Talk:Jung Myung-seok/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Conflict amongst sources regarding timeline

Nocut news said JMS left korea in 2003 many other sources in this article state he left in 1999. what should we do? throw out nocut news ? remove the year? average the two years?

I am baffled as to how there could be a 4 year discrepancy amongst so many bonafide sources.MrTownCar (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Averaging the years would be synthesis and/or original research — both prohibited. Just because sources don't agree absolutely, 100%, on every detail doesn't necessarily mean one or the other is totally worthless or fabricated; someone could simply have been confused or made a mistake. We may simply need to mention what the sources say and acknowledge that there is a discrepancy.

But I'm a bit confused here as to where a Nocut News source says JMS left Korea in 2003. Is this from a source that hasn't been translated into English or incorporated into the article yet? Forgive me if I'm a bit fuzzy on this; I've had other things I've had to do and haven't been able to pay much attention to this article for the past week or so.

if you click the asian correspondent link in the grey column you can see the translation of the entire Nocut news article translated which mentions 2003.MrTownCar (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see there are still some Korean-language sources cited in the article without English translations of the quotations (current footnotes #7, #8, #25, #26, and #27). If this problem can't be fixed, these sources might need to be removed (along with the associated passages from the article). Additionally, footnote #36 (quoting a contentious statement by an anonymous lawyer) is IMO a very weak source for a contentious statement; if there is any better, stronger quotation from this source, I would recommend finding it ASAP. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Also citation 26 "One former member who was a victim of Jung's sex crimes said that "there were over 1,000 evergreens, and even from prison he managed them, including minors." another anonymous source quoted....MrTownCar (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"Virgins" ought to read "women recruited for sexual exploitation" cf. the section above, and I will correct it. Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a news report with photos of "evergreens" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVv4w-V3YX0&t=1m3s Shii (tock) 15:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

you tube is self published and not valid for referencing contentious material.MrTownCar (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Evergreens are the equivalent of nuns or priests - males and/or females who have taken a vow of chastity to live a religiously pious life. Referring to them as, "women recruited for sexual exploitation" would be sloppy, slanted, blatantly wrong for more than one reason, and offensive. Macauthor (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The source for the given interpretation of 상록수/evergreen is? Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disclose your source Sam, since there is no agreement on the term and no objecive source disclosed I will change it back to the literal translation.MrTownCar (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know what is meant by the people who use the term just ask the people using the term. Providence church is not some secretive organization trying to hide its beliefs. They have official websites with names of leaders and contact info posted on the sites. Simply ask them over email and they'll tell you, which is more than any of the journalists being cited bothered to do. By the way, is the Providence religious organization not considered to be an authority on the Providence religious organization? An even better question is Jung Myung Seok not considered a valid source information on the subject of Jung Myung Seok? We have lots of information about his life from his own published books, sermons, proverbs, and websites that could fill in the obvious lack of information in the biographical section. The wikipedia rules on BLP do allow for use of primary sources. And none of that information is contested. Some of the editors here agreed on re-instating some of that information, like his service in the Vietnam war, but no one ever re-implemented it back into the article. At which point is it considered a consensus?Macauthor (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked up Wikipedia's policies about this, and WP:SELFPUB says that such sources can be used only if the material is not in dispute. For the term "evergreens", for example, the definition is very much in dispute. The YouTube linked above is a news report giving another definition for the term. Shii (tock) 04:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Jung's Teachings" section opens with an entire paragraph based on one source - the Japanese scholar's research. Can someone point out to me where each of the first three sentences are in his research? I only see the fourth statement about Eve when I look at the actual source. Macauthor (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the second item of Jung's teachings, "2. it teaches that original sin, originating in Eve's intercourse with Satan, can be defeated by having sex with Jung." cites 3 sources, but the only one that appears to be saying that is the quote from Japan Times. There are a few problems with this. First, there is no link for us to follow and verify. Is it originally in Japanese? Is this a translation? Secondly, according to the quote, "explains Toyoshige Aizaw..., 'it is necessary to engage in intercourse with the Lord.'... He means himself." This interpretation of Jung's teachings should be attributed to Toyoshige. Thirdly, even Toyoshige is not saying that Jung outright teaches that people must have sex with Jung, so it shouldn't be written/condensed in that way. It's a false representation of the cited reference. Macauthor (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me.MrTownCar (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Information Network on Christian Heresy

where is citation 9 and 10 coming from ? seems like an opinion piece/ original research to me. Who bestowed authority / what makes this group authorative on determining what is and what is not heresy?MrTownCar (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I found newspaper citations that this group was sued for slander, and won; it seems like it is a fairly prominent Christian ministry. Shii (tock) 23:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Cite 14 of Asahi Shimbun is not available for confirmation. The url simply leads to the wikipedia article about Asahi Shimbun

Cite 14: It is unnecessary to provide a URL.Shii (tock) 15:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is necessary for a controversial BLP. Wikipedia is all about verifiability. Macauthor (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Shii (tock) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite 7 Hokkaido University - The article is in Japanese. Whose translation is this? “There no sexual exploitation” is confusing and probably missing a word or two. Here's the full quote, “At the end of the trial in 2002, a witness who had testified there no sexual exploitation from 1993-4 was found guilty of perjury.” Is it saying the witness was found guilty of perjury?

