This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
GIOSCali tried to add some sources while carrying out the whitewashing that DR noted was clearly against consensus. -- Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
adding a new /* Controversies */section with:
and deleting
--added by
Kiyoweap (
talk)
05:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The sources in question in the Trial and Verdict section (not including the already dismissed
WP:UNDUE weight on SBS or Kim Do Hun) include:
|
|
-- Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I am really open to suggestions here but I am thoroughly confused trying to read this article through at some points. Should we call this organization Providence, Christian Gospel Mission, JMS, or what? Since the lede suggests that the official name is CGM, can we not change its name to that? Phoenix0316 ( talk) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the following information warrant inclusion in the article?
GIOSCali ( talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
SBS is major media in South Korea. The fact that major media broadcasted doctored videos on Jung is relevant in a wikipedia article about him, whether or not SBS is used a source in that article.
Ian.thomson, the object here is to post the facts.You may have your opinions on the implications of the RFC claims. But that is your private opinion.
If the object is to build an encyclopedia, and especially if the subject is a living human being, we have to list the relevant facts on the subject and keep our opinions out of it.
In this case, an individual was convicted of a crime after more than ten years of controversies on either side. We need to describe it accurately.
Even if you don't like the idea that the South Korean media mishandled Jung's case(as it has mishandled many cases), that is what happened. GIOSCali ( talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the manner in which discussions/edits are proceeding with this article.
1. There have been several mass reverts of information on the article that were supported by RS sources, as well as reverts of info that was in dispute without in depth discussion by reverting editors on the talk page. Ex: The YTN retractions from 2015... this is a prominent 24 hour news network, why was this source removed?
2. I will say it again: the article in its current format is problematic.
It does not include any information that current editors deem favorable to the Providence group--i.e. broadcast infractions, etc. ( Claiming that a source that reports on these issues is "Pro-Providence" basically sums this up). Rather than mass revert, it would be helpful to find a way to include the info properly.
Also, the current article cites many claims/allegations against the group without making it clear that they were dropped, save for the single case against Jung with the four plaintiffs.
Given that there have been extended discussions on this talk page for quite sometime, I wanted to compile a basic summary of some of the concerns that I have had regarding this article, in the hopes to facilitate more progress.
1. The article in its current states lends the impression that Jung is guilty of committing sexual crimes against thousands of women. I believe the article should rely more heavily on factual accounts of the proceedings, given that all charges of sexual assault against him were dropped, except the single case involving three plaintiffs, for which he now serves a ten year sentence.
2. Widespread broadcast violations during the time of the trial (including but not limited to SBS and YTN) are not mentioned in the article. (Perhaps the editors are unfamiliar, but in Korea, many media outlets are paid more for reporting on religious matters. Not only with JMS, but with other religious groups, there has often been similar cases of broadcast violations).
3. The anti-Providence group EXODUS is mentioned frequently in this article, and was the first to bring major public charges against the Providence group. The fact that the founder of the group was found to extorted JMS for 2 billion won would therefore also belong in the article.
4. Reactions following the trial are not included in the article, from individuals inside or outside of the Providence group. While some of the sources are reports and others are op-ed pieces, the fact that several prominent members outside the Providence group criticized the processing of Jung following His sentencing is itself noteworthy information that should be included in the article. This is common for wikipedia articles on controversial trials.
I originally suggested a criticism section be included, but perhaps a better way to integrate the information would be through a section that features reactions and the events that took place following the trial. GIOSCali ( talk) 18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
These matters have been repeatedly discussed and the objections to changing the article have been based on varied reasons, including ‘whitewashing’, ‘verifiability of sources,’ and ‘irrelevance’. It is unclear to me what the real reason is for not including these articles. I took some time to review the history of the changes to this article and the talk history.
Firstly, the Civil Government article is a reliable source and has been recognised as one in an archived talk page. It gives insight on the ‘violations’ of the media, the successful lawsuits brought by CGM against the media companies, and concerns regarding the conduct of the trial, and extortion from Exodus, all of which GIOScali have been attempting to include in the article. Given that the article is a reliable source and not a self-published article, there is technically no reason for not including its content in some form.
Secondly, the term’ violations’ was the translated term for a court order made in relation to a civil lawsuit between CGM and a media company. The court used the term ‘violations’, as in ‘violations of a court order’ made against the media company, in relation to its broadcast of CGM. Therefore, it would be fair to say that those orders were ‘violated’ during the time of the trial.
The post-trial articles that have been published should not be ignored, even if they cast a different light to the current tenor of the article.
CollinsBK (
talk) 15:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CollinsBK (
talk •
contribs)
03:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
post-trial articles that have been published should not be ignored", when you pin them down, these are probably just the Civil Gov't piece, and rehashes thereof (BreakNews, Newsmaker magazine, NewsDaily). And such rehashes are still inadmissable under WP:SELFPUB rules.
Beginning of section is trascluded from #Kim Do-hyun of EXODUS |
Cont. from #1. of
#Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article
Also from
User:GIOSCali/sandbox (20:29, 6 April 2015)
1.
"JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" (in Korean). Political and Economic News Media Group. The Monthly Political & Economic News. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2015. {{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS (first to bring public criminal accusations against the CGM) along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money amounting to 2 billion Korean won (1.8 million US dollars). At one point, Kim publicly apologized to Jung and admitted he had fabricated the allegations; however, shortly after he re-assumed the allegations against the CGM. Additionally, Jin Hyung Kim, a representative of the CMC, was sentenced to a year and a half in prison for fraud. Several articles provide actual pictures of Kim's letters demanding money from Jung.(potentially these pictures could be included in the article)
--
GIOSCali (
talk)
07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
...The sources translated on
User:GIOSCali/sandbox contain slanderous hearsay, for example "It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money". The founder of the group is in prison for raping teenagers, period. There are sufficient English sources attesting to this.
--above statement signed
Shii
(tock)
23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC) taken from
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement)
permalink/655950558
--above statement signed PeterDaley72 ( talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement) permalink/655950558
On 1., I was able to read the piece " JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" in a user-posted Japanese translation at [1] used in the Korean wiki article on the cult ( ko:기독교복음선교회) to source some small point ("JMS" usage) irrelevant to this thread discussion. As the title suggests, this is more like an Op Ed piece defending the cult. It complains that "Christian media" coverage has been unfair to the cult. It levies various charges of deceipt, wrongdoing/venal motives, police investigation ongoing, etc. against the cult's opponents. But these allegations have not made it into the Korean wiki, and should not be allowed to enter the English wiki without further proper WP:RS sourcing. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 04:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A. There are important facts missing regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok...
1.There were four original accusers in his case, and of those, one recanted and admitted to being bribed by Kim Do-hyun in exchange for testimony against Jung. She alleged that another accuser had also been bribed, and was convicted of perjury. With no physical evidence in the trial, the single judge presiding over the case sentenced Jung to 6 years (later extended to 10).
4.Kim Do-hyun admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM and Jung by spreading scandalous accusations. There are letters and written documentation reported about in source we provided as well as other newspapers throughout Korea.
--above statement signed
GIOSCali (
talk)
16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) taken from
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement)
permalink/655950558
Discussion reactivated from premature
archiving. |
Assuming that the letters of apology requesting settlement money were genuine, I doubt Kim Do-hyung "admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM
". He said that if settlement money were paid to take care of him, he would drop the charges (and quit being an anti-JMS activist?).
It is Cha Jin-soo's spin of the situation that this was cold calculated "extortion"(협박, 脅迫) "plan" (계획, 計画).
But there are more obvious explanations. Namely, crusaders of causes can cave to threats, and in this case, Kim Do-hyun had his father attacked by JMS members.
