Talk:Jung Myung-seok/Archive 3

Jung Myung Seok Image

I was wondering why the image of Jung Myung Seok keeps being deleted. It is fair use of a living person yet someone prehaps wants to keep Jung Myung Seok hidden? Prehaps someone not wanting to be identified like Jung Myung Seok prehaps? (Cousincreep 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Hi Cousincreep. I don't know if a user can delete an image. When Trustjms was vandalising the page, he never managed to delete the image, but he deleted the image summary. Anyway you can see the delete log here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:jungmyungseok.jpg

So it's being deleted under this:

Invalid fair-use claim. Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time. Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the Replaceable fair use template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified.

Unless Uptional will be so kind as to get us full permission to use an image of Jung the only image I can think of that we can get full permission of is from the video of Jung being arrested, but I don't know if that will be appropriate!!

The image is necessary so people know that Jung Myung Seok is indeed Joshua Jung or whatever name the members gave him to be (and to make the page look nicer).

RB972 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

QCA

—I look at this site and the article is very biased with a lot of misuse of quotes. It screams attack and not a valid biography. I have to agree with PJ or Uptional. From the contents of this site, despite how many negative statements there may be, Jung Myung Seok seems to have been "accused" of rape without having the luxury of being proven innocent or even guilty for that matter.

The above discussions also sound very rash from Capt. Porridge's end. I actually feel sorry for this guy named PJ who might not even know that his name is being mentioned here. If Capt. Porridge makes similiar attacks to Jung Myung Seok, it makes me question his intentions with his activity on this site.

Word of advice, be levelheaded and discuss objectively. There is too much implication of emotion. --QCA 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy QCA. If you think the quotes are misused then share.

There is no where in the article that says Jung is a rapist. It just reports the allegations which is Jung's claim to fame, so to speak. That's what makes him notable the most, as far as media and encyclopedias (like wikipedia) are concerned. So including the full argument is necessary.

Does it scream attack? The intention of a wikipedia article is to report the facts. Sometimes those facts make people look bad. Certainly the media seem to make him look bad, but I don't think they are bias, especially because one of the agencies survived a lawsuit claiming such. There is the argument that it is all a massive conspiracy, however, truth be told, to the average person who doesn't know much about Providence reading the facts of the matter would not think this to be a reasonable conclusion. That doesn't mean that's not the truth, it just means that an article talking about the facts on Jung will be "suggestive" -- NOT by the author's intention, but by "letting the facts speak for themselves".

Does it look like propaganda? You didn't say this, but it may be a concern. The old wikipedia article was more complete, but Uptional decided that was not to be. I know this page looks like propaganda to a member of Providence, but let me give an example. Moon says he married Jesus to a woman, he claims he was elected to "Messiah" by Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha and several others, and I think he even claims to have converted many people in the spiritual world. Is this in the Moon wikipedia article? No. Why? Because no one other than a Moonie believes it.

There's a suggestion in wikipedia guidelines somewhere: if you have a conflict of interest, then you should suggest edits to someone without, and if it really is true, then the person outside the conflict of interest will also see it's true and add it in. That stops silly beliefs that everyone knows is false -- except Moonies -- be added to the Moon article.

So there's no place in the Jung article about Jung resolving wars, healing people, and generally being the most influential person alive today. Why? Because, just like the Moonies article, no one outside a conflict of interest believes it. Do you see? That's why this article looks like propaganda to someone who does believe that stuff. Because, for the most part, only negative things can be confirmed by independent sources. So the page is always going to make Jung "look bad", but that's not my fault, nor is it Peter's, or anyone else. You may think it's unfortunate if you like, but the facts concerning Jung will naturally produce a negative image in the reader's mind, at no fault of the editor writing it.

However, I'm glad you have come to edit -- at the moment at least. As long as for controversial edits you discuss here so we can come to a resolution, you don't say or do things which I know you are acting dishonestly, and you present an honest desire to be open and not try to suppress or hide important truths that should be represented on the page. There are a few of your edits which I think a better alternative exists, but right now I don't want to spend too much time wiki'ing.

RB972 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so incensed that I have to say a few words here. Uptional, who are we kidding here? Listen PJ I know you have been receiving adverse emails from a number of EX-members of your church reproaching you for your sordid edits you have made here, and that prompted you to come in and childishly trying to sway people that you are not PJ. If you want to dissemble, that's fine. My problem isn't with that, but your peers and yourself really need to desist from wriiting idioitic reasons to justify yourselves.

Even an 8 year old could distinguish who is being subjective and who isn't [--unsigned]

OK, I have a problem with the following edits of yours QCA: - why did you change "accept" to "broadcast"? I looked through the Revelations lesson (not the one on the Internet, but the full one) and I saw no use of the word "broadcast". The revelation must be consistent with Jung to be accepted, it goes beyond just being accepted. Perhaps you'd like to check your own Resource Book. I'm sure you have access to one.

- I don't see how this statement is false: not having sex or dating unless permission is given for marriage from Jung

Perhaps you would prefer the wording, "not having sex or dating unless you have been married according to Jung's will"?

- Your wording here tries to de-emphasize the significance: "These debates are between present members and former members. These allegations have attracted journalists, lawyers, and a non-govermental organisations." From what I have gathered, it was originally started by former members, largely by male former members who believe their female friends or girlfriends were raped according to their testimony. However now it is a legal issue, it's not just a "debate" between former and current members, but Providence and Jung vs the law.