Cite [1]7: The article has been translated. You can read the citation yourself. Shii (tock) 15:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't address the issue of confusion. Please make it more clear who the subject of the sentence is by adding whichever words are missing from the sentence. I clicked on the link but the citation does not appear to be available for me to read it myself. Macauthor (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any confusion in the sentence. Shii (tock) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The way you are quoting it now is much more clear, but it's quite possible that the translation is wrong. The article by Moon Il Seok says that one of those who accused JMS of rape recanted her story in court even at the risk of committing perjury. Is the article available online for us to see it in its original context? Is this your translation?Macauthor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is my translation in the Japanese. The source is Chūōkōron, a prominent literary magazine. Shii (tock) 18:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite 30 (JMS 정명석, 탈퇴자에 대한 테러 지시" [Jung Myung-Seok orders terror on JMS defectors] (in Korean). Nocut News. ) This article is also not available for confirmation. Macauthor (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite 30: The article has been quoted. You can read the quotation yourself. Shii (tock) 15:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there an article available online? Do you have a physical copy you are working from? Are you quoting from memory?Macauthor (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quoting from memory. You can read the quotation yourself in the citation. Shii (tock) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So you have a physical copy of the article issued by the publisher then? Or is wikipedia your source for the quotation?Macauthor (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was available not a few months ago and I think there were multiple editors here who read it at the time the quotation was made. Shii (tock) 18:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Shii's edit of JMS' Vietnam military service and made it clear why in my description of the edit, "'allegedly' is a legal term dealing with crimes. There is no speculation about this and never has been. Military keep tight records." He then simply re-introduced the exact same edit basically reverting it right back. I was blocked from editing the page for a day when I made a similar mistake for edit-warring, but I do not have special editor priveledges to give him any such penalty. I please ask that Shii be held to the same standards. I did not re-introduce the paragraph about JMS' military service until after a month of discussion here on the talk page, until after RichWales suggested we re-introduce it, and after months of waiting for any objections. The same applies to the edits I am now making - all of them can be found thoroughly discussed here on the talk page over the course of several months. Macauthor (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are putting attribution tags on statements made in academic journals, so I provided attribution to the claim you added to the article, which is sourced to a sermon. Shii (tock) 20:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 has set the back all of the recent progress on the article and removed three different sets of new edits which should be addressed separately since they come from separate sources and are in different sections stating his reason as, "Removing Providence sources, which time and time again have been said to be unreliable." Even after the at length discussion under the section, "Civil government magazine - monthly" section in which Richwales said, "So, I'm prepared to give fair consideration to the possibility that Civil Government is a reliable source for facts and/or mainstream opinions" and Ravensfire said, "So in general, we can use information from this. Even better if we can link to the article on their website. I have zero confidence linking to the article re-hosted on a pro-JMS site, just as I would have zero confidence linking re-hosted on an anti-JMS site." And so I finally posted the materials from third party sources only to have Harizotoh9 revert it. Secondly I added some titles of JMS' sermons to address issues over what he teaches. It is a primary source but as we discussed in the past it is allowed by Wikipedia policy and justified to do so in this particular case. Harizotoh9 also removed the biographical information recently added and said on RichWales's talk page that we came to a consensus against using Providence sourced sites in the talk page. But if he had thoroughly read the discussions on this talk page he would have seen that RichWales already addressed several of these issues. Here is one of Rich's statements in the discussion about the biographical details that I finally added and Harizotoh9 just removed, "The "Early biography" section seems very incomplete to me. From other discussions, for example, I understand Jung did military service in Vietnam; I'm not sure if this was omitted here by accident, for brevity's sake, or perhaps because this phase of his life is considered controversial in some way, but it seems to me that it is probably relevant and should probably be included." Rich, if your opinion hasn't changed on these matters then could you please re-instate not only my edits but the edits of Shii that have all been undone by Harizotoh9's revert?Macauthor (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article for a while, and I am still tied up with some other matters which I can't drop right now. I will repeat, though, that I drew a distinction between material sourced directly from Civil Government on the one hand, and material taken from Providence-managed publications or web sites on the other hand (which I do not consider to be reliable for facts and/or mainstream opinion, even if Providence is quoting or reporting something originally published in Civil Government). But as far as I can tell, neither the current version of the article nor the text as it stood before Harizotoh9's latest removal of "Providence sources" contains any mention of Civil Government, so I'm not sure how my earlier comments about Civil Government vs. Providence are relevant now.