So it is extremely prejudicial to make edits about the apology letters, while suppressing the attack on Kim's father (he was bashed with a metal pipe while speaking on the other end of the phone with him, to be more precise), which would explain how Kim received such a traumatizing jolt as to have a change of heart. For now I just tagged with inline {{ POV statement}} to indicate this POV.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Cont. from #3. of #Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article (archive 2)
3. "Why is JMS (CGM's) President Jung Myeong Seok bearing the cross?". Civil Government. 2010-02-15.
An original SBS broadcast 1999 depicted Jeong Myeong Seok as a religious leader with sexual problems by purposely editing the audio of one of his sermons. Additionally, videos were edited so that where males and females were both shown to show only females. CGM sued SBS for this and the court ordered the following: 1) the media must not use one-sided material provided by the informer and others; 2) the media must inform the organization 48 hours before broadcasting; 3) the media must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to [the Church] so that their rebuttal will also be aired; 4) if these orders are violated, the media must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won for each violation. The courts decisions acknowledging the media’s errors and biased reporting was not made widely known to viewers. Additionally, of the four original accusers in the trial for which Jeong Myeong Seok is currently serving a sentence, one of them claimed that she had committed perjury at the insistence of the leader of an anti-CGM organization. She has since been convicted of perjury. She also claimed that another one of the four witnesses had done the same. This same leader of the anti-CGM mission sent verified letters of apology to Jeong Myeong Seok and CGM in 1999 and twice in 2005.
--
GIOSCali (
talk)
07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, would like to propose that only the specific infractions themselves be included in the article. Following the discussions on the dispute resolution noticeboard a few weeks back, the general consensus seems to be against creating a controversy or criticism section. Since this is the case, the information could simply be added in the timeline of the convictions section. GIOSCali ( talk) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
GIOSCali ( talk) 21:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Per the comments above, I integrated the SBS broadcast violations into the article, within an existing section.
The source used was the News Daily source. GIOSCali ( talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I just disagree with your consensus.( Diff). I thank you for your honesty, but consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Accordingly I will remove your addition. For the record I find that this continued editing ignoring policies and guidelines is tendentious despite the efforts made by seasoned Wikipedians like Ian.thomson, Jim1138, benlisquare, and myself to guide you in a more productive direction, cf. your user talk page. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Sam Sailor DR/N covered many topics; consensus was against creating a separate section with these edit. The sbs information as a stand alone edit, however, is undisputed and deserves representation on the page. And when it comes to consensus, WP:KOOLAID its about making this article as accurate as possible. GIOSCali ( talk) 16:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Alas I'm finding this alleged "SBS infraction" thing to be a very flimsy claim originating with JMS/CGM/Providence.
The POV edit here, and later here stated:
"The Christian Gospel Mission [JMS/Providence] sued SBS for this, won the lawsuit,
and received 900 million won in compensation($900,000 USD)." (Italics mine)
But this ₩900 million figure appears nowhere even in Moon's article (Civil Government group of sources).
So as it stands, this is a completely unsourced claim, and no more than a piece of fanciful fiction by
GIOSCali.
This piece of misinformation led me into believing the court had ruled on SBS infractions on the "tithe/woman" matter as a point of fact. But upon scrutiny, I don't see this is the case, and Civil Government never states that the courts ruled on that "infraction". (They don't say where they got the tipoff. But if not a Providence leak, it may have been a Providence-produced video, which existed according to JMScult forum).
So putting it bluntly, this alleged SBS infraction is even a faker claim than what I thought when I responded at "DR/N". -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The term "sex bribes" actually appears in Song's original article, "Jung Myung-Seok orders terror on JMS defectors" ( JMS 정명석, 탈퇴자에 대한 테러 지시), but is missing in Nathan Schwartzman translation " Seoul: Former JMS cult members tell their stories".
I refer you to the side by side comparison chart of translations given in
#Translation by MrTownCar.
Note that both Schwartzman ("AsianCorrespondent") and
MrTownCar made the glaring omission of "seongsangnab daegijo" (성상납
대기
조; Hanja:
性
上納
待機
組); Google translation: "sex kickbacks daegijo"... where daegijo = "awaiting orders group", "reserve corps".
That is to say, the original passage doesn't just say "the ‘Evergreens’", it says "the ‘Evergreens’ [who are] the reserve corps for sex bribes".
When I introduced "sex bribe" into this wiki article, all I did was to address this omission.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
facilities". GIOSCali has already repeated this misreading elsewhere saying "
thousands of women are being held" in a "
storehouse", but if he's claiming EXCEPTIONAL based on that false assessment, he needs to give up now. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 05:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I made additions to the page, based on the pre-existing article from the Korean Times, [2], which reads: "Former members.. said followers choose.. victims as ‘sexual gifts’ and send photos of them to Jung."
I am convinced "sexual gifts" here refers to seong sangnap, and I judge it to be a more appropriate translation than "sex bribe" I've used so far. So I am inclined to switch (but probably give both side-by-side for now. avoid disruption).
Reuters piece [3] also states "women were presented to Jung as ‘gifts’" was heard in Court, but on this I am less sure. And I have not been able to ascertain what precise Korean word or phrase was used here. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 10:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking at pages like [4], [5], and, [6], the Theology section is generally more about doctrine. The current line in the Theology section:
In January 2008, the Supreme Court of South Korea ruled in one of several court cases finding Jung guilty of rape of female followers that forced sex "is a religious behavior meant to save their souls."[20] During the 2008 Seoul Central District Court (ko) case that led to Jung's prison conviction for raping female followers, former members told the court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual.[21]
does not fit here even if it is somehow linked to the doctrine of the organization. This clearly relates more to other sections of the article.
On another note, what does belong in this section are things related to actual theology (which could include beliefs and practice). Now, I am certain there are sources already in this article that can be used to justify simple claims such as the fact Providence eschatology is different from other religions. Without simple information like this, it is not easy to see how this organization really compares in terms of doctrine with other organizations. Therefore, I will be attempting to make this section mirror other articles on religion. Phoenix0316 ( talk) 05:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Every aspect of [Providence/CGM] served to help him rape young women and then intimidate them into silence. His organization was essentially a raping machine. [7]
To reiterate Sam Sailor's #1: Whether it was heard in South Korean courts, these are still former members describing what they are taught by Providence instructors.
This merely reflects the fact that we have not found scholarly papers in English comparable to Sakurai's papers.
Sakurai has relied on documented statements, as well as interviewed former members, and obtaining notes from their bible study (now added to page).
Such a source in English would be preferable, but is elusive. So as the next best source, we are using court statements reported in some English newspapers.
The details specifying which court etc is distracting, and make it seem off-topic as Phoenix points out, so I have tucked them away in {{ efn}} Explanatory Notes. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 20:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Phoenix claims to be "attempting to put only the things which differentiate it from others", but as long as he dwells on "Abrahamic God" which is the opposite of differentiating, I remain unconvinced. So please stick to edits that are differentiating and significant.
Due or undue weight should be based on material on Providence. Not on "hundreds of articles on various aspects of Theology and sects of Christianity". Relying on the latter, and making your own judgment what's "relevant" to Providence is what I meant when I said you're taking license.
When you added "Abrahamic God" in the lede, this raises a red flag. It indicated that you were subsequently going to drone on and on about this in the body of the article.
This sort of padding is inappropriately UNDUE for any ordinary Christian sects. In the latter case it is rather harmless, whereas in the case of Providence it is unduly whitewashing as well.--
Kiyoweap (
talk)
20:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have used of footnotes embeded in explantory notes. The template {{
Refn}} with group="lower-alpha" parameter accomodates this nested footnote construction.
But the error-detection javascript red tags these as errors.
