevant for the article. — Sam Sailor Talk! 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We now know Korean Encyclopedia of Poetry is a 4-volume reference running 3,500 pages -- thanks to Sam Sailor, and finding a listing of 10 of Jung's poems in such a huge almanac does not impress me as being all that significant.


 * But even lacking that information, we all know Jung's poetry-writing gets minor coverage, and never merited a place prominently near the top of the article. It was a clear abuse of "prominence of placement" explicity discouraged in WP:UNDUE. Given there was not just 1, but a mass of prominently placed WP:CRUFT, Jytdog was well-justified.


 * I would concede is poetry matter is borderline between minutiae and cruft, and agree with Ravensfire and Jim1138 it might be given a brief notion somewhere in the bottom. The material occurs in the Japanese wiki article, but rather unobtrusively in a chronological list. It is sourced to the Japanese translation of the same Newswave article ("Jung Myung Seok the poet, Woman of the Poem, Spoken through Poetry, marked by image[ry] of sensual conceptualization"), at god21.net.


 * Since a considerable number of Newwave articles are promotions and plugs for Providence/Jung, that find their way to the god21.net, it's hard to regard them as maintaining neutrality comparable to mainstream media. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks everyone for your feedback Sam Sailor, Ravensfire, Jim1138, and Kiyoweap. To bring this discussion to a close, I'd like to add a brief notion of his poems somewhere in the bottom. How's this: Jung also published ten of his poems in the 2011 edition of the Korean Encyclopedia of Poetry, which is a 4-volume reference running 3,500 pages that collects poems covering 100 years of Korean culture, prayer, and life. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 07:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

J4U Sources
I attempted to add these sources, but I do not understand why they were removed. Are they not reliable?

Sources


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

Content supported

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

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

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


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

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


 * User: Jytdog Oops, you are right. I made a mistake in my reference. I meant to say see WP:PUS. Since Christian Times is a tabloid (On the info bar, you can see 판형 is 타블로이드배판. 타블로이드 means "tabloid") and potentially unreliable like Daily Mail, I removed it. Do you agree? If so or I don't hear back from you for three days, I'm planning on removing it again. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 03:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Technically, Tabloid (newspaper format) is a printing format, and not automatically a source of Tabloid journalism. AndroidCat (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on: "daily mail is not a RS; see archives of RSN where this is stated as community consensus dozens of times" Link please? Daily Fail can be uneven, but I'm dubious that there was a general ban on it. AndroidCat (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey User: AndroidCat, thanks for clarifying! I was confused when User: Jytdog said that but I thought it was because it was a tabloid source, but I guess my assumption was wrong. Then, is there a way to tell if a news source is a source of tabloid journalism? It'll be important to keep the neutral pov. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 08:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it's been over a week and a link hasn't been provided yet to the reasons for removing the daily mail reference, then I will add it back as a resource and make the proper changes. Thanks! Phoenix0316  (talk!) 06:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail has been found unreliable a zillion times at RSN. Check it yourself. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello User: Jytdog, I understand that Daily Mail has been found unreliable, but like User: AndroidCat said, it doesn't mean that there was a general ban on it. So, how do you discern when journalism becomes tabloid? Phoenix0316  (talk!) 07:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There has been a general ban on Daily Mail recently by Wikipedia. I suppose that should end the debate about daily mail. Avataron (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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