- This statement is misleading: "Yet, thousands of members from Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan university students continue to defend Jung." People continued to follow and defend Hitler, Saddam, Jim Jones, and a hundred other examples. It doesn't mean anything. I find it undue weight on an argument essentially with no real strength.

- Rewording of front group What's wrong with front group? Look at the wikipage. It fits the definition. This wikipage is an already extremely watered-down and weak presentation of the facts without not even being able to call them "front groups".

- This is clearly POV pushing "Some of these groups are geared towards charity such as volunteering in orphanages, retirement homes, feeding the homeless, and actively influencing society to "smile." The base of these groups are founded by Jung's teachings, "Smile even when you are not happy. Then you will find many things to be thankful for." These groups have gained support from various celebrities especially during the World Cup 2002 campaign." ...And very questionable considering that these "charity" often involve teaching these orphans etc. a "bible study" designed to introduce the idea that Jung is essentially the incarnation of God on Earth.

- More POV and misinformation: "Til this day, the supposed "100 women" have never identified themselves and remain nameless. The allegations are still under investigation because none of the women have not provided valid evidence such as DNA. However, this controversy has attracted the media and continues to make headlines in Asia." The allegations are still under investigation because Jung never turns up for court. How do you know that the women don't have evidences? They don't need to present it until Jung surrenders himself to the law. They don't identify themselves, but why should they now? I know that EXODUS would fear for the women's lives if their names were released. You may think that's stupid if you like, but that's what EXODUS believes. In one of the Korean reports, it shows the police had found evidence in the form of letters and pictures at a former residence of Jung, so what you are alluding to is false.

Discuss or make the necessary corrections or I'll just revert them in a few days as they are problematic. Also note that the format you presented your minority views in is wrong, you should quote an individual presenting that argument to be consistent with the rest of the section.

RB972 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To QCA: I don't feel I have been in any way rash. If anything I have been more calmer than I should be.

What is "rash" about sharing information about a man charged with rape, a man who claims to be God's sole authority on earth, a man who commands absolute blind obedience, a man who has praised Hitler, a man who has spent over a decade fleeing hundreds of rape allegations from practically every country he spends time in, and a man whose followers tried to erase any reference to the rape charges and accusations on this site? You think gathering information on such a man and presenting it on the web shows me to be rash?

The world has seen other men such as Jung: Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara and Osama Bin Laden.

Are the critics of those men rash?

I have spent time at cult's retreat, a year living with a member, I have spoken to numerous members, former members, concerned friends and family of members, the Korean Police, reporters in Korea who have been assaulted by followers of Jung, I have read and listened to hours of Jung's speeches, and have read extensively about cults in general. What is your experience with JMS and destructive cults? With what authority do you consider me rash? If you think I am rash, you clearly have no idea what a destructive cult is, and you clearly have no idea about Jung Myung Seok.

You feel sorry for PJ because I mentioned his name? He never hid his name on his own websites and in interviews, so why shouldn't I say his name? PJ is the senior American JMS member and is responsible for translating Jung's speeches. Everyday PJ aids a wanted fugitive. He is active in indoctrinating teenage girls into believing a man wanted for rape is the Messiah, I have video evidence of this, almost 60 hours of Jung's sermons translated by PJ, as well as other various videos produced by the cult in America. PJ deserves a wiki page of his own. If anyone involved with JMS deserves pity, it is the rape victims, as opposed to those that help fund Jung's flight from justice, and everyday work to bring him new young female followers. Save your pity for the victims. Rape isn't a minor crime.

I have contributed practically none of the text of this article, so I feel your thoughts about my "rashness" are not in any way relevant to the article. I realize this discussion is to improve the article, but if someone is going to call me "rash" and question my intentions, I am going to respond. Even if I am "rash", what has that got to do with this article? What has that to do with the rape charges? What has that to do with the 100's of accusation? What has that to do with Jung leading a totalitarian organization? Absolutely nothing.

You question my intentions? Well, let me be quite clear on this: my intentions are to raise awareness of and share information about a man and an organization that I have no doubt represents a danger to all who encounter it.

I question your intentions in questioning my intentions. If you cannot see the value in providing information on a man with so many rape accusations, rape charges, and a history of not only fleeing such accusations, but also in denying their very existance, then quote frankly I'm astounded, and can only conclude you are a follower of Jung who believes this wanted fugitive is the Messiah, and as such are in no position at all to contribute positively, or accurately to this article.

CaptPorridge 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been 3 days since you've made your edits QCA and more than 2 full days since I made my comments on them. I made my changes since you haven't discussed and I suspect if Uptional isn't editing anymore he might have advised you not to either. In any case the statement that the case hasn't been concluded because of lack of evidence is a particularly damaging false statement because I don't see why or how a full investigation can occur when the accused doesn't turn up to court. However I still let it sit there for 3 days, because I wanted to give you an opportunity to show good-will and change it. If Jung is a good man then the facts will state it so, so let the facts speak for themselves.

RB972 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia policies, "no personal attacks," which you did, is what I am referring to as rash. This does affect the improvement of this article because your rash behavior displays fueled anger and not logic or reason.

I am a member of Providence and that does not disqualify me from making edits. In fact, it only proves that my input or edits may prove to be information based on what is really taking place in Providence. I had intentionally left the negative press so as to allow the visitors to get a different POV.