In the current version the red flags occur as:
But if I remove these nested footnotes, it red-flags the shift to the next set as
Ohter editors please be aware of this glitch if you also have the error-detection script loaded for you wiki editing. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Mark Schreiber's "
'Love' cult snares students",
The Japan Times. |
I do not believe this article is reliable as it is clearly written like an Op-ed. The article was listed under the 'Tokyo Confidential' column of Japan Times as evidenced by the bottom of the archived page. The Tokyo Confidential column was under under editorial review because it 'translated and reported odd stories from japan's sleazy tabloid magazines.. the column was presented in a manner that made it very clear to readers cited were from sleazy tabloids.' This is further evidenced by this book. The taking down of articles must have occurred in 2008. Since then, the Japan Times has pulled all the articles under Tokyo Confidential from its site. Phoenix0316 ( talk) 04:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Certainly Shukan Post is a sub-optimal source as a news outlet, in general.
But namecalling the magazine as "sleazy" aside, Japanese scholars have acknowledged the importance of its reporting on the matter of Providence.
Sakurai's 2006 paper pointed out Shukan Post reported on Providence back in 2002 when none of the Japanese newspaper touched it ("宗教団体の性的スキャンダルは、従来週刊誌の記事になることが多く、週刊ポストが..") So it was the one who effectively broke the story in Japan. Prof. Kawashima Kenji (川島堅二) of Keisen University who's published on religious groups calls the 5-part series "reliable". here -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 11:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Would also like to submit an additional source for consideration, entitled "정명석 총재 관련 보도에 대한 정정보도문 (Corrections on the Reporting of Jung Myeong Seok)." http://ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201503161004314232http://ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201503161004314232 The source comes from YTN, a 24 hour news network which in 2014 reported on some of the claims against Jung. In this article, YTN retracts reports that Jung fled the country, "stowed away" in China before being repatriated ,and accepted sexual favors from members as bribes. The article cites that it was "verified" that Jung returned to Korea frequently and was investigated multiple times by law enforcement during the period in question. Moreover it states that its reporting was "different from the facts", as every charge of sexual assault against Jung were dropped(except those organized by Do Hun).
The source again supports important WP:ALIVE information not currently represented in the article. GIOSCali ( talk) 23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Between May 22 and July 26, 2014, the news station broadcasted as follows about President Jung Myeong Seok: “President Jung Myeong Seok of JMS sexually assaulted female members and then fled to various foreign countries, but was eventually captured by the Chinese police when he was in China and repatriated to Korea,” “He stowed away,” and “He accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members.”
However, after verifying the truth, it was confirmed that the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved, and he was able to travel overseas lawfully. He returned to Korea several times during his travels and was investigated by the prosecutors about his travels. In these ways, the news broadcasted about Jung was different from the facts. Even the charge of him accepting sexual favors as bribes was also dropped. It is evident that the reportings on Jung were not entirely based on fact. Hence, we made the appropriate corrections.
Additionally, it was confirmed that the name JMS is not in fact the ministry’s official name. Hence, we correct it to the ministry’s actual official name, The Christian Gospel Mission.
As I have stated, I am open as to how the info could be included into the article, but the fact is it should be included, even, as I suggested, a sub section containing the significant minority viewpoint that processing of Jung was poorly conducted. GIOSCali ( talk) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
GIOSCali ( talk) 21:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
He accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members" as fact rather than allegation. This added to the relevancy.
Oh okay, my apologies Kiyoweap I see the connection. To expand a bit more on your point:
I wouldn't exactly call it purging; I was removing a specific statement in the article that said that as of 2012, one thousand women were still being held for sexual exploitation. If this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim was true, then you would expect several mainstream sources to be following up on it, but I havent been able to find any. Something that extreme would be worldwide news.
Regarding the material on sexual favors: yes, there are several sources including the YTN source that do criticize the claims of widespread sexual bribes taking place throughout the CGM, as you mentioned. So if there are several sources with claims by former members that say these crimes took place, and several like YTN that say they did not, how do you proceed from there?
This case in a nutshell: there were a lot of claims of varying degrees being thrown around during the controversy, but only the single trial with the four plaintiffs. If claims are portrayed as facts, then sources like YTN will seem like they contradict basic facts, when in fact they don't-- they challenge claims. Hope thats not too confusing GIOSCali ( talk) 18:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Despite Kiyoweap, Jim1138, and Ian.thomson arguing against the YTN source GIOSCali inserted the snip about YTN's supposed retraction on 9 September in this diff. When it was removed on 12 September they returned a few hours later and reinserted the text in this diff without any posts in this talk page thread.
The snip looked like this:
In 2015, YTN, a 24 hour news network based in South Korea, officially retracted information it broadcast about Jung Myeong Seok and the Christian Gospel Mission between May and July of 2014, stating that its broadcasts were "not entirely based on fact." YTN stated that Jung had not "stowed away" in China, but had traveled overseas lawfully, and met several times with prosecutors bringing accusations against him.
Fairly innocent by the look of it. But whatever the reason was for YTN to retract anything regarding something that countless other sources confirmed years ago, the inclusion is irrelevant as remarked by Ian.thomson.
It gets less innocent when CollinsBK in this diff three days later on 15 September then changes the text to:
In 2015, the Yonhap Television Network (YTN), a 24 hour news network based in South Korea, officially retracted information it broadcasted about Jung Myeong Seok and the Christian Gospel Mission between May and July of 2014. The news station originally broadcasted that Jung had 'stowed away' and that 'he accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members'. YTN later verified the facts and published a correction statement stating that its earlier reporting was not factual. The correction statement stated that the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved, and that his travel outside of Korea was lawful. YTN's corrections also stated that the sexual bribe charges were dropped by prosecutors. (My emphasis)
Paradoxically CollinsBK has not participated in this section and discussed the YTN source. I'll refrain from voicing my opinion on what can be their motives, but the effect their changes have is to allude that Jung was not an internationally wanted refugee trying to escape the justice system in several countries and that he has not been found guilty of the crimes several court cases has convicted him for and for which he is still behind bars. The addition will be removed. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
YTN correction on its broadcast is the one-paragraph statement
GIOSCali translated for us above. It is not a full article.
What's more, you're using the correction as a standalone, without identifying the original stories? This is highly irregular.
I don't see how you can say with a straight-face that this constitutes proper sourcing.
At a minimum, identify to this discussion group what YTN's original stories were.
Lacking this, the working assumption is that YTN did not broadcast any Providence feature in 2014 (but rather a sidenote mention in the 2014
Sewol sinking coverage, if I may reiterate). Thus no apparent
WP:DUE weight.
It also means that you are supplying your own context and interpretation in a piece of info where context and detail is grossly lacking. Such POV editing is clearly a no-no, and editors such as Sam Sailor are perfectly justified in instantly reverting. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 10:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand that all of you participating in this discussion are far more knowledgeable of the sources relevant to this subject than I am. Bearing that in mind, I would like to query one particular source cited in the article- source No.2 published by Nathan Schwartzman. That article was effectively written by Peter Daley and reproduced under Nathan Schwartzman's reporting, with no further information from Nathan Schwartzman himself. Peter Daley has been banned for having a conflict of interest. Is it possible that this article, which is effectively Peter Daley's article, could be a reliable source? While it is arguably not self-published, it question whether the source is reliable and neutral given that he has a conflict of interest and this is entirely his writing.I query whether it is appropriate to use such a source for this very sensitive article to which Peter is banned from editing.
CollinsBK (
talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CollinsBK (
talk •
contribs)
07:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help);
English translation by Nathan Schwartzman (02 April 2012)Thank you for that clarification. I apologize for mis-stating that it was written by Peter Daley. I am clear that it was not written by him. As for whether I am a Providence member, I am not. Having gone through some of the sources, I am sympathetic of the matters raised by GiosCALI, which are relevant. If this article were to be of an encyclopaedic nature, the suggestions proposed ought to be included. I hope that it is by no means the case that by holding such a view, I could be assumed to be a 'Providence member'.