 * User: Jytdog, the external links section is part of the references section so when I added an EL to JMS Providence, it might have seemed like a changed a bunch of refs, but I didn't. The change of refs was when I removed the Christian Times reference since it was a WP:PUS. Besides that, can you tell me what part of WP:ELNO JMS Providence is violating? It seems okay to me. If there are no further discussions, I plan on re-adding the link.  Phoenix0316  (talk!) 03:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You changed a bunch of refs in those diffs.  Please explain the value of Providence website. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I looked at the revision history and I see what happened. I think the formatting changed for some reason with some of the references when I added the external link because they were in the same widget. I'd like to add just to external link so instead of reverting the change, I'll try to add the external link only. From what I read into the website, it seems to have other articles (e.g., from mjnews) that were seen as contentious in this wikipedia article. So I thought it was relevant. If you think it's unrelated, then please explain why. If there are no clear reasons, I plan on re-adding it. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 08:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is related sure - seems to some kind of site owned by the organization. Per ELNO we have one EL to the organization.  We use cgm.or.kr in the infobox and if we are going to one in the EL section it should be that one. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. JMS Providence peddles the same claims about the "religious injustice faced by Providence and Pastor Jung Myung Seok" as do Providence Trial, the material being that which church members have tried to add to this article for a number of years. I will remove  from the External links section and add   per WP:ELNO. — Sam Sailor 16:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey User: Jytdog, I reviewed WP:ELNO and it said this would normally be the case unless the other website provides additional info not provided by the official website. I checked the official website and since it is in Korean and also doesn't seem to include these news articles, I think it's appropriate to include JMS Providence. Though, as User: Sam Sailor has mentioned, it is similar to Providence Trial. So I reverted your edit User: Sam Sailor. I will add the official website to the external links on the bottom as well though. Also, I'll inquire further to the website owners to see if they are related to the official organization. It seems like members, but we'll see. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Phoenix two other editors disagree that this link adds any encyclopedic value. You will need an RfC to add that. Given the nature of the content, the chance that the community will find it a valid EL is about zero but you are free to try. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Concur with Jytdog on this. A good example would be the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.  There are several websites on both sides that have extensive analysis and links to support their view but you don't see them listed as External links.  That article has had some extremely high visibility and editing disputes and makes a very good example of who to handle similar situations. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. I also concur then about the JMS Providence website, but why take out the Providence Trial website then? User: Ravensfire, I checked out the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and in the External links, and it has at least one website that has a collection of articles. Providence Trial would at least include a collection of articles not provided on Wikipedia or the official website. Would you still say it does not provide any "encyclopedic" value, User: Jytdog? Phoenix0316  (talk!) 07:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * with something daily mail, you have to provide some justification as to a) why this particular daily mail article is one we should consider more reliable than usual; and b) why the content you want to support with the daily mail deserves any WEIGHT at all in our WP article, given that the source is so disreputable. It will be very hard to overcome the latter. Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification Jytdog! Hm... I think you meant to reply to the other section? This talk is for the external link, which I still have question about. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 13:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Confused about Providence being a schismatic group from the Moonies while being formerly associated with Methodism
Hey all, the first sentence of this article says, "Providence (officially Christian Gospel Mission) is a Christian new religious movement founded by Jung Myung-seok in 1980 as a schismatic group from the Unification Church, and was formerly associated with Methodism," but it doesn't make sense for Providence to be a schismatic group from the Unification Church and be formally associated with Methodism. It was either a part of the Unification Church and split off or was formally associated with Methodism. Unless the sources are suggesting that Methodism came from the Unification Church, but that doesn't make sense at all. If this can't be reasonably explained, I plan on simplifying this sentence to "Providence (officially Christian Gospel Mission) is a Christian new religious movement founded by Jung Myung-seok in 1980." Any thoughts? Phoenix0316 (talk!) 08:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I amended the first sentence to reflect the sourced content in the body of the article, in this diff. That was unclear. Thanks for pointing it out. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the amendments! It makes much more sense now. Phoenix0316  (talk!) 13:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Move of Providence (religious movement) page history to the History of Christian Gospel Mission (Providence)
Hi Sawol,

Thanks for proposing the move. The contents of the current Providence (religious movement) article contains a lot of discussion about the Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok as well as some parts about Jung Myung Seok (Joshua). May I recommend that the current Providence (religious movement) article and history be split into their relevant portions and moved into the three existing articles Christian Gospel Mission (Providence), Jung Myung Seok (Joshua), and Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok? Avataron (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I merged the Jung Myung Seok artile into the Providence article because once the poor sourcing was removed, there was only really not that much information to really justify an article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Harizotoh9, can you clarify what are you referring to "poor sourcing?" All the sources I cited were either official CGM webpages, Official Jung Myung Seok English Page, numerous translated and published news paper articles. It sounds like a very big sweeping statement. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avataron/sandbox1  Avataron (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Page moves, splits
User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Jenks. I understand that there was a request for moves was made by the near SPA account.

This article was subject to an ANI about its promotional nature (which was discussed in the popular media) - see threads here and here, and User:Bishonen and User:Drmies have been involved as admins trying to help keep this page neutral.

The changes today are controversial and this page move and apparent split of content to Jung Myung Seok and to Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok should not have been done without very clear consensus. Please undo all this. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with, this should be moved back to Providence (religious movement). I have restored the last revision prior to histmerge. We are not dealing with SPINOFFs here, the new SPA has created three new articles in their user space and copy-pasted them to main namespace. Is anyone preparing an AfD for Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok or should I? Going to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT Jung Myung Seok as it has also been histmerged and has prior history that is needed here for attribution. — Sam Sailor 17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done: Articles for deletion/Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Anthony Appleyard,User:Jenks,Jytdog, I would like to first clarify that I did not propose the merger, but it was User:Sawol, who after reading the articles I published, that proposed the merger. After his proposal, I started a discussion and made suggestions to it. Do check the page histories, thanks. Avataron (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to names, I'm not against calling it Christian Gospel Mission per se. It just matters what their official name is, and what they are referred to in reliable sources. So I could be in favor of keeping the title "Christian Gospel Mission" while reverting the content back to the old Providence article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Way too much was done all at once here. Let's get things restored and then an actual move discussion can take place, in a new section per WP:MOVE. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly: I wanted to reverse these changes, but find them so difficult to understand that I daren't try, with the split between the articles being confounded by the namechanges. And history merges, my god... But I completely agree with Jytdog that splitting the article was controversial and should not have done without consensus. Especially the "Media Allegations" etc (there's a tendentious title!) should not have been shunted off into a separate article. When I noticed Anthony Appleyard removing "history merge junk" and Sam reverting him, I definitely threw in the towel. Sam, do you reckon your actions as described above mean that this article, as it is at present, can simply be moved back to Providence (religious movement), and then the people who performed these changes can argue for them here and try to get consensus? Anthony Appleyard, what do you think is the best course of action?