I came on this site to find out more about the founder but your comments on this section only causes visitors to lose credibility to what you have written. My advice to you is that if you really want to persuade people that Providence is evil, you have to stop playing the bad guy. Out of apparent injustice, I attempted at making accurate revisions which you people were quick to revert. But I am positive that the people will see clearly that an angry person who attacks members of Providence who he is supposedly trying to save from a "cult" is not to be taken seriously. I plan to edit more in the future by adding positive excerpts from articles published in magazines. (Not self-published) [unsigned comment by QCA]

This is starting to get a bit tedious. Your comment about not being taken seriously is itself a personal attack. It would be a lot easier if you would observe WP:AGF. I suggest to pay careful attention to WP:COI and WP:Undue Weight while making your edits. Thanks, RB972 12:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Hong Kong Section?

It is sad to see the section removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.198.23.68 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

The PR guy for English language Providence removed it and most of the article. The page before he did this is here [1]. Since everyone else opposed this why don't you add back what you missed from the old page into the new one? RB972 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the Hong Kong section in the new Providence (religion) page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RB972 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Why this article is labled NPOV

Hi everyone,

I took one month off from working on this article in the hopes that a third party would make themselves available to sort out the NPOV issue. I see that no such help has arrived, and that the editors and writers who openly oppose Jung remain active. I feel there is no other way to proceed than to at the very least inform people that the current editors of the article are people who oppose Jung, and thereby cannot presume to have a neutral point of view. If anyone is in doubt to this claim, simply take the time to read the talk page thoroughly and you'll find heated discussions back and forth between two groups of people: those who follow the teachings of Jung and those who oppose the teachings of Jung. For either of the camps to claim neutrality would be deceitful, if not simply banal.

I hope the tag that I edited into the article will help visitors understand that they are responsible for what they read, and that what they read is always written by someone with an agenda. The only question remaining is the extent of that agenda and its aims. As a follower of Jung it pains me to read conjectures and rumor turned into "facts" and "evidence". However, because it always easier to tear someone down than to build them up, pages such as these exist in the state they do. For you visitors, I offer you some suggestions:

1) Do your own investigation, and think critically about what you discover. Does it come from a credible source? Would you be able to cite the source on a university term paper? Go and listen to Jung speak, or ask to have some of his teachings explained to you. Don't rely on the testimony of an anonymous person, but instead look for a follower of his whom you perhaps have a relationship with, whom you can vouche for, and ask them for truth. In the end we ultimately trust that the early followers of Jesus were not lying because it would have been inconsistent of them to lie to the people around them and yet preach about the destructiveness of sin. The same goes for disciples of Jung. Likely they have risked their careers, reputation, and even their lives in order to follow Jung, who teaches them principles on living a righteous life. Lying would negate all they've sacraficed in order to follow him.

2) Hold your judgement until the answers have been laid bare. Either Providence is right or it is wrong: you have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Then again, those odds aren't really that great are they? So, it's infinetly better to figure things out for yourself before you judge. Also remember your own bias. You are a product of your own culture, and to remove those 'cultural reading glasses' is nearly impossible without humility and grace.

3) If Providence is a destructive cult, then it MUST produce destructive followers. Why? Because as Jesus said when he was accused of being a Satanist: a house divided against itself will fall. If there is someone in your life who follows Jung, watch them closely to see if their character worsens or improves. One editor on this wiki page claims that Jung is as bad a person as Hitler and Bin Laden. Surely that is bad! And just as surely, people who follow him should become bad too. Jesus said: if the tree is bad, the fruit is bad. Observe with an open mind and a critical eye.

4) Hold up your findings in the light of history: has there ever been a man of God who was not persecuted? (For that matter, has there ever been a innovator in any field of study who was not persecuted for stepping outside the established norms??  ;) Even a casual reading of the bible shows us that time and time again a person with a mission from God is slandered, accused and murdered out of ignorance. Isaiah was sawed in half, Zechariah was cut down, Jesus was crucified, John was boiled alive... Why? Because the word of God is meant to challenge us, and in doing so disrupts the status quo. No one likes change, but it happens inevitably. Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors--can you imagine the reputation that garnered him? Imagine yourself as a 1st century Jew: how would you have judged Jesus then? Would you have shouted with the mob to have him cruxified for blasphemy, or because he kept company with a hooker?

I'll post more on this later--I think that's lengthy enough...  ;)

Uptional 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't "oppose Jung" as you see it. I am motivated because Providence simply does not give all the facts to potential recruits or even its own members, and DO lie, and you know it. If anything has been reported as fact or evidence it is because it has been stated as such by major mainstream national news in Asia, and it is cited to them. If you think Korean, Japanese and Taiwan national news is biased then this is not the place for you to wage your battle. I do not condemn Jung. I believe his actions condemn himself. The negative POV deserves to be laid out in full simply because it is the clear majority view. If you look at all the major news Jung has ever had you will see it has a similar feel to it as the wikipedia page. I will not respond to the rest of it because this is not the place to discuss the issue, except to say you misunderstand what a destructive cult is by your reasoning. Ask ANY former member about their time in Providence... of course you think they're "weeds" and don't care, though. RB972 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute label is only supposed to be used temporary. However, you don't suggest how it can be removed. It seems rather you have decided that the article doesn't represent your viewpoint enough, so you put it on there to discredit the page and to explain your view here. You don't even clarify WHY the article is NPOV. Obviously editors here have their own views. Anyone learned about an issue will have a view on it. That doesn't mean what they write will automatically be biased. You should read WP:NPOV carefully. Actually, your actions violate NPOV, because you don't make it clear that practically the only people who agree with you are Providence members themselves! I had already added in member's POV and labeled it as much.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want despite what you think in your warped view of me. However, let them have all the facts. Your actions here seem to be just more of non-Asian Providence's plans to pretend that the criticism isn't the majority opinion and reported as fact by mainstream media in Asia; and instead just some insane critics and bored tabloid writers trying to stir people up.