I would continue to say that material taken directly from Providence sources is unlikely to be acceptable as a reliable source for facts and/or mainstream opinion. Material from Providence may be usable on a limited basis as a source of information about Jung's public teachings (per WP:SELFSOURCE) — though since one big issue here is an underlying allegation that Jung has been teaching/doing things in secret that contradict his public statements, you need to be very careful not to use Providence material as a definitive refutation of negative claims made about Jung in mainstream sources.

I am disturbed to see that several Korean-language sources, cited in footnotes, have Korean-language quotations which have not yet been translated into English. This problem needs to be rectified ASAP, preferably by adding English translations of the quotations in question. Since I assume most of the editors here who are supporters of Jung are fluent in Korean, I would be very surprised if absolutely no one already participating here could do this, but the necessary resources to do the required translations must surely exist somewhere. A cited source for a contentious claim, available only in Korean or Japanese and without any English translation for the relevant parts, must (IMO) eventually be removed if no English translation can be obtained — but I really can't see such a thing legitimately happening in this situation, since there simply must be someone who is able and willing to supply the still-required translations.

Regarding the Asahi Shimbun material (which is apparently not available online), Wikipedia's policies on verifiability of sources do not rule out the use of a source solely because it isn't online. (See the essay WP:OFFLINE.) In such a case, however, the footnote needs to document the location of the source material very thoroughly, so that someone could (albeit with additional effort) find the material. If a cited source from Asahi Shimbun is in Japanese, by the way, the original (Japanese) story title needs to be used here, along with an English translation; similarly for the quoted material if it's in Japanese.

Sources used in this article were discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN) in January 2013, and also on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (WP:BLPN) in February 2013. If new issues have come up that need neutral outside input now, I would suggest that people should consider going back to one or the other (or maybe eventually both) of these places. However, be aware that simply going back for a "better" result from a noticeboard because you didn't like what people said earlier could be seen as disruptive (see the "I didn't hear that" subsection of the Disruptive Editing guideline).

If people simply cannot agree on neutral wording that fairly represents all mainstream reliable sources (per WP:NPOV), and if work on this article becomes (or perhaps already is) totally and irreversibly bogged down amidst edit-warring and accusations of bad faith from all sides, I need to point out that the matter could end up having to be dealt with by the Arbitration Committee. In this regard, I need to mention here that I am currently a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee — and if I do end up on ArbCom, and if the Jung Myung Seok topic is brought up for consideration by ArbCom, I will almost certainly need to recuse myself from the case. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) If I may so interrupt, there is a discussion on WP:ANI about these sources occurring right now. Maybe this discussion should be moved there, where admins can come and have their say on the matter. Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rich. If you look at the article edits I made before you'll see that I did not use providencetrial.com as a source for the Civil Government, but instead used two third party news sites as the source. In the teaching section I quoted JMS according to BLP policy as you said again. But of course all of these edits have been reverted in big lump by Harizotoh9. Macauthor (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

More problems (moved here from Richwales's talk page)

[I am moving this discussion from my own talk page to here, where extended discussion on this topic really belongs. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)]

I want some guidance on what should be done. I ignored the page for a few months, and when I came back to it, I've seen the same pattern repeat that has been continuing for seemingly forever. A few Single-purpose accounts adding primary sources as references even though it's been discussed at great length and there a consensus that such sources are unreliable, and then a few people arguing with them. Something should be done to finally break this pattern.

I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia policy and stuff though. What noticeboard should this be taken to? There needs to be some outside arbitration to make a final decision about this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page

Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes from anonymous sources?