 * Secondly: I have a question: it says at the top of this page that the article is under discretionary sanctions, but not which discretionary sanctions. Does anybody know? I thought perhaps New religious movements was a category under ds, but it doesn't seem to be, as I don't see anything suitable in this list. Scroll down for the list of topics under ds. If there are indeed discretonary sanctions here, it seems quite urgent to alert several editors to them. Way too much was done, indeed. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC).
 * PS, I just got a reply from an arb I asked: it's the BLP discretionary sanctions. I'll go post a few alerts. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Suggesting a histmerge of Providence (religious movement) into the newly created SPA POVFORK Christian Gospel Mission (Providence) without any discussion on the talk page, let alone performing it were not sound choices. But it's easy to deal with. Yes, this title can be WP:SWAPped back. Article is under arb-authorised DS

== Discretionary sanctions for pages regarding BLPs == blp
 * Usage:


 * — Sam Sailor 17:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Anthony Appleyard,User:Jenks, User:Sawol, and all users in this discussion, I would like to clarify that I had written the three articles researching various published sources on news media, as well as official pages of the group. I have found that there are numerous perspectives from the media that are not covered in the original article, that questions Wikipedia's key principle of neutrality and allowing of even minority views (so long as it is based on published sources). I have called on various peer reviewers to look at the material to offer because I don't think I am free from bias in my research, and I don't think anyone here can claim to be likewise. I seek to reach out to a larger group of peer reviewers to see if what I have written are indeed unqualified and uncited, or is the original article the one which has been contravening key Wikipedia rules of neutrality and allowing of all perspectives (published. And please do not do a "noping" of my account to exclude me from this discussion. For a fair discussion, please. Avataron (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Hi User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Jenks, User:Sawol, }} and all users in this discussion,

I would like to add that the reason I had written three separate articles because I found numerous materials that logically warrants the split into three categories: one about the Group (CGM), one about the person Jung, and one about the Media Allegations and Conviction details of Jung.

The old article confounded all the three topics together, and do not present multiple viewpoints. In fact, in the original article, it seems like there is an attempt to quash and silence alternate viewpoints despite there being numerous published sources (over 30 new articles and some books!).

There must be an attempt to call upon more objective reviewers, than the admins and users that have been directly involved in this article for a long period of time.

For a fair discussion please.

Avataron (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The changes cannot stand as they were too bold. Once they are undone we can have a discussion about whether a MOVE is desirable and whether SPLITs would be useful, in new sections that follow the appropriate processes. There is no reason to look backward now, and this is not the place to discuss why you did this.   Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog (talk), I appreciate the explanation of how we can move forward. Thre seems to be two courses of action that we can do moving forward. 1) To revert to the old format and make changes from there. 2) Adopt the new version and work to remove unqualified content if required. I suppose you, sam sailor and Bishonen have decided that approach 1) is the best approach because option 2 seemed to bold. Don't we need to at least have User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Jenks, User:Sawol weigh in on this? I am open to both options 1 and 2, but recommend option 2 because I did much research work to tidy up and categorize neatly the issues (I did not remove content from the original article) and debates in a clearer manner, and think option 2 is more productive to producing an article that is well-represented from all perspectives fairly. Thanks. Avataron (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You were too bold and you need to step back and get consensus for them, after things are reset. You might be able to gain consensus to make them.  You might not.  We'll see.  Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining Jytdog (talk). I agree that we need to move on. I look forward to a constructive and fair progress on this article. Can I confirm that we need a consensus, or is it rather a majority vote, on changes involved here? I my research I have found very different points of views on the issue, and I am not sure if we can ever get a consensus among all users on this article. Avataron (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made some minor edits on the page, please let me know if this amount of edits is considered "bold" and whether it is manageable for all on the team to progress together on. Thanks! Avataron (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * this is not minor, and the article is still in disarray. Please wait for things to be restored to make changes, and if you want to make extensive revisions like that, you should propose them here first. Please read WP:Controversial articles Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks Jytdog. I will propose edits here instead. Avataron (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk), the article has settled down. May I ask if it is in place to begin constructive edits? And can you please take a look at the edits I proposed in the next section of the talk page about the History? Avataron (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The "Media allegations" article does seem to be a POV fork. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Harizotoh9, I wrote the article to present all aspects of the issue, each pointer was backed by published sources. It was a fork. But,please qualify why you think it is a POV fork? I do agree that nobody is free from POV biases, thus I even put it on peer review. Moving forward, I think it is better to identify the disputed areas in that article and work it out. What do you think? Avataron (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to move this article from its current location at Christian Gospel Mission back to its long-term title at Providence (religious movement) leaving a redirect behind. Should there be policy based arguments for changing the title, follow the instructions given at Requested moves. But please keep in mind what I quoted two years ago from Official names: "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 10:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI: is related to this. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 20:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a surprising paucity of actual !votes thus far. Just the nomination for deletion and one "keep".  Hm. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Updates to History Section
Hi all, I would like to propose the following edits to the history section. I have added sources such as the official CGM website, and the published news article from Headline News, on top of existing sources.