Because you keep moving outside the wiki guidelines or just exploiting them for your own purposes, it forces other editors to continue the discussions that shouldn't have ever started on the talk page. The whole time you have been purely disruptive and never tried to enter into discussion and collaboration with the other editors. Now you seem to have realised you aren't going to get away with deleting 3 quarters of the page like you did before so you try to discredit the article to bring unnecessary focus to your POV. If you felt that the article did not present the member's POV enough why don't you bring it up here? If you felt rumours were being reported as facts why don't you bring it up here? Or are you just playing your usual game of saying something with enough confidence and hoping no one will actually check if it's true?

I really don't want to be having these type of discussions but I am forced to respond. If you start actually desiring to work constructively and with other editors I will forget everything that has been said. However everything you have done so far has either been destructive or disruptive. RB972 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by QCA

First. READ THE POLICIES

Almost all of the edits by QCA are in violation.

I've gone through and tried to discuss with the edits with QCA and Uptional, what, 5 times now? And never has either replied specifically. But fine, I will try again.

addition of "Since then, several other women have accused Jung for rape after soon being exposed to Jung’s adversaries."

There is no evidence this was after they were "exposed" to "Jung's adversaries". Two of the women in the April 2006 conference fled China and did the conference even before they went to hospital for their injures they said were from Jung. Or was EXODUS in China with Jung? Obviously, no.

replaced sourced statement with "Jung also founded non-religious organisations for the purpose of spreading his philosophies, with emphasis of peace and giving glory to God. Some skeptics describe them as "fraudulent" by lawyers defending the women making the allegations."

This is unsourced, but we have a source for the reason Jung tells members to set them up. Also the Asahi doesn't say the lawyers quoted were lawyers defending the women. It just says "lawyers". In fact, anyone with common sense knows that the way Providence recruits is fraudulent. So it could be any lawyers. Hiding that the religion centres around the worship of Jung, hiding that Jung is a wanted fugitive, sometimes lying directly about that fact, pretending to be a Christian group, hiding the media attention or directly lying about the reputation of Providence in Asian, etc, is all fraud. Just Providence members think they are justified because they think they are doing God's work, just as they don't mind violating the law to aid a fugitive. But that doesn't change the fact it is legally fraudulent.

removal of The first four days, corresponding to the approximately four thousand years between Adam and Jesus, describe the period of time referred to as "the Old Testament". The next two days, corresponding to two thousand years, describe the time period labeled "the New Testament". Finally, the last day, corresponds to a thousand years starting roughly now, and said to be "the Complete Testament".

and

removal of Lessons: Salvation| accessdate=2006-11-21}}</ref> The 30 lessons reaches its climax when Jung interprets certain Biblical verses that the Messiah will come from Korea, is alive now, and will speak words of truth that will be recognizable because they will answer deep questions and solve unexplainable mysteries concerning the Bible.

these are both sourced. Stop trying to hide that Providence believes Jung is the Messiah. Removing sourced information is vandalism.

removal of "Jung, not dating until married (with a partner accepted or assigned by Jung), and that the original sin of Adam was sexual."

Stop trying to hide stuff you don't want people to know is true. It's dishonest.

removal of "While Jung has multiple explanations of this, one is that Moon is to Jung what John the Baptist was to Jesus, in that Moon was supposed to come first and testify about Jung who was to come but failed to do so."

Again, trying to hide that Jung thinks he is the Messiah. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it needs to have that information. That justification is all through Jung's sermons and the 30 lessons. He's always complaining about people who don't "realise" who he is causing problems.

addition of "Some of these criticisms have extended beyond verbal. Some of the critics or adversaries have threatened Providence members of further aggravation unless a certain large sum of money is given to them. They have even hacked into members’ e-mails to pose as members posting sites to support their point of view, and violated copyright infringement on various sites. They have also harassed members’ parents with e-mails."

This doesn't have a source that fits WP:RS, and it's simply defamation.

removal of "According to former members, "in order to gain the likes of their religious leader, the followers choose tall, pretty and young female victims as ‘sexual gifts’" and sends photos of them to Jung. Jung then "systematically goes through a process of choosing the girls from the photos that pleases him and calls upon (these girls) from overseas to rape them.""

removal of "According to Toyoshige Aizawa, a Christian minister engaged in weaning young people away from cults, Jung rapes them under the context "to atone for Adam and Eve's original sin, which was visited upon all mankind, it's necessary to engage in intercourse with the Lord." Afterwards, Jung's aides told them they would go to hell if they told anyone."