Furthermore, another source that I would like to raise and query whether it is appropriate for the same reason being that it was written by Peter Daley is source no.23, titled, 'How to spot a Woolly Woof', published by the Keimyung Gazette. Peter Daley's name is in the byline. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would mean that he was the author. CollinsBK ( talk) 18:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The source is problematic for the following reasons:
1) it was written by Peter Daley who is known to have a conflict of interest with respect to CGM. This is evident in his websites, his blogs, podcasts, and also recognized by a Wikipedia administrator in an archived talk page. As a result, there is clear bias. Moreover, much of what is written is his personal experience and personal research. written in first person. It is not a secondary source and the material appears to be self-serving. There is no neutrality to the source. Weighing that against the gravity of a BLP, the source should not be used.
2) The Keimyoung Gazette is a university journal, not an academic journal. Therefore, because of the opinion/'free speech' quality of a university newsletter it is not subject to any rigorous fact checking process.3) Given Peter Daley's position, Wikipedia policy strongly recommends against his involvement in editing biographical content. Citing a source that was written by him is contrary to that policy.
3) The article is published in the Keimyoung Gazette, which after having done some research, is also the university that Peter Daley is a lecturer of. This would also make it a potentially self-published source.
Under WP: BLP, content that fails to meet verifiability requirements, that is contentious and libelous, and are self-published can be removed immediately. Therefore, I am deleting that source in accordance with that policy. CollinsBK ( talk) 09:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been studying the sources recently and noticed that many of them are worded quite similarly. After further research, I found that indeed, some of them are taken from the same source. Under WP:NEWSORG, it states that "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." And according to WP:OVERCITE, in certain instances, needless citations should be deleted. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to simply take the most comprehensive or most reliable source among those that talk about the same story.
Articles about the initial arrest in China
Hwang Chul-kyu, who is in charge of international crime cases in Ministry of Justice, announced on May 16 that, "Chinese police informed us that a man caught in Beijing on May 1 turned out to be Jeong Myeong-seok after comparing fingerprints."
Jung has been wanted by Korean police, for fraud, rape and embezzlement, since he fled the country in June 1999. The pseudo-religious leader was placed on the Interpol wanted list in 2002.
Articles about the extradition from China
He'd been on Korean wanted lists since 1999 (and the Interpol Red Notice since 2004) after fleeing the country after charges of rape emerged. While overseas, he made constant headlines for allegedly raping female devotees in various countries.
Jung was taken directly to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutors' Office from the airport. Prosecutors began questioning Jung after his arrival regarding nine complaints filed against him on charges that include embezzlement and sexual assault.
Articles about the initial six-year sentence
A South Korean court on Tuesday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said. Jung, 63, the leader of the Jesus Morning Star sect (JMS), fled to China from South Korea in 2001 where he had been charged with selecting followers from photographs and then forcing them to have sex with him.
Notorious cult leader Jung Myung-seok received Tuesday a six-year prison sentence for raping and sexually abusing his female followers.
서울중앙지법 형사26부(재판장 배기열)는 12일 여자 신도들을 성폭행한 혐의로 구속기소된 JMS(기독교복음선교회) 총재 정명석(63)씨에게 징역 6년을 선고했다. (The Seoul Central District Court No. 26 Criminal Division (Justice Bae Ki-yeol) delivered a prison sentence of six years to JMS President Jung Myung-seok, 63, who had been arrested and charged with raping 12 female followers.)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)A South Korean court yesterday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said.... Former members have told the Seoul court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)The date was wrong for the first source. They were all published within a day of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
BLP sources}}
onto the /History/ section (
diff). The only thing in that section that needed additional references, and therefore was need of immediate attention, was the poorly sourced quasi-libelous addition by GIOSCali in
this diff. But that had previously also been added by Phoenix0316 in their very first edit on 21 July.Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press.The possibility of me overlooking something can not be ruled out, but please post a list of these many reprints, preferably grouped together by duping. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: On 02:18, 12 September 2015
CollinsBK claimed that Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press
and they went on to say that sources should be deleted, or else we can take this to the relevant noticeboard for further discussion.
On 06:58, 14 September 2015 in this diff I followed up here in this thread by PINGing CollinsBK and asking them to provide a list of these supposed dupes. CollinsBK did not reply.
On 06:32, 15 September 2015 in this diff Phoenix0316 posts on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard repeating more or less their initial post here above. They did not notify any other user about their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They did not PING any user in their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Despite that, CollinsBK only c. 90 minutes later on 08:09, 15 September 2015 in this diff replies at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
As the reliability of the sources has not been questioned here, RSN is the WP:Wrong Venue. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press.-- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
the following accounts have been blocked as socks of one another
Am going to do a bunch of archiving now. -- Jytdog ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This user initiated a delete vote for Exodus, which is a group highly critical of Providence. The result was a redirect. They also made a lot of expansion to an article focusing on a retreat used by Providence. I would highly recommend going over the edits by this user's accounts and reviewing changes that they've made.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Now does this represent any concerted co-ordinated effort to whitewash Providence articles or is this just several unrelated but motivated people? Also, is there any word on the quality of Providence articles in other languages? Other language wikis may have fewer users, so it may be easier to whitewash those articles without anyone doing anything. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
More concerning is the fact that you have censored several sources that warrant inclusion in the article-- no mention of any of the controversies surrounding Do-hyun, no detail on the perjury conviction in which the plaintiff stated on record that accusations against Jung had been fabricated, none of the investigative reports from Korean sources that followed up on the trial in the years following the conviction.
One example that is well sourced is the SBS doctoring of Providence material, in which SBS was forced to pay reparations. I will include it in the article GIOScali ( talk) 10:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few recent articles which I think merit inclusion. And yes, to answer the question above. The vandalism over the years is part of a concerted effort from members of this group.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11859132
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/gq9wxy/how-a-south-korean-cult-tried-and-failed-to-sue-an-australian-school-teacher-for-defamation PeterDaley72 ( talk) 03:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
PeterDaley72 ( talk) 04:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi I added edits to this unbalanced page with proper citation. It was reverted by an editor without a good reason (making unproven accusations about socking is not a good reason). I reverted it and stated my reasons. If this editor had a problem with the content or citation, he should have noted it on the talk page without just reverting the article. It was once again reverted back without any reason. I would like to know why? AspiringCheetah ( talk) 05:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
In recent years, especially most recently with the international focus on fake news, 'clickbait' and sensationalism of articles, there has been more scrutiny of the media in particular. This is also the case when it comes to reporting of this religious group, with multiple media outlets issuing retractions and apologies for false or baseless news reportsis not backed by third-party sources and is in no way befitting our policy on neutral point of view. To me it sounds a lot like a summary of the deleted articles Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok and Media allegations, charges, and conviction of Jung Myung Seok created by now blocked editors. Jung Myung Seok is still serving 10 years in prison for raping young women, but is up for release on parole in early 2018, Ref so as I predicted back in February 2017 this renewed attempt to stick in apologetic content comes as no surprise. Sam Sailor 14:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
As Jeong nears the end of his 10-year sentence (Feb 18 or 23, 2018 are likely release dates), Providence is producing quite a lot of propaganda. This should be of interest to those editing this page as it offers quite a few insights into the group's worldview and how it differs from, well, reality. I have had very little involvement with this Wiki apart from offering a few articles and engaging with members on the Talk Page, but I'm the focus of this "Wiki is nonsense" piece.
It may not be worth including in the main article, but at the least it should be of interest to those editors that have helped keep this Wiki factual: https://jmsprovidence.com/2018/01/27/providence-wikipedia-page-nonsense/ PeterDaley72 ( talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC) PeterDaley72 ( talk) 04:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to work in good faith with editors who have the time and are willing to do so regarding the following issues:
I'm wondering how the editors on this article would like to address these concerns. If you are an editor like Harizotoh who says they do not have time, then it would be better to work with those editors who do have time to get the article correct.