The Christian Gospel Mission (CGM) was founded by Jung Myung Seok, and began its ministry in June 1978, in Seoul, South Korea. In 1980, the Aechun Church was founded with the early members of the CGM.

In 1982, Jung established the Korean College Student MS Ministry. In 1983, the organization was registered with the Korean Jesus Presbyterian Methodist Order. In 1986, Jung set up and became an appointed director of the Korean Jesus Presbyterian Methodist (Truth) organization. A rift occurred in the group in 1986, according to the magazine and publisher, when the vice president of Providence attempted to act on the sex scandals surrounding the group, but he was shut out of the organizational system and Jung consolidated all power around himself.

In 1989, the organization was restructured as the World Youth College Student MS Union. In 1990, the World Youth College Union opened its own seminary school. In 1996, it was reorganized into the International Christian Union after having been expelled from the Methodist Order. In October 1999, the International Christian Union was reorganized into the Christian Gospel Mission, which is the present day organization.

For discussion pls.

-- Avataron (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate response for the above inputs. Thanks. Avataron (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been almost a day. If there are no responses, I will take it as a consensus that the details above are good to put on the main page space. Tks. Avataron (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way. There is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to implement this like you did last time, like this? Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog (talk), I don't appreciate your hasty judgment. I do not intend any edit wars, but I intend for a constructive, and active, way ahead where other users besides the team of you (Jytdog, Sam Sailor, Harizoboh9), can contribute to this article. None of you have responded to my queries for inputs for the proposed edit even after 36hrs, although you have been very active online. It appears that there isn't a sincere effort to consider my inputs when I am doing my best to act according to the ways wikipedia has prescribed (although I am still figuring out and correcting myself along the way) May I ask if what you mean by "no deadline" is that, as long as Sam Sailor, Harizoboh9, or yourself choose not to respond to my proposed changes on "talks" for an indefinitely amount of time, there can be no changes to this article forever? Can other users chime in? Please at least give me some concrete steps (including a fair timeline or decision points that others need to make in order to progress to the next step) to work on improving this article.   13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avataron (talk • contribs)
 * I asked you a simple question about how you would like to implement this new content. No one can judge proposed content abstractly; we need context.  Please answer. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I intend to add one sentence per few days (depending on how long the discussion takes to agree on each sentence) to the main page under the "history" section. Each sentence can be debated on the talk page, sources examined, translations from Korean to English (if necessary) verified, and other processes necessary. The history section on "providence religious movement" is still rather thin with regard to the stages from 1978 to its present form, and there are published details that can fill this gap. Do you agree with this approach Jytdog (talk)? Avataron (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is just kind of weird. We care about NPOV overall, and that is hard to track one sentence at a time.  There is a useful place between micro and macro. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the norm in terms of balancing between micro and macro? I have tried to propose 1) An overall discussion of the History section, and 2) a sentence by sentence approach. Would appreciate if Jytdog (talk) can offer a way forward based on your experience with contentious articles. Thanks. Avataron (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