Again, removing sourced information is vandalism.

addition "Media who publicized the false slanders were ordered by the court to publicly apologize to the group. According to Eugene J. Kanin, PhD, the reasons for these women making false rape allegations is for “providing an alibi, a means of gaining revenge, and a platform for seeking attention/sympathy.” Consequently, these women would make these rape allegations public in groups and only after being exposed to EXODUS, a group formed by a former member."

Unsourced. The Kanin file cited has nothing about Jung, it's irrelevant. Using the source in this way in misleading, where does it say Kanin says that about "these women"?? And the "only after being exposed to EXODUS" is a pure guess, and it is completely unsourced. Police are still searching for Jung... why would they be doing that if it was proven they were false slander?

removal of "believing it to have been used by Jung to sexually assault female followers"

Read the source. It's in there. Stop replacing it with something else.

removal of: and according to EXODUS "there are several photos, letters and documents sent to these girls by Jung Myung-suk regarding the molestations that serves as definite proof""

addition of: and according to EXODUS, "there are several photos, letters and documents sent to these girls by Jung Myung-suk that may serve as proof"

Why do you keep changing quotes? You can't change quotes. And obviously that's not what EXODUS believe, that they "may serve". In fact no one doubts that there is definite proof that is acceptable for a court. If it weren't true, then why doesn't Jung turn up to court? Because he knows he will be convicted. Providence just believes the evidence shouldn't be accepted.

removal of: The trial can only commence after Jung is arrested. replaced with: With all the negative media, the question whether there will be a fair trial remains.

this is a POV listed written like it isn't. Read WP:NPOV. In fact, read all the policies, like I told you, QCA.

RB972 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are accusing me of vandalism and submitting unverifiable source when you are doing the same. You keep "warning" me that I am using Providence websites as "self-published" but I wonder what sources you are using when you provide "falsemessiahboards" that your leader made? You stated that we should be honest and therefore we also need to be honest with what the critics are actually doing to the Providence members. These acts are illegal.

Editing minor grammar or spelling to the false information you made is unfair to the people when providing truly neutral information, don't you think? It is most important to provide the most accurate information, which means to even delete the former information and to replace it with the new.

I believe changing quotes or references can be made if the information itself is not neutral or accurate. [unsigned by QCA]

I have not deleting anything that has been sourced properly. Unverifiable sources? Most of them are national mainstream media. The only thing that sources falsemessiah is the 30 lessons section, which could be replaced with simply "reference: the 30 lessons" if you care so much since I have them. I have no "leader".

You cannot change references to make them more "neutral". That is original research. You cannot delete information that is cited to reliable sources even if you disagree with it. It is vandalism. Do you understand? RB972 08:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, read the policies. Your edits are in clear violation. This is tiresome. If you really believe your edits do not violate the policies, then discuss as I tried to, to reach consensus. If you don't care that you are violating them, as seems to be the case, then you have no defense and the edits need to be reverted. I don't want to edit war with you. Sooner or later other editors are going to come in and you need to defend your actions in policy when that happens. RB972 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm RB's leader? Wow I've never been called anyone's leader before, I prefer the term "friend" myself. Anyway, RB, here's the vid you found, it's on youtube now and more easily accessible, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abN1mIYc_r0 The cops in the news clip are carrying machine guns, isn't it time you cult members stopped all this nonsence, before more people get hurt? CaptPorridge 13:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

I think it best that you read the policies. There is a clear policy on neutral point of view. You are deleting any views we add which questions your intent on making Wikipedia a neutral reference. QCA 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)QCA

Encyclopedias deal with facts QCA. Has Jung been charged with rape? yes Has he been a fugitive since fleeing Korea 8 years ago? yes Does he claim to be the Messiah? Yes Does Jung and senior members of his cult try to hide the fact he is a wanted fugitive charged with rape? yes Are there reports from Japanese media that Jung is being hunted by Costa Rican authorities? Yes

QTC, I don't think you know what the word "neutral" means. You may be able to put a positive spin on all the above and be believed by fellow brainwashed followers, but not in the real world outside your little criminal cult. CaptPorridge 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

Third opinion (as requested by RB972)

After some reading in the article's history, I would conclude the following: QCA has indeed persistently been trying to put a biased spin on matters which were already presented in a fairly neutral way. That is, as neutral as it gets when writing about a wanted fugitive, charged with multiple cases of rape. I'd also like to point out, that QCA's contributions are entirely limited to this article and its talk page and this sort of exclusiveness often indicates a certain level of obsessive dedication, found in fans and zealots. I don't know about my fellow Wikipedians, but my ability to assume good faith runs very thin very quickly, with such people. One a side note: I would suggest to get rid of the External media section, incorporating most of its content into the article's references and leaving a few more general sites in an External links section. Just my two cents regarding common practice. Oh, and the links to the Asahi articles have changed. - Cyrus XIII 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion (As Requested By QCA)

From reading this topic, this is what I think:

If the media is already portraying Jung as a bad man, let the media do the work of speaking ill about another human being. What good does it do anyone to chime in? Maybe because you think what Providence is doing is wrong? Granted. But why not let the new recruits decide through what they see and experience? Despite what might be said, brainwashing is actually a very complicated and long process. So saying such a thing would be quite a long shot, especially when so many people are involved. http://people.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing.htm

“I don't "oppose Jung" as you see it. I am motivated because Providence simply does not give all the facts to potential recruits or even its own members, and DO lie, and you know it.”