@Sam Sailor: Can you discuss your reasons for reinstating this material removed by MrTownCar? On the surface, he would seem to have a valid point when he objects to supporting contentious statements in the article by quoting anonymous lawyers and ex-followers. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you view these sources as being of high quality despite their anonymity, but I think the point deserves at least some talk-page explanation and an opportunity for other editors to discuss the matter and reach a consensus one way or the other. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is great you ask the question the way you do, Rich, as it gives the opportunity to remind that we do not here "quot(ing)e anonymous lawyers and ex-followers" but we quote sources presumed to be reliable for inclusion that in some cases have granted annonymity to their sources in order to protect them. Does it come as a surprise that Jung Myung Seok has a history of violently retaliating opponents?[1] Does it then surprise that his rape victims discuise their faces at a press conference?[2] I very much welcome disussion with other Wikipedians. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize there may be legitimate reasons why opponents of Jung might prefer anonymity. When choosing source material for this article, we may need to try evaluating whether alleged sources which are anonymous are or are not credible — i.e., does the anonymity mean someone fears retaliation, insensitive media attention, or community harassment? — or does it mean the reporter or a news editor either didn't get the names or didn't consider them worth including in the story? — or does it mean the allegations are fabrications and the anonymous sources do not in fact exist? Similar questions frequently come up in criminal justice procedures, if a claimed victim or witness is using a demand for anonymity as a "sword and shield" to allow them to make unimpeachable accusations. In our situation as Wikipedia article writers, we need to determine (in light of WP:BLP, as well as our ordinary common sense) whether anonymity of the lawyers or ex-devotees in question automatically renders their reported claims worthless, or whether we can still conclude that the news reports were most likely based on real people giving truthful accounts of real events. The answer to this question may depend on the identity and nature (and, thus, reliability) of the source reporting the anonymous claims. I don't think we should automatically rule out all anonymous reports because they are flatly unverifiable, but on the other hand, I think we need to retain a certain amount of skepticism and not automatically assume all anonymous reports critical of Jung are obviously true accounts from frightened victims. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. This is an article with a plethora of quotes and citations and I really don't see how these two anonymous sources making contentious statements holds up to BLP standards.MrTownCar (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I ask firmly of sam sailor what is the basis for your air of irrefutable certainty of the guilt of Jung Myung seok? No physical evidence was produced at his trial. Simply the testimony of his accusers.MrTownCar (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@MrTownCar: It really doesn't matter whether Sam Sailor or any other editor is certain of Jung's guilt or not. Please remember that we are required to write this article in accordance with what has been published in reliable sources. Since numerous reliable sources agree that Jung was convicted by a legal system that is generally acknowledged to have been fair and transparent, we must report that he has been convicted. To the extent that reliable sources may call his guilt and conviction into question, we are allowed (in fact, required) to report this too. But we may not insert our own original research into the article and discount source material that is otherwise entitled to a presumption of reliability because we, ourselves, hold a different opinion.

It might (or, possibly, might not) be instructive here to compare/contrast the way we talk about Jung with the treatment (in Wikipedia articles) of various other public personalities who have been convicted of crimes, but whose guilt continues to be challenged by their supporters. For example:

• Warren Jeffs, a so-called "Mormon fundamentalist" leader who was convicted and is in prison in the US for sexually assaulting teenaged girls by forcing them to enter into polygamous marriages — accusations which members of Jeffs's church strongly deny.

• Yulia Tymoshenko, a Ukrainian politician who was convicted and is in prison on corruption charges which her supporters denounce as heavy-handed political persecution.

• Huseyincan Celil, a Uyghur imam (Muslim cleric) who is in prison in China; Chinese authorities insist he is a terrorist, but he is considered by several countries and human rights organizations to be a religious and political refugee.

This matter of reporting based on what reliable sources say has, as far as I'm aware, been carefully explained to you several times. And several sources proposed for use in this article have been discussed in the past on WP:RSN and other fora. While it is legitimate to examine new sources and make sure the material used in this article is of the best possible quality, it is not OK to go over the same ground again and again, and continued conduct of this sort is likely to get you sanctioned for disruptive editing (see WP:HEAR, WP:TEND, and WP:PUSH). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@RichWales: Is the last comment directed at the questioning of reports on Jung's criminal convictions, or my recent additions by Korean sources that mention the libel suit that Providence church won? Macauthor (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr wales- I asked the question for a very specific reason. I do NOT deny that Mr Jung was convicted and sentenced to jail for ten years. However, I have asked repeatedly on this talk page and personal talk pages for contributors to provide a single bonafide source that discusses the physical evidence used to convict Jung. Well it turns out no physical evidence was used. This is very relevant to this whole story and I believe is discussed in the civil government article. I will get it translated and include it in the article as you suggested it is our duty to report on.MrTownCar (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for discussing the fairness of the Korean justice system. The article as it is correctly reports Jung's life as it has been reported to us. Shii (tock) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The purpose of the talk page and article is to make sure that as much information is provided as possible for the readers to make an informed decision for themselves, NOT to have the decision made for them by selective inclusion and exclusion of material according to 1 or 2 contributors.MrTownCar (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As an aside I resent the implication of bad faith on sam sailor talk page referring to me as one who "declares his admiration for a serial rapist,..." There have been many "convicts" here in the US that were imprisoned for rape and subsequently released after many years in jail when DNA evidence was introduced into the case. This is very pertinent to Mr Jung's plight and trial and is the very reason I am harping on the point.MrTownCar (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I included those sources in the article earlier this week. But then it was reverted by Harizotoh9. Then the revert was undone by Epicgenius only be re-reverted by Sam Sailor. Regardless of personal views on JMS, the verifiable information published about him and even by him should not be excluded so long as it holds up to the highest standards of verifiability, so that we can provide readers with a more informed view of this BLP.- Macauthor (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge Providence article

I agree with Harizotoh9 suggestion. how do we merge the two articles?MrTownCar (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)