myprovidencehub.com is not a reliable source and looks like another Providence afficilated site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * HM. The links at myprovidence are violations of ELNEVER or myprovidencehub.com is affiliated with "Headline News".  Neither is good.  There is also over-reliance on the Providence website. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can remove the links to the website. I think the website is merely compiling & translating various published korean news about Providence into one "hub" site (as the name suggests) so that english readers can refer to easily. Doubt they are affiliated. Otherwise, Sisa news (which the current Providence Religious Movement uses as a source) is also affiliated? Can you describe what ELNEVER is? I tried to find what it is but couldn't find tks. Avataron (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated the links, see whether this is better. tks. Avataron (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing that is confusing, is that the image of the magazine cover that was on the providence website, shows a url of iheadlinenews.info. The URL you left, which is not helpful, is to iheadlinenews.co.kr Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, thanks for pointing that out. Ok I can link back to iheadlinenews.info but it is a dead link now. (after all that article was in 2005) I believe that the company revamped its website to iheadlinenews.co.kr, because when I searched for the exact same spelling in korean "헤드라인뉴스" that website showed up, with the same english name "iheadlinenews" too. Another way forward is, if everyone can agree to citing the archived hardcopy url of the article (it was archived under myprovidencehub.com though), then it may be more helpful for readers. Avataron (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to consider that source as reliable. You can bring that to RSN if you like.   You are also overuse the CGM website, as I already noted. We very strongly prefer indpendent sourcing especially for controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Providence sources should only be used for the most uncontroversial, undisputed claims. Boring things like a date, or things like that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) I understand your point about overusage. May I know what is a fair amount of usage? 1 sentence? 1 fact? Please allow me to understand so that I can appropriately write the section above according to what can be fairly cited from CGM website. I note that based on WP:SELFSOURCE, wikipedia allows writers to refer to the official CGM sites writing stuff about itself that is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities), does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. Avataron (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog (talk), On the issue of the reliability of headline news, could you provide me the reasons you consider it unreliable? From what I gather 1) The iheadlinenews.info website doesn't exist anymore 2) The iheadlinenews article was featured on a providence site, so there is potential bias or self-publication. And thanks for letting me know about the WP:RSN Avataron (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * about any providence site, see what Harizotoh9 wrote just above. on iheadlinenews, the likelihood of bias seems very high since providence is trying so hard to get it out there.  about ELNEVER, which is didn't respond to, read WP:ELNEVER - again the providence website is violating copyright by hosting the picture and translation of the iheadlinenews article, or the two are somehow connected so there is there no problem with the providence website posting the article and transation.  either way, not good. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk), can you pls explain why you do not even recognize CGM official website as a source for "boring facts" as mentioned by Harizotoh9 that you agreed on? You reverted my change to correct the founding date to 1978 as based on the CGM website, and is clearly stated on the CGM logo that Sam Sailor uploaded in the article. According to WP:SELFSOURCE, wikipedia allows writers to refer to the official CGM sites writing stuff about itself that is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities), does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. Avataron (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Every church would want to publicize the positive news reported about them, and I would imagine CGM especially so, given the amount of negative media out there. I don't think the likelihood of bias is there. If the website decides to publicize about the negative news articles on themselves, do we then think that the likelihood of bias is high on those news articles?
 * I was researching about ELNEVER and the copyright issue, and here are my findings

Regarding websites that directly translate a news from another website [source | archived] Firstly, if the website does not even cite the original, it results in direct copyright infringement and plagiarism. Secondly, even if the site cites the original, it is still is an act of copyright infringement. However, most blogs and websites tend to not heed this. Thirdly, if the site cites the original, after asking for permission from the original owner, then it is good to go. Otherwise, the website can also write in its own words about the article. Jytdog (talk), can I confirm that if the CGM has received permission from the original news owners to publish a direct translation and a scanned copy of the news on its website, then there is no copyright issue? Avataron (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this means: " can I confirm that if the CGM has received permission..." Anyone can look at the ELNEVER pages at the providence website and see that there is no permission stated there.  If you mean getting some permission via private communications, the answer is no.  Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I gather from your comments that if CGM has official permission from the news website through official email channels, and publish this permission on their website, then there is no copyright issue? Avataron (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog (talk), appreciate a response to the question above as well. Avataron (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog (talk), I note that you have been active but have not responded to my two questions posted in the past 3 days. Appreciate your response. Avataron (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am uninterested in helping the folks at myprovidencehub.com figure out what they need to do in order for you to be able to cite myprovidencehub.com here in WP and in any case the ELNEVER policy is clear as day.  Further myprovidencehub.com is not independent and just as we should not cite CGM's official website much if at all, we should not cite myprovidencehub.com much if at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not talking about citing myprovidencehub but about citing the original iheadline news. You challenged iheadline news as an independent source just because it was cited by myprovidencehub, which provided an english translation of the original korean news article. I do not need to cite myprovidencehub at all and have removed all citations. Yes, I will follow ELNEVER and make sure that the policy is clearly kept.
 * As for reverting the changes using CGM website, it appears that you are avoiding my question. You reverted even a simple edit to the founding date of the organization, which is obviously not 1980 based on their official website which I cited and their logo. I have asked you multiple times and cited WP:SELFSOURCE. I will bring this up to other authorities to give this a fair hearing.  Avataron (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Above you asked me about what myprovidencehub needs to do in order for a citation to the iheadlinenews article at their website not to violate ELNEVER, and I replied to that. You say that I avoiding some question about use of the CGM website itself.  You asked here and i replied here)  Perhaps you mean this, which I see that I didn't respond to.  In general we should avoid using the CGM website for much of anything.  There is little that is uncontroversial about them.   Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog (talk), I appreciate your inputs on ELNEVER. I will follow up on the issue of iheadline news reliability after asking the group to declare their whether they have received permissions from the news companies and also whether they have affiliation to the news. On to the other issue of usage of CGM's official site for a simple data like the founding date. While they are a controversial group, based on WP:SELFSOURCE which is as clear as day, CGM's official site is allowed to be used as a source as I had explained here. This is where I differ on your approach and have called upon third opinions. We would appreciate any third party editor's inputs on this contention please, thank you! Avataron (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Avataron has just started a thread at the BLP noticeboard. Not sure if that's what you meant by calling for third opinions, Avataron? In any case, it's a good idea to put a notice about it here, which I have now done, see below. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen &#124; talk. Avataron (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes:
1. I am not opposed to restoring the Jung Myung-seok article. I just felt that after trimming the article to what was reliable sources, that there was not enough material to truly justify an article and it was largely a repeat of the Providence article. . I may have been too hasty. I am in favor of expanding it with reliable sources.