This is stated by RB972 as their reason for engaging in this debate. Within philosophy, there is a known fallacy called “Poisoning The Well.” http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html People typically don’t present negative information about a person before they meet. You might say it is necessary in this case because it is fact. However, the “facts” are not even believed to be true by followers of Jung. Therefore it doesn’t make sense for them to bring it up to new recruits. These “facts” that are spoken of are from the news and media as stated in RB972’s post. Where did the news and media get these “facts?” From people that have claimed to have been raped by Jung. So then, are these claims fact? If so, are not also the claims that Jung is an innocent man fact? If either was easier to prove than the other, then there wouldn’t be this issue. But the truth of the matter is, neither one can be absolutely proven as “fact.” So we move on to the next step. People from either side trying to promote that their “fact” is actually “fact.” So then what is the truth? Why not let the people decide? People have a tendency to “see it to believe it.” Yet so many are affected and influenced not by what is seen, but by what is heard. So if what is heard is unreliable, since both are saying and writing this and that, let’s rely then on what is seen. Has anyone actually seen Jung rape these women? If so, can it be proven? Has anyone actually seen Jung heal people? If so, can it be proven? If you are going to accuse someone of doing something bad, simply because you heard it, you are a victim of “Poisoning The Well.” If you are going to say someone is a great man, then show us how this man lives everyday, and let the people decide. It would be inaccurate to say the majority of the people think Jung is a guilty man, simply because it is based only on what they have heard. Let the people decide not only by what they hear, but by what they see and experience for themselves.

Another point should be made. Is the opposition fueled by the accusations of Jung raping these women? Or is the opposition fueled by the disbelief of Jung’s teachings? Either one can fuel the other, but it is important to distinguish which one is primary. If the opposition is fueled by the accusations of rape, then people should take a very unbiased view of the facts and not make judgments until proven guilty. That is the way the law works. (You hear negative news about someone, and you either give them the benefit of the doubt and weigh out the evidence, or you don’t give them the benefit of the doubt, and have a negative view on them. Either way, your involvement is limited to just your initial feelings about the issue. Further involvement questions your real purpose or valid connection with the issue). If the opposition is fueled by the disbelief of Jung’s teachings, then clearly the view would be more biased. (You don’t agree with Jung’s teachings and think it’s wrong. Therefore you go out and promote that it is wrong. The accusations of rape fits nicely into your opposition because now it’s just more reason why people should not participate). I ask this to question whether the postings are truly neutral. It seems clear to me that edits made by CAPTPORRIDGE, RB972, etc. are not simply fueled by them hearing about a man that has raped many women. But their involvement seems a little bit more personal, which naturally makes their posts seem more biased and questionable.

With that being said, I have read the before and after edits that QCA has made. The whole feel of the posts is clearly more negative than positive. The edits that QCA made does not take away from the information that is given about Jung and his allegations. Anyone who reads it would still be able to understand clearly about what people are saying about Jung. Isn’t that the point? QCA’s edits report all that’s going on, while still giving a neutral enough standpoint where people are able to make their own decisions about what they think about this issue. The previous post sounds like they’re giving a not so neutral standpoint where people are automatically going to think more negatively of Jung, than neutrally. It’s easy to say “we’re just reporting the facts.” But like I said before, what exactly are absolute facts? QCA can easily write about all the miracles and good things about Jung, and those could be facts too. But then, that would not be neutral. Being unbiased is reporting the facts while giving the person a benefit of the doubt. The posts before are clearly not JUST about reporting about the facts. Anyone who reads it would get the same feel. I believe the site needs to be edited further to make it clearly unbiased. At its current state, the “facts” are all one sided because all the “facts” are negative “facts.” If it is to be truly neutral, then either add “facts” of positive occurrences of Jung, take out the negative “facts” of Jung, or edit it to show that the “facts” are not inconclusive, but simply allegations. If RB972 and CAPTPORRIDGE were trying to portray that, I would question their abilities because in that, they have clearly failed.

I hope to see more edits made to these postings. Neutrality is not easy to achieve, but it is necessary when dealing with a serious issue like this one.HJen 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One should note that there has been no request for another opinion at WP:30 by QCA and that the HJen account has only been used so far to write this "extra" view and to request unprotection for the article. I'd like to introduce another term into these proceedings: Sock puppetry. - Cyrus XIII 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is an assumption based on no grounds of evidence, a wrong assumption at that. No, I'm not HJen, if that's what you're implying. QCA 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)QCA

Regardless if that is true or not, HJen is fairly clearly someone you specifically requested (as it says "requested by QCA" in the heading, but there was no public request for an opinion by you), so it's not an independent third opinion. I think the term for this is "meatpuppet". RB972 08:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So far I have to agree with QCA. Captporridge and RB972 seems to take things very personal and retaliates by assuming who an id is. I dont understand whats with the finger pointing as it seems childish to do those things. I dont think that matters who is writing what, isnt this the main reason why Wikipedia exists? Everyone has equal opportunity to write what they feel are facts. So its useless to to write and retaliate as it does not move forward, but a temporary release of personal frustration that members do not need to read. Seems that CaptP and RB972 has forgotten all that and got heated. QCA seems to give very good reasons to see things in a neutral form. Applying some of those reasons or thoughts to any individual is basically what a court of law should be doing. This thread should continue to give reasonings to come to an understanding. I havent read any solid evidence that was presented to give CaptP such a hard press to be fixed into having one set perspective.