Failure to do so would be to neglect the basic responsibility editors have when writing an article about a living person.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
GIOSCali tried to add some sources while carrying out the whitewashing that DR noted was clearly against consensus. -- Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
adding a new /* Controversies */section with:
and deleting
--added by
Kiyoweap (
talk)
05:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The sources in question in the Trial and Verdict section (not including the already dismissed
WP:UNDUE weight on SBS or Kim Do Hun) include:
|
|
-- Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I am really open to suggestions here but I am thoroughly confused trying to read this article through at some points. Should we call this organization Providence, Christian Gospel Mission, JMS, or what? Since the lede suggests that the official name is CGM, can we not change its name to that? Phoenix0316 ( talk) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the following information warrant inclusion in the article?
GIOSCali ( talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
SBS is major media in South Korea. The fact that major media broadcasted doctored videos on Jung is relevant in a wikipedia article about him, whether or not SBS is used a source in that article.
Ian.thomson, the object here is to post the facts.You may have your opinions on the implications of the RFC claims. But that is your private opinion.
If the object is to build an encyclopedia, and especially if the subject is a living human being, we have to list the relevant facts on the subject and keep our opinions out of it.
In this case, an individual was convicted of a crime after more than ten years of controversies on either side. We need to describe it accurately.
Even if you don't like the idea that the South Korean media mishandled Jung's case(as it has mishandled many cases), that is what happened. GIOSCali ( talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the manner in which discussions/edits are proceeding with this article.
1. There have been several mass reverts of information on the article that were supported by RS sources, as well as reverts of info that was in dispute without in depth discussion by reverting editors on the talk page. Ex: The YTN retractions from 2015... this is a prominent 24 hour news network, why was this source removed?
2. I will say it again: the article in its current format is problematic.
It does not include any information that current editors deem favorable to the Providence group--i.e. broadcast infractions, etc. ( Claiming that a source that reports on these issues is "Pro-Providence" basically sums this up). Rather than mass revert, it would be helpful to find a way to include the info properly.
Also, the current article cites many claims/allegations against the group without making it clear that they were dropped, save for the single case against Jung with the four plaintiffs.
Given that there have been extended discussions on this talk page for quite sometime, I wanted to compile a basic summary of some of the concerns that I have had regarding this article, in the hopes to facilitate more progress.
1. The article in its current states lends the impression that Jung is guilty of committing sexual crimes against thousands of women. I believe the article should rely more heavily on factual accounts of the proceedings, given that all charges of sexual assault against him were dropped, except the single case involving three plaintiffs, for which he now serves a ten year sentence.
2. Widespread broadcast violations during the time of the trial (including but not limited to SBS and YTN) are not mentioned in the article. (Perhaps the editors are unfamiliar, but in Korea, many media outlets are paid more for reporting on religious matters. Not only with JMS, but with other religious groups, there has often been similar cases of broadcast violations).
3. The anti-Providence group EXODUS is mentioned frequently in this article, and was the first to bring major public charges against the Providence group. The fact that the founder of the group was found to extorted JMS for 2 billion won would therefore also belong in the article.
4. Reactions following the trial are not included in the article, from individuals inside or outside of the Providence group. While some of the sources are reports and others are op-ed pieces, the fact that several prominent members outside the Providence group criticized the processing of Jung following His sentencing is itself noteworthy information that should be included in the article. This is common for wikipedia articles on controversial trials.
I originally suggested a criticism section be included, but perhaps a better way to integrate the information would be through a section that features reactions and the events that took place following the trial. GIOSCali ( talk) 18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
These matters have been repeatedly discussed and the objections to changing the article have been based on varied reasons, including ‘whitewashing’, ‘verifiability of sources,’ and ‘irrelevance’. It is unclear to me what the real reason is for not including these articles. I took some time to review the history of the changes to this article and the talk history.
Firstly, the Civil Government article is a reliable source and has been recognised as one in an archived talk page. It gives insight on the ‘violations’ of the media, the successful lawsuits brought by CGM against the media companies, and concerns regarding the conduct of the trial, and extortion from Exodus, all of which GIOScali have been attempting to include in the article. Given that the article is a reliable source and not a self-published article, there is technically no reason for not including its content in some form.
Secondly, the term’ violations’ was the translated term for a court order made in relation to a civil lawsuit between CGM and a media company. The court used the term ‘violations’, as in ‘violations of a court order’ made against the media company, in relation to its broadcast of CGM. Therefore, it would be fair to say that those orders were ‘violated’ during the time of the trial.
The post-trial articles that have been published should not be ignored, even if they cast a different light to the current tenor of the article.
CollinsBK (
talk) 15:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CollinsBK (
talk •
contribs)
03:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
post-trial articles that have been published should not be ignored", when you pin them down, these are probably just the Civil Gov't piece, and rehashes thereof (BreakNews, Newsmaker magazine, NewsDaily). And such rehashes are still inadmissable under WP:SELFPUB rules.
Beginning of section is trascluded from #Kim Do-hyun of EXODUS |
Cont. from #1. of
#Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article
Also from
User:GIOSCali/sandbox (20:29, 6 April 2015)
1.
"JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" (in Korean). Political and Economic News Media Group. The Monthly Political & Economic News. 31 May 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2015. {{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |curly=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS (first to bring public criminal accusations against the CGM) along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money amounting to 2 billion Korean won (1.8 million US dollars). At one point, Kim publicly apologized to Jung and admitted he had fabricated the allegations; however, shortly after he re-assumed the allegations against the CGM. Additionally, Jin Hyung Kim, a representative of the CMC, was sentenced to a year and a half in prison for fraud. Several articles provide actual pictures of Kim's letters demanding money from Jung.(potentially these pictures could be included in the article)
--
GIOSCali (
talk)
07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
...The sources translated on
User:GIOSCali/sandbox contain slanderous hearsay, for example "It has been widely publicized in Korea that Do-hyun Kim of EXODUS along with several other leaders of his anti-CGM organizations, extorted Jung Myeong Seok for money". The founder of the group is in prison for raping teenagers, period. There are sufficient English sources attesting to this.
--above statement signed
Shii
(tock)
23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC) taken from
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement)
permalink/655950558
--above statement signed PeterDaley72 ( talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC) taken from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement) permalink/655950558
On 1., I was able to read the piece " JMS President Jung, Myeong Seok case, Is This a Social Issue or Religious Issue?" in a user-posted Japanese translation at [1] used in the Korean wiki article on the cult ( ko:기독교복음선교회) to source some small point ("JMS" usage) irrelevant to this thread discussion. As the title suggests, this is more like an Op Ed piece defending the cult. It complains that "Christian media" coverage has been unfair to the cult. It levies various charges of deceipt, wrongdoing/venal motives, police investigation ongoing, etc. against the cult's opponents. But these allegations have not made it into the Korean wiki, and should not be allowed to enter the English wiki without further proper WP:RS sourcing. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 04:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A. There are important facts missing regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok...
1.There were four original accusers in his case, and of those, one recanted and admitted to being bribed by Kim Do-hyun in exchange for testimony against Jung. She alleged that another accuser had also been bribed, and was convicted of perjury. With no physical evidence in the trial, the single judge presiding over the case sentenced Jung to 6 years (later extended to 10).
4.Kim Do-hyun admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM and Jung by spreading scandalous accusations. There are letters and written documentation reported about in source we provided as well as other newspapers throughout Korea.
--above statement signed
GIOSCali (
talk)
16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) taken from
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Providence (religious movement)
permalink/655950558
Discussion reactivated from premature
archiving. |
Assuming that the letters of apology requesting settlement money were genuine, I doubt Kim Do-hyung "admitted to defaming and extorting the CGM
". He said that if settlement money were paid to take care of him, he would drop the charges (and quit being an anti-JMS activist?).
It is Cha Jin-soo's spin of the situation that this was cold calculated "extortion"(협박, 脅迫) "plan" (계획, 計画).
But there are more obvious explanations. Namely, crusaders of causes can cave to threats, and in this case, Kim Do-hyun had his father attacked by JMS members.