2. I am not opposed to re-naming this article Christian Gospel Mission. The issue is that they have so many names, and different languages and translations, I'm not sure what the actual official name is. If CGM is the official name for their organization, then that should be the name of this article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you Harizotoh9 (talk). From my research, it is evident that the official name of the group is called CGM. The various nations have their variants like CGM (Taiwan), CGM (Japan). They call themselves "providence" internally with the meaning of God's will. see ref. Every nation has a translation for the word like setsuri etc. That said, the churches under CGM in each nation have their own unique name as well, e.g. Seoul church etc". There is no need to be confused as such. Based on what I read on wiki, the only good reason why we should not be naming it its official name is if the original name is too complicated in english, which it isn't. Avataron (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, the edit history of the Jung Myung-seok article is now gone. I think there was some deletions made for moving. Meaning it can't be easily restored. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can the admins restore this? Avataron (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to include section on CGM's Peace and Cultural activites
Hi all, I am proposing to include this section, which I have supported with numerous published sources and some data from CGM's official website. Would appreciate everyone's inputs on this, thank you! Avataron (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC) See below:

The culture and peace exchange programs set up by the CGM are for breaking down walls between the secular and religious, and to share understandings of God. Representatives or cultural ambassadors are sent throughout the world to introduce Korea to people. These programs are also expressions of thanksgiving, and offering of glory to God.


 * Sports

CGM organized soccer and sports events, such as the 2006 Asia Peace Cup, the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Global peace soccer and arts festivals, and the 2011 Asia Soccer Meet.
 * Soccer

CGM also conducts annual soccer camps for children under the “Milky Way Soccer Club”, for children to learn and play soccer, develop their faith and learn about teamwork.

In 2016, CGM (Taiwan)'s Soccer League organized the “Love and Peace Soccer Tournament National Finals,” in which 17 men’s teams and 4 women’s teams participated. Arts performances such as aboriginal dances and honor guard performances were combined with the soccer league. It also involved Yung-cheng Chen from Chinese Taipei Football Association, ROC (CTFA) to give guidance to the competition.

CGM organizes volleyball competitions, such the Campus Elite Cup Volleyball Competition (CECVC) in Taiwan. On May 17, the 2nd CECVC was held at National Tsing Hua University and involved 26 teams from various universities, including the National Taiwan Ocean University and the National Sun Yat-sen University.
 * Volleyball


 * Cultural Exchange

Beginning from 2011, CGM held annual Rock Festivals in its retreat center, Wolmyeongdong, to showcase its large rock landscapes and to teach visitors about the value of life. In 2011, CGM’s first Rock Festival attracted more than 40,000 visitors.
 * Rock Festivals

In 2013, the third Rock Festival was held in conjunction with a national soccer tournament with over 53 teams and 1,000 soccer players. Various cultural activities were held following the soccer event, including a dance competition, an orchestra performance, a concert and traditional music festival.

CGM organizes annual flower festivals in spring when flowers, including cherry blossoms, bloom in Wolmyeongdong. During the 2015 flower festival, proverbs about God were featured, alongside soccer tournaments, and arts performances. The director of Wolmyeongdong opened the 2016 flower festival with a message that flowers should not lose their fragrance, and in the same way, people of faith must not lose the fragrance of the Trinity in their lives. The public, especially local residents, were welcomed to the event. In 2016, there were almost  21,000 visitors in total.
 * Flower Festivals

CGM, through its affiliated Global Association of Culture and Peace, organized the Bright Smile Movement during the 2002 World Cup in response to then-President Kim Dae-jung’s call to his citizens to welcome visitors warmly. CGM believed that this campaign helped to show foreigners that Korean are happy people, in order to change a 500-year long South Korean history of not expressing friendliness through smiling.
 * Bright smile movement

CGM holds theater performances to teach about faith, such as the performance about Jesus, heaven and hell held in the Jangchung Gymnasium in 2009.
 * Concerts and Theater Performances

In December 2016, CGM’s Peace Symphony Orchestra collaborated with the Heart Road Foundation to organize a charity concert at Chung Hsing Hall in Taichung City, Taiwan. The concert involved traditional music, Aboriginal folk songs, Hokkien songs, Hakka songs and other language elements. The Taiwan Aboriginal Youth Cultural Society and Milky Way Choir were invited as special guests to participate and perform. Aside from donating part of the proceeds to charity, CGM also raised awareness for those in need and those with mental disabilities through an introductory video.