People always talk about innocent till proven guilty but people dont do it. Its a sad fact as any sociologist will tell you that "bad" news will be much more powerful that any "good" news.

I have heard in Korea that there is ten's of thousand's of people that are following Jung. And we have a few that are pressing charges. I dont think those people are not intelligent enough to continue following a "fraud". I am sure that they have felt some kind of good change because of this man. And continue to follow him. Any organization will eventually fail if they are filled with deceitful intentions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteelFeather 09:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC) SteelFeather (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Short Reply from CaptP

I havent read any solid evidence that was presented to give CaptP such a hard press to be fixed into having one set perspective.

I think the article I wrote for the Keimyung Gazette explains how I encountered the JMS cult and why I feel it's important that factual information be available on the Internet in English.

You can read it here, if you haven't already read it http://www.rickross.com/reference/gacp/gacp4.html

If you have any questions about it, please feel free to ask here, or on my forum: http://www.jmscult.com/forum

With rape charges and 100's of further accusations, with quotes from Jung here on wiki in which he praised Hitler, well if that doesn't tell you why I feel passionate about gathering info on Jung, I don't know what else to say... but I'll think of something.

CaptPorridge 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

And a little reminder, this is the Jung Myung Seok wiki page, so although I'm happy to respond, I don't see how my motives have anything to do with a discussion page for Jung's wiki site, especially since I contributed none of the text of the current article. My comments earlier alleging that a user was Lee Ho-myong, well I think it's important to know that the people hoping to delete the "negative" information here, are people who think Jung is the Messiah. CaptPorridge 11:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC) CatPorridge

I understand and believe that factual evidence must be presented. RB972 stated,"- This statement is misleading: "Yet, thousands of members from Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan university students continue to defend Jung." People continued to follow and defend Hitler, Saddam, Jim Jones, and a hundred other examples. It doesn't mean anything. I find it undue weight on an argument essentially with no real strength.", but I dont see it in any article that he is similiar to these individuals. Does this Jung guy go out killing people and announcing it to the world, does he tell people to kill themselves, does he go out making terroristic threats, and like the other hundred examples? I have heard that he tells people to pray to God, eat well and take care of your physical bodies and exercise, go to other countries and learn their cultures and make friends through culture and arts, he tries make people realize how good their situation is, but to continue to make it better..... And the list goes on from what I have heard.... How is he anything close to(Attempt #1): Hitler, Saddam, Jim Jones, and a hundred other examples did these individuals have charges that are pending? Realistically on the negative things this Jung guys is small bacon. I dont really care who is writing what, but the fact must remain standing. If the the advocates and antagonist must speak then let them speak. Its meaningless to point out who is writing what. And honestly who really cares. Just present the information and continue with the thread. This is not a grounds for personal debates. I am honestly curious and like this site and it tries to remain neutral. I can see the other links as well, but prefer to come to Wikipedia for all my information.

If he praised Hitler then what is the reasoning behind it? Its like seeing the after math. We can see a parent scolding a child, or maybe spanking a child in a parking lot. We may look at it and say abuse. But if we got to follow the parent and child prior to the spanking, we could've seen that the child keeps running from the parent toward a busy road. There must be a reasoning.. People are so quick to report the effect and not explain the cause... If your going to point out all the effects and add your opinion, then its not a ground of neutrality anymore. And as I have stated seems to become a personal vendetta. I am sure you and I would like to be understood and not people telling about what you and I did without any reasons as to why so. So please get back on the road of information without personal opinion. SteelFeather 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

REASONS WHY THIS ARTICLE IS NOT FACTUAL AND NEUTRAL

You claim that I pose as another person with a different account, you assume that someone is someone else or as mentioned by SteelFeather, fingerpointing. ("Trustjms has been blocked. I wonder who he is. Ralph?" RB972, "Furthermore, if you are PJ, and you sure talk a lot like him" RB972). This is not very nice, is it.

These personal attacks indicate personal feelings against a group of people.

Also, RB972, you wrote personal messages to me trying to find something wrong with my edits, "can't make references to self-published material," and "can't delete references or quotes you made." I admit those mistakes so I edit keeping that in mind. The funny thing is that you make constant references to your self-published material as noted here: "I think the article I wrote for the Keimyung Gazette explains how I encountered the JMS cult and why I feel it's important that factual information be available on the Internet in English.You can read it here, if you haven't already read it http://www.rickross.com/reference/gacp/gacp4.html" CaptPorridge.) And the following references are all made to your self-published material (Reference numbers 5,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,21,22,23, and who knows what else.)

Another reference you make repeatedly is to the UCSD article who's journalist had made quotes from your websites.

And because HJen gives a third opinion upon my request, as Cyrus did for RB972, HJen is automatically biased? It makes me question your actions as well. Is Cyrus biased, too, because he was requested by RB972?

This proves that your writings are not neutral nor factual. An allegation, accusation, and charges are what they are. They are not fact! (Allegation: Definition-A statement asserting something without proof, according to dictionary.com)

Plus, this article speaks only of the charges made but none of the trials where the court ruled in Providence favor. Is that giving all of the information? You don't include all the harassment and mental and physical violence the Providence members receive from critics and is that providing all the information? Is it that you want to hide the truth?