So it is extremely prejudicial to make edits about the apology letters, while suppressing the attack on Kim's father (he was bashed with a metal pipe while speaking on the other end of the phone with him, to be more precise), which would explain how Kim received such a traumatizing jolt as to have a change of heart. For now I just tagged with inline {{ POV statement}} to indicate this POV.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Cont. from #3. of #Regarding the proceedings against Jung Myeong Seok and neutrality of the article (archive 2)
3. "Why is JMS (CGM's) President Jung Myeong Seok bearing the cross?". Civil Government. 2010-02-15.
An original SBS broadcast 1999 depicted Jeong Myeong Seok as a religious leader with sexual problems by purposely editing the audio of one of his sermons. Additionally, videos were edited so that where males and females were both shown to show only females. CGM sued SBS for this and the court ordered the following: 1) the media must not use one-sided material provided by the informer and others; 2) the media must inform the organization 48 hours before broadcasting; 3) the media must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to [the Church] so that their rebuttal will also be aired; 4) if these orders are violated, the media must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won for each violation. The courts decisions acknowledging the media’s errors and biased reporting was not made widely known to viewers. Additionally, of the four original accusers in the trial for which Jeong Myeong Seok is currently serving a sentence, one of them claimed that she had committed perjury at the insistence of the leader of an anti-CGM organization. She has since been convicted of perjury. She also claimed that another one of the four witnesses had done the same. This same leader of the anti-CGM mission sent verified letters of apology to Jeong Myeong Seok and CGM in 1999 and twice in 2005.
--
GIOSCali (
talk)
07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, would like to propose that only the specific infractions themselves be included in the article. Following the discussions on the dispute resolution noticeboard a few weeks back, the general consensus seems to be against creating a controversy or criticism section. Since this is the case, the information could simply be added in the timeline of the convictions section. GIOSCali ( talk) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
GIOSCali ( talk) 21:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Per the comments above, I integrated the SBS broadcast violations into the article, within an existing section.
The source used was the News Daily source. GIOSCali ( talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I just disagree with your consensus.( Diff). I thank you for your honesty, but consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Accordingly I will remove your addition. For the record I find that this continued editing ignoring policies and guidelines is tendentious despite the efforts made by seasoned Wikipedians like Ian.thomson, Jim1138, benlisquare, and myself to guide you in a more productive direction, cf. your user talk page. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Sam Sailor DR/N covered many topics; consensus was against creating a separate section with these edit. The sbs information as a stand alone edit, however, is undisputed and deserves representation on the page. And when it comes to consensus, WP:KOOLAID its about making this article as accurate as possible. GIOSCali ( talk) 16:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Alas I'm finding this alleged "SBS infraction" thing to be a very flimsy claim originating with JMS/CGM/Providence.
The POV edit here, and later here stated:
"The Christian Gospel Mission [JMS/Providence] sued SBS for this, won the lawsuit,
and received 900 million won in compensation($900,000 USD)." (Italics mine)
But this ₩900 million figure appears nowhere even in Moon's article (Civil Government group of sources).
So as it stands, this is a completely unsourced claim, and no more than a piece of fanciful fiction by
GIOSCali.
This piece of misinformation led me into believing the court had ruled on SBS infractions on the "tithe/woman" matter as a point of fact. But upon scrutiny, I don't see this is the case, and Civil Government never states that the courts ruled on that "infraction". (They don't say where they got the tipoff. But if not a Providence leak, it may have been a Providence-produced video, which existed according to JMScult forum).
So putting it bluntly, this alleged SBS infraction is even a faker claim than what I thought when I responded at "DR/N". -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The term "sex bribes" actually appears in Song's original article, "Jung Myung-Seok orders terror on JMS defectors" ( JMS 정명석, 탈퇴자에 대한 테러 지시), but is missing in Nathan Schwartzman translation " Seoul: Former JMS cult members tell their stories".
I refer you to the side by side comparison chart of translations given in
#Translation by MrTownCar.
Note that both Schwartzman ("AsianCorrespondent") and
MrTownCar made the glaring omission of "seongsangnab daegijo" (성상납
대기
조; Hanja:
性
上納
待機
組); Google translation: "sex kickbacks daegijo"... where daegijo = "awaiting orders group", "reserve corps".
That is to say, the original passage doesn't just say "the ‘Evergreens’", it says "the ‘Evergreens’ [who are] the reserve corps for sex bribes".
When I introduced "sex bribe" into this wiki article, all I did was to address this omission.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
facilities". GIOSCali has already repeated this misreading elsewhere saying "
thousands of women are being held" in a "
storehouse", but if he's claiming EXCEPTIONAL based on that false assessment, he needs to give up now. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 05:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I made additions to the page, based on the pre-existing article from the Korean Times, [2], which reads: "Former members.. said followers choose.. victims as ‘sexual gifts’ and send photos of them to Jung."
I am convinced "sexual gifts" here refers to seong sangnap, and I judge it to be a more appropriate translation than "sex bribe" I've used so far. So I am inclined to switch (but probably give both side-by-side for now. avoid disruption).
Reuters piece [3] also states "women were presented to Jung as ‘gifts’" was heard in Court, but on this I am less sure. And I have not been able to ascertain what precise Korean word or phrase was used here. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 10:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking at pages like [4], [5], and, [6], the Theology section is generally more about doctrine. The current line in the Theology section:
In January 2008, the Supreme Court of South Korea ruled in one of several court cases finding Jung guilty of rape of female followers that forced sex "is a religious behavior meant to save their souls."[20] During the 2008 Seoul Central District Court (ko) case that led to Jung's prison conviction for raping female followers, former members told the court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual.[21]
does not fit here even if it is somehow linked to the doctrine of the organization. This clearly relates more to other sections of the article.
On another note, what does belong in this section are things related to actual theology (which could include beliefs and practice). Now, I am certain there are sources already in this article that can be used to justify simple claims such as the fact Providence eschatology is different from other religions. Without simple information like this, it is not easy to see how this organization really compares in terms of doctrine with other organizations. Therefore, I will be attempting to make this section mirror other articles on religion. Phoenix0316 ( talk) 05:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Every aspect of [Providence/CGM] served to help him rape young women and then intimidate them into silence. His organization was essentially a raping machine. [7]
To reiterate Sam Sailor's #1: Whether it was heard in South Korean courts, these are still former members describing what they are taught by Providence instructors.
This merely reflects the fact that we have not found scholarly papers in English comparable to Sakurai's papers.
Sakurai has relied on documented statements, as well as interviewed former members, and obtaining notes from their bible study (now added to page).
Such a source in English would be preferable, but is elusive. So as the next best source, we are using court statements reported in some English newspapers.
The details specifying which court etc is distracting, and make it seem off-topic as Phoenix points out, so I have tucked them away in {{ efn}} Explanatory Notes. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 20:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Phoenix claims to be "attempting to put only the things which differentiate it from others", but as long as he dwells on "Abrahamic God" which is the opposite of differentiating, I remain unconvinced. So please stick to edits that are differentiating and significant.
Due or undue weight should be based on material on Providence. Not on "hundreds of articles on various aspects of Theology and sects of Christianity". Relying on the latter, and making your own judgment what's "relevant" to Providence is what I meant when I said you're taking license.
When you added "Abrahamic God" in the lede, this raises a red flag. It indicated that you were subsequently going to drone on and on about this in the body of the article.
This sort of padding is inappropriately UNDUE for any ordinary Christian sects. In the latter case it is rather harmless, whereas in the case of Providence it is unduly whitewashing as well.--
Kiyoweap (
talk)
20:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have used of footnotes embeded in explantory notes. The template {{
Refn}} with group="lower-alpha" parameter accomodates this nested footnote construction.
But the error-detection javascript red tags these as errors.