--Avataron (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear editors, would appreciate your inputs into the proposed addition of this section. Avataron (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Way too reliant on CGM references which contribs to the UNDUE weight. Way too much PROMO language.  If you a) source this only from independent refs, and b) remove all the adjectives so this is just factual, it might be acceptable.  Would have to see. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

2nd version
Thanks for reorganizing the thread above, and providing your inputs Jytdog. I noted your points about references to CGM website (i have removed the only reference to CGM official website - although this is still a subject for discussion in the previous contention), and removing any trace of PROMO language. The above only contains a) independent refs, and b) is removed of PROMO adjectives to make it purely factual. Please let me know what you think, and any specific parts that need fixing. Thanks. Other editors, feel free to chime in. -- Avataron (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The CGM conducts culture, arts and peace exchange programs through cultural ambassadors both locally and overseas.

CGM conducts annual soccer camps and contests for children nationwide under the amateur soccer club called “Milky Way Soccer Club”.
 * Sports
 * Soccer

In 2016, CGM organized the “Love and Peace Soccer Tournament National Finals,” in which 17 men’s teams and 4 women’s teams from 3 nations (Korea, Japan, and Taiwan) participated. Arts performances such as aboriginal dances and honor guard performances were combined with the soccer league. It also involved Yung-cheng Chen from Chinese Taipei Football Association, ROC (CTFA) to give guidance to the competition.

CGM organizes volleyball competitions, such the Campus Elite Cup Volleyball Competition (CECVC) in Taiwan. In 2014, the 2nd CECVC was held at National Tsing Hua University and involved 26 teams from various universities, including the National Taiwan Ocean University and the National Sun Yat-sen University.
 * Volleyball

Beginning from 2011, CGM held annual Rock Festivals in its retreat center, Wolmyeongdong, to showcase its large rock landscapes to the public. CGM’s first Rock Festival was attended by more than 40,000 visitors in 2011.
 * Cultural Exchange
 * Rock Festivals

In 2013, the third Rock Festival was held in conjunction with a national soccer tournament with over 53 teams and 1,000 soccer players. Various cultural activities were held following the soccer event, including a dance competition, an orchestra performance, a concert and traditional music festival.

CGM organizes annual flower festivals in spring when flowers, including cherry blossoms, bloom in Wolmyeongdong. During the 2015 flower festival, proverbs were featured, alongside soccer tournaments, and arts performances. The public, especially local residents, were welcomed to the event. In the third flower festival in 2016, the public, especially local residents, were welcomed to the event. There were almost 21,000 visitors in total.
 * Flower Festivals

CGM, through its affiliated Global Association of Culture and Peace, organized the Bright Smile Movement during the 2002 World Cup in response to then-President Kim Dae-jung’s call to his citizens to welcome visitors warmly. CGM conducted the campaign to welcome foreigners to Korea with a smile, such as greeting World Cup fans outside the Incheon Munhak Stadium.
 * Bright smile movement

CGM holds theater performances on religious themes, such as the performance about Jesus, heaven and hell held in the Jangchung Gymnasium in 2009.
 * Concerts and Theater Performances

In December 2016, CGM’s Peace Symphony Orchestra collaborated with the Heart Road Foundation to organize a charity concert at Chung Hsing Hall in Taichung City, Taiwan. The concert involved traditional music, aboriginal folk songs, Hokkien songs, Hakka songs and other language elements. The Taiwan Aboriginal Youth Cultural Society and Milky Way Choir were invited as special guests to participate and perform.