In the current version the red flags occur as:
But if I remove these nested footnotes, it red-flags the shift to the next set as
Ohter editors please be aware of this glitch if you also have the error-detection script loaded for you wiki editing. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Mark Schreiber's "
'Love' cult snares students",
The Japan Times. |
I do not believe this article is reliable as it is clearly written like an Op-ed. The article was listed under the 'Tokyo Confidential' column of Japan Times as evidenced by the bottom of the archived page. The Tokyo Confidential column was under under editorial review because it 'translated and reported odd stories from japan's sleazy tabloid magazines.. the column was presented in a manner that made it very clear to readers cited were from sleazy tabloids.' This is further evidenced by this book. The taking down of articles must have occurred in 2008. Since then, the Japan Times has pulled all the articles under Tokyo Confidential from its site. Phoenix0316 ( talk) 04:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Certainly Shukan Post is a sub-optimal source as a news outlet, in general.
But namecalling the magazine as "sleazy" aside, Japanese scholars have acknowledged the importance of its reporting on the matter of Providence.
Sakurai's 2006 paper pointed out Shukan Post reported on Providence back in 2002 when none of the Japanese newspaper touched it ("宗教団体の性的スキャンダルは、従来週刊誌の記事になることが多く、週刊ポストが..") So it was the one who effectively broke the story in Japan. Prof. Kawashima Kenji (川島堅二) of Keisen University who's published on religious groups calls the 5-part series "reliable". here -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 11:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Would also like to submit an additional source for consideration, entitled "정명석 총재 관련 보도에 대한 정정보도문 (Corrections on the Reporting of Jung Myeong Seok)." http://ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201503161004314232http://ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201503161004314232 The source comes from YTN, a 24 hour news network which in 2014 reported on some of the claims against Jung. In this article, YTN retracts reports that Jung fled the country, "stowed away" in China before being repatriated ,and accepted sexual favors from members as bribes. The article cites that it was "verified" that Jung returned to Korea frequently and was investigated multiple times by law enforcement during the period in question. Moreover it states that its reporting was "different from the facts", as every charge of sexual assault against Jung were dropped(except those organized by Do Hun).
The source again supports important WP:ALIVE information not currently represented in the article. GIOSCali ( talk) 23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Between May 22 and July 26, 2014, the news station broadcasted as follows about President Jung Myeong Seok: “President Jung Myeong Seok of JMS sexually assaulted female members and then fled to various foreign countries, but was eventually captured by the Chinese police when he was in China and repatriated to Korea,” “He stowed away,” and “He accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members.”
However, after verifying the truth, it was confirmed that the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved, and he was able to travel overseas lawfully. He returned to Korea several times during his travels and was investigated by the prosecutors about his travels. In these ways, the news broadcasted about Jung was different from the facts. Even the charge of him accepting sexual favors as bribes was also dropped. It is evident that the reportings on Jung were not entirely based on fact. Hence, we made the appropriate corrections.
Additionally, it was confirmed that the name JMS is not in fact the ministry’s official name. Hence, we correct it to the ministry’s actual official name, The Christian Gospel Mission.
As I have stated, I am open as to how the info could be included into the article, but the fact is it should be included, even, as I suggested, a sub section containing the significant minority viewpoint that processing of Jung was poorly conducted. GIOSCali ( talk) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
GIOSCali ( talk) 21:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
He accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members" as fact rather than allegation. This added to the relevancy.
Oh okay, my apologies Kiyoweap I see the connection. To expand a bit more on your point:
I wouldn't exactly call it purging; I was removing a specific statement in the article that said that as of 2012, one thousand women were still being held for sexual exploitation. If this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim was true, then you would expect several mainstream sources to be following up on it, but I havent been able to find any. Something that extreme would be worldwide news.
Regarding the material on sexual favors: yes, there are several sources including the YTN source that do criticize the claims of widespread sexual bribes taking place throughout the CGM, as you mentioned. So if there are several sources with claims by former members that say these crimes took place, and several like YTN that say they did not, how do you proceed from there?
This case in a nutshell: there were a lot of claims of varying degrees being thrown around during the controversy, but only the single trial with the four plaintiffs. If claims are portrayed as facts, then sources like YTN will seem like they contradict basic facts, when in fact they don't-- they challenge claims. Hope thats not too confusing GIOSCali ( talk) 18:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Despite Kiyoweap, Jim1138, and Ian.thomson arguing against the YTN source GIOSCali inserted the snip about YTN's supposed retraction on 9 September in this diff. When it was removed on 12 September they returned a few hours later and reinserted the text in this diff without any posts in this talk page thread.
The snip looked like this:
In 2015, YTN, a 24 hour news network based in South Korea, officially retracted information it broadcast about Jung Myeong Seok and the Christian Gospel Mission between May and July of 2014, stating that its broadcasts were "not entirely based on fact." YTN stated that Jung had not "stowed away" in China, but had traveled overseas lawfully, and met several times with prosecutors bringing accusations against him.
Fairly innocent by the look of it. But whatever the reason was for YTN to retract anything regarding something that countless other sources confirmed years ago, the inclusion is irrelevant as remarked by Ian.thomson.
It gets less innocent when CollinsBK in this diff three days later on 15 September then changes the text to:
In 2015, the Yonhap Television Network (YTN), a 24 hour news network based in South Korea, officially retracted information it broadcasted about Jung Myeong Seok and the Christian Gospel Mission between May and July of 2014. The news station originally broadcasted that Jung had 'stowed away' and that 'he accepted sexual favors as bribes from female members'. YTN later verified the facts and published a correction statement stating that its earlier reporting was not factual. The correction statement stated that the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved, and that his travel outside of Korea was lawful. YTN's corrections also stated that the sexual bribe charges were dropped by prosecutors. (My emphasis)
Paradoxically CollinsBK has not participated in this section and discussed the YTN source. I'll refrain from voicing my opinion on what can be their motives, but the effect their changes have is to allude that Jung was not an internationally wanted refugee trying to escape the justice system in several countries and that he has not been found guilty of the crimes several court cases has convicted him for and for which he is still behind bars. The addition will be removed. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
YTN correction on its broadcast is the one-paragraph statement
GIOSCali translated for us above. It is not a full article.
What's more, you're using the correction as a standalone, without identifying the original stories? This is highly irregular.
I don't see how you can say with a straight-face that this constitutes proper sourcing.
At a minimum, identify to this discussion group what YTN's original stories were.
Lacking this, the working assumption is that YTN did not broadcast any Providence feature in 2014 (but rather a sidenote mention in the 2014
Sewol sinking coverage, if I may reiterate). Thus no apparent
WP:DUE weight.
It also means that you are supplying your own context and interpretation in a piece of info where context and detail is grossly lacking. Such POV editing is clearly a no-no, and editors such as Sam Sailor are perfectly justified in instantly reverting. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 10:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand that all of you participating in this discussion are far more knowledgeable of the sources relevant to this subject than I am. Bearing that in mind, I would like to query one particular source cited in the article- source No.2 published by Nathan Schwartzman. That article was effectively written by Peter Daley and reproduced under Nathan Schwartzman's reporting, with no further information from Nathan Schwartzman himself. Peter Daley has been banned for having a conflict of interest. Is it possible that this article, which is effectively Peter Daley's article, could be a reliable source? While it is arguably not self-published, it question whether the source is reliable and neutral given that he has a conflict of interest and this is entirely his writing.I query whether it is appropriate to use such a source for this very sensitive article to which Peter is banned from editing.
CollinsBK (
talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CollinsBK (
talk •
contribs)
07:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help);
English translation by Nathan Schwartzman (02 April 2012)Thank you for that clarification. I apologize for mis-stating that it was written by Peter Daley. I am clear that it was not written by him. As for whether I am a Providence member, I am not. Having gone through some of the sources, I am sympathetic of the matters raised by GiosCALI, which are relevant. If this article were to be of an encyclopaedic nature, the suggestions proposed ought to be included. I hope that it is by no means the case that by holding such a view, I could be assumed to be a 'Providence member'.
Furthermore, another source that I would like to raise and query whether it is appropriate for the same reason being that it was written by Peter Daley is source no.23, titled, 'How to spot a Woolly Woof', published by the Keimyung Gazette. Peter Daley's name is in the byline. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would mean that he was the author. CollinsBK ( talk) 18:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The source is problematic for the following reasons:
1) it was written by Peter Daley who is known to have a conflict of interest with respect to CGM. This is evident in his websites, his blogs, podcasts, and also recognized by a Wikipedia administrator in an archived talk page. As a result, there is clear bias. Moreover, much of what is written is his personal experience and personal research. written in first person. It is not a secondary source and the material appears to be self-serving. There is no neutrality to the source. Weighing that against the gravity of a BLP, the source should not be used.
2) The Keimyoung Gazette is a university journal, not an academic journal. Therefore, because of the opinion/'free speech' quality of a university newsletter it is not subject to any rigorous fact checking process.3) Given Peter Daley's position, Wikipedia policy strongly recommends against his involvement in editing biographical content. Citing a source that was written by him is contrary to that policy.
3) The article is published in the Keimyoung Gazette, which after having done some research, is also the university that Peter Daley is a lecturer of. This would also make it a potentially self-published source.
Under WP: BLP, content that fails to meet verifiability requirements, that is contentious and libelous, and are self-published can be removed immediately. Therefore, I am deleting that source in accordance with that policy. CollinsBK ( talk) 09:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been studying the sources recently and noticed that many of them are worded quite similarly. After further research, I found that indeed, some of them are taken from the same source. Under WP:NEWSORG, it states that "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." And according to WP:OVERCITE, in certain instances, needless citations should be deleted. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to simply take the most comprehensive or most reliable source among those that talk about the same story.
Articles about the initial arrest in China
Hwang Chul-kyu, who is in charge of international crime cases in Ministry of Justice, announced on May 16 that, "Chinese police informed us that a man caught in Beijing on May 1 turned out to be Jeong Myeong-seok after comparing fingerprints."
Jung has been wanted by Korean police, for fraud, rape and embezzlement, since he fled the country in June 1999. The pseudo-religious leader was placed on the Interpol wanted list in 2002.
Articles about the extradition from China
He'd been on Korean wanted lists since 1999 (and the Interpol Red Notice since 2004) after fleeing the country after charges of rape emerged. While overseas, he made constant headlines for allegedly raping female devotees in various countries.
Jung was taken directly to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutors' Office from the airport. Prosecutors began questioning Jung after his arrival regarding nine complaints filed against him on charges that include embezzlement and sexual assault.
Articles about the initial six-year sentence
A South Korean court on Tuesday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said. Jung, 63, the leader of the Jesus Morning Star sect (JMS), fled to China from South Korea in 2001 where he had been charged with selecting followers from photographs and then forcing them to have sex with him.
Notorious cult leader Jung Myung-seok received Tuesday a six-year prison sentence for raping and sexually abusing his female followers.
서울중앙지법 형사26부(재판장 배기열)는 12일 여자 신도들을 성폭행한 혐의로 구속기소된 JMS(기독교복음선교회) 총재 정명석(63)씨에게 징역 6년을 선고했다. (The Seoul Central District Court No. 26 Criminal Division (Justice Bae Ki-yeol) delivered a prison sentence of six years to JMS President Jung Myung-seok, 63, who had been arrested and charged with raping 12 female followers.)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)A South Korean court yesterday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said.... Former members have told the Seoul court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)The date was wrong for the first source. They were all published within a day of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
BLP sources}}
onto the /History/ section (
diff). The only thing in that section that needed additional references, and therefore was need of immediate attention, was the poorly sourced quasi-libelous addition by GIOSCali in
this diff. But that had previously also been added by Phoenix0316 in their very first edit on 21 July.Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press.The possibility of me overlooking something can not be ruled out, but please post a list of these many reprints, preferably grouped together by duping. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: On 02:18, 12 September 2015
CollinsBK claimed that Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press
and they went on to say that sources should be deleted, or else we can take this to the relevant noticeboard for further discussion.
On 06:58, 14 September 2015 in this diff I followed up here in this thread by PINGing CollinsBK and asking them to provide a list of these supposed dupes. CollinsBK did not reply.
On 06:32, 15 September 2015 in this diff Phoenix0316 posts on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard repeating more or less their initial post here above. They did not notify any other user about their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They did not PING any user in their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Despite that, CollinsBK only c. 90 minutes later on 08:09, 15 September 2015 in this diff replies at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
As the reliability of the sources has not been questioned here, RSN is the WP:Wrong Venue. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press.-- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
the following accounts have been blocked as socks of one another
Am going to do a bunch of archiving now. -- Jytdog ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This user initiated a delete vote for Exodus, which is a group highly critical of Providence. The result was a redirect. They also made a lot of expansion to an article focusing on a retreat used by Providence. I would highly recommend going over the edits by this user's accounts and reviewing changes that they've made.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Now does this represent any concerted co-ordinated effort to whitewash Providence articles or is this just several unrelated but motivated people? Also, is there any word on the quality of Providence articles in other languages? Other language wikis may have fewer users, so it may be easier to whitewash those articles without anyone doing anything. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
More concerning is the fact that you have censored several sources that warrant inclusion in the article-- no mention of any of the controversies surrounding Do-hyun, no detail on the perjury conviction in which the plaintiff stated on record that accusations against Jung had been fabricated, none of the investigative reports from Korean sources that followed up on the trial in the years following the conviction.
One example that is well sourced is the SBS doctoring of Providence material, in which SBS was forced to pay reparations. I will include it in the article GIOScali ( talk) 10:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few recent articles which I think merit inclusion. And yes, to answer the question above. The vandalism over the years is part of a concerted effort from members of this group.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11859132
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/gq9wxy/how-a-south-korean-cult-tried-and-failed-to-sue-an-australian-school-teacher-for-defamation PeterDaley72 ( talk) 03:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
PeterDaley72 ( talk) 04:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi I added edits to this unbalanced page with proper citation. It was reverted by an editor without a good reason (making unproven accusations about socking is not a good reason). I reverted it and stated my reasons. If this editor had a problem with the content or citation, he should have noted it on the talk page without just reverting the article. It was once again reverted back without any reason. I would like to know why? AspiringCheetah ( talk) 05:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah
In recent years, especially most recently with the international focus on fake news, 'clickbait' and sensationalism of articles, there has been more scrutiny of the media in particular. This is also the case when it comes to reporting of this religious group, with multiple media outlets issuing retractions and apologies for false or baseless news reportsis not backed by third-party sources and is in no way befitting our policy on neutral point of view. To me it sounds a lot like a summary of the deleted articles Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok and Media allegations, charges, and conviction of Jung Myung Seok created by now blocked editors. Jung Myung Seok is still serving 10 years in prison for raping young women, but is up for release on parole in early 2018, Ref so as I predicted back in February 2017 this renewed attempt to stick in apologetic content comes as no surprise. Sam Sailor 14:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
As Jeong nears the end of his 10-year sentence (Feb 18 or 23, 2018 are likely release dates), Providence is producing quite a lot of propaganda. This should be of interest to those editing this page as it offers quite a few insights into the group's worldview and how it differs from, well, reality. I have had very little involvement with this Wiki apart from offering a few articles and engaging with members on the Talk Page, but I'm the focus of this "Wiki is nonsense" piece.
It may not be worth including in the main article, but at the least it should be of interest to those editors that have helped keep this Wiki factual: https://jmsprovidence.com/2018/01/27/providence-wikipedia-page-nonsense/ PeterDaley72 ( talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC) PeterDaley72 ( talk) 04:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to work in good faith with editors who have the time and are willing to do so regarding the following issues:
I'm wondering how the editors on this article would like to address these concerns. If you are an editor like Harizotoh who says they do not have time, then it would be better to work with those editors who do have time to get the article correct.
Failure to do so would be to neglect the basic responsibility editors have when writing an article about a living person.