-- Avataron (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Avataron (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks for posting my 2nd version Jytdog. Didn't know that it was the norm to do this because I thought editors could just compare versions of the page after any edits, and doing it this way would make the talk page very very long. Appreciate the tidying up. Avataron (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't change something after someone has responded to it -- doing so renders their comments bizarre. This is described in the Talk page guidelines at WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for explaining and directing me to the talkpage guidelines. Would appreciate if you could comment on the substance of my 2nd round of edits too. Avataron (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear editors, please take a look at my second round of edits and see whether it meets good encyclopedic criteria for publishing on the main article, tks. Avataron (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, what you are attempting is wrong. This article already suffers from being excessively long and unduly focussed on the controversies. Attempting to 'balance' the article by piling on more c*** are an imposition on our readers. It would be far better if editors trim the article to the lower end of the WP:AS guidance and render it policy compliant. Inlinetext (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Inlinetext, thanks for your honest feedback. I agree that the article is excessively long and unduly focussed on the controversies. (The page is 82kb now which is under the WP:AS "probably should be divided category") I have a lot of content that provides other facts on the group that are not focussed only on the controversies, but as you said this will make the article even longer. Given that you are a Wikidragon, can I request for your assistance to make few bold proposed edits to trim down the article? That will be helpful. We can open a new discussion thread on that. PS: I have tried to work a neutral POV into the article with these three heavily sourced drafts on the Group, the group's founder, and various published perspectives on the controversies that you can use as a reference. I have also tried to make changes progressively through the article's talk page (as you can see), but faced significant resistance. Avataron  talk 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikidragon is only a self-bestowed 'tag'. Instead of discussing your version, I would suggest that you do some wiki-gnoming here and remove all the excess text from the references and ensure that the citations are entered in a rigorously neutral way. Inlinetext (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs Inlinetext (talk). I will do so, but appreciate if you could watch this page and its talk, so that you can also weigh in or make edits when necessary. This page is too contentious and it is hard to make edits that in my opinion adhere to wiki polocies, even small ones. Avataron talk 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, you appear to be active again. Can you pls comment on the substance of my propose in the 2nd version of the section above? Also, I attempted to gnome through the page for words that are not neutral as proposed by Inlinetext, but you quickly reverted them again. Inlinetext, this is an example where I find it difficult to even reword things neutrally. Avataron  talk 21:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my edit note, NPOV does not mean "not negative". Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, it has been a week my proposed addition of the above section and it has been fixed to reflect the inputs. If there are no further inputs, I will incorporate the 2nd version of the section into the article after the "Recruitment" section.  Avataron  talk 23:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are again being way too aggressive. You have a huge bunch of text up there sources to references that are in Korean and need time to check out.  Please wait for anybody to respond.  This is not all about me. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't label me as impatient and aggressive. It has been a week since i posted the proposal and there was ample time for editors to respond. I would also appreciate you if you replied to my question here on talk page, instead of saying something only after my post on the main article. I put a message on the talk on my intention hours before the actual post (in between which you appeared to have seen and edited the page). May I also know what exactly are you waiting for from other users, so that I can solicit from more editors? Is it translations to the sources (which I already provided)? Verifications to my translations? More opinions? Avataron  talk 03:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

NewsnJoy as an independent source
Hi all, I am starting this thread because of Jytdog's recent revert of my use of this source. Jytdog, I have read your comments in the reversion "excessively long quote. we don't really care what CGM spokespeople have to say. we want independent sourcing and NPOV content)." I can remove the long quote from the citation, no problem. As for independent sourcing, I would like to state unequivocally that NewsnJoy is an independent source. The Newsnjoy published what the CGM spokesman said. The news also published what those who left CGM said, and that is being quoted in this current article. Why do you apply double standards and allow the citation of those who speak negatively of CGM but not CGM's statements through an independent source? If you want to dispute Newsnjoy as an independent source, then it is only right to remove Newsnjoy ENTIRELY which is currently being used as a reference in the article already (and its associated content). Avataron  talk 02:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * but we don't care what the spokesperson said. This WP article is not a vehicle to transmit CGM's messages and you need to stop trying to use it for that. This article is about CGM. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to transmit CGM's messages, but to write about CGM what independent news sources have said. So, you have no issues with using NewsnJoy as a source right? Avataron  talk 03:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is Newsnjoy? Drmies (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies, Newsnjoy is a christian media company in Korea. It is currently being used a source in this article here. There is another article from Newsnjoy that was published after this cited article, that Jytdog appeared to have labelled as a "non-independent source". Hence, the double standards applied. Avataron  talk 03:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I don't see what you mean with double standard--it seems to me that Jytdog does not accept it as an independent source, so that's one single standard. I cannot find anything on this company; perhaps you can point me to something (in English) that indicates ownership, editorial board, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply Drmies. If Jtydog doesn't accept it as an independent source now, then why was it used in the article and accepted in the past here? This is what I mean by double standards. This url here describes the company. Unfortunately, you have to use google translate (use chrome browser will help) to read it in english. The translation by google translate is decent.  Avataron  talk 03:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did Jytdog explicitly accept it? If it's in the article and he didn't remove it, that still doesn't mean he accepts it. He may not have seen it, or it may have verified a very different kind of thing. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Best to let Jytdog' answer this question. Drmies, do you mind giving your inputs in the previous section on this talk page? I had proposed a new section for the main article (see 2nd version). Any inputs will be much appreciated. Avataron talk 03:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If that translation is indeed accurate, accepting the outfit as neutral is difficult, since they are "dedicated to renewing Korean churches"--that is not the kind of thing a newspaper does. And apparently they're not a newspaper anymore anyway... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Drmies. Avataron  talk 03:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, can you please comment whether you think Newsnjoy is a valid source or not? See above discussion, thks. Avataron talk 02:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of 2015 Yonhap Television News Source
Hi User:Harizotoh9, can you please explain your recent revert of my edits based on the Yonhap news source here, i didn't understand your explanation of "2017 source tag".