I simply hope that people reading this will be intelligent enough to check out your self-published websites and see the obvious that this present article is not neutral nor factual. QCA 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)QCA

Those materials are all published by your cult, I'm merely providing a space where non-members can view what you wish to keep secret. My article was not self published, it was published by the Keimyung University English Gazette and it was well researched. I stated Jung had been charged with rape because it is true, I stated that he broke bail and fled Hong Kong because that is true too.

And what exactly do you feel is false about the Wiki article? Jung is a fugitive, Jung has been charged with rape (and fraud), there are 100's of other accusations, and he does claim to be the Messiah. Those aren't opinions in any way shape or form, they are facts. Nor are they "negative" facts. They are just plain facts. I certainly don't object to you putting forward your own opinion of Jung, but that shouldn't be at the expense of the the more concrete evidence of the rape allegations and charges etc. "He is a fugitive charged with rape. His followers believe he is innocent" What could be more neutral than that?

And how about adding more Providence material here? Would you object to links to Jung's video speeches? If we are to present the whole story, the more material the better, do you agree with that? Could you ask Lee Ho-myong about that for me? Perhaps he could post links to Jung's speeches.

Plus, this article speaks only of the charges made but none of the trials where the court ruled in Providence favor. Is that giving all of the information? You don't include all the harassment and mental and physical violence the Providence members receive from critics and is that providing all the information? Is it that you want to hide the truth?

I have never seen published articles that mentioned Providence winning cases or attacks on members. If you find such articles, I don't think anyone would object to you putting that into the article. But I think we need to be aware that cult publishbed material is simply propaganda. And any such documents don't change the fact that Jung is a fugitive charged with rape who claims to be the Messiah. No one here is trying to hide the truth except for you

Another reference you make repeatedly is to the UCSD article who's journalist had made quotes from your websites.

That article was well written and well researched and the journalist gave cult members ample opportunity to voice their opinions. If you are calling into question Matt's journalistic integrity, take it up with him and the UC San Diego newspaper. You personally not liking an article isn't a reason to exclude it.

CaptPorridge 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

• The UCSD paper is not referenced in the article
• The "self-references" are all to Providence material. The links go to the materials published on CaptPorridge's website. You can remove the URLs if you really care so much, they're still references to the material. The URLs are simply giving a place where people can read them.
• You missed half of the comment I made about Uptional. PJ was previously editing the article and doing inappropriate things, and he is the PR guy for Providence. What PJ did applies to Uptional if Uptional is PJ, that was my reasoning as you can see in the full quote.
• Concerning Trustjms, well, considering he threatened me [2], I don't think it's "not very nice" to want to know who he is.
• QCA, I don't think you understand what a third opinion is. I did not request Cyrus XIII personally. I put a message on WP:3O and anyone could have come in, I've never talked to Cyrus XIII before and it seems he had never heard of Jung before. That is different to getting a friend to back you up.
• I am not CaptPorridge, so why did you use one of his quotes about me? Besides, the only reference using the Woolly Woof article is to give the POV of critics.
• Steelfeather, you misunderstood my argument. The point is saying people follow an individual doesn't prove anything, since people followed those individuals and we know they are bad. However the sentence was worded in such a way to imply it overrided the previous sentence.
• You can add any information about "all the harassment and mental and physical violence the Providence members receive from critics" if you can find a reliable source that any of that actually happened.
• If you want to change the article, then please discuss specifically what edits you want to add to it. If the edits are not neutral, prove that the edits are not neutral, instead of making comments about me. RB972 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand there would be alot more links, or videos available if they weren't taken and redited through video editing program, which I saw from a friend awhile back on youtube. Which an individual can put some creepy music, some weird effects to make it "cultish". Regardless someone can put some beautiful music, cheerful sounds, laughter, etc. Its just simply opnionated videos. I believe that some copywritten material was violated in such ways that now makes this Jung guy have a more secured system. If I was him I would probably do the same. Wouldnt you? Honestly, say your giving a speech, but someone takes it and re-edits it and the material from their perspective and disregarding the content of the speech. So you ask why, but yet you may be the cause? Why ask. Is it because you want to get more material to violate copyright protection. I havent heard any of these members doing those things, example getting video from this Exodus guy or the females that are pressing charges and getting their video and doing some strange edits. This simply shows some deep anguish you have for this Jung guy and I cannot help but think your purpose is not based to reveal facts, but this page is becoming a tool to vent something else.

Its begining to seem that you contest these members and take into account the actions you have done that causes these actions to take forth. Which simply seems that you are contradicting yourself. I am still awaiting a response from my previous edit.

The evidence of people changing their lives for the better overwhlems the individuals that have been mistreated. In any leadership position their will be people below that will complain and people who will be happy. CaptP stated:"* Steelfeather, you misunderstood my argument. The point is saying people follow an individual doesn't prove anything, since people followed those individuals and we know they are bad. However the sentence was worded in such a way to imply it overrided the previous sentence." People following an individual and still continue to follow with all these charges in public circulation is astronomical point. If I heard that, it would take alot of faith and knowledge for me to stay. Now these members staying, and those even coming is a very strong point that cannot be denied. I know many people out there have jobs that their bosses may not be the best, which will lead them to be disgruntled and have no respect, but they stay because they have to due to financial restraints. This Jung guy is not paying all these people, but they stay because of the supposed faith and knowledge they receive. That puzzles me and makes me question of the supposed allegations.

My question remained unanswered. How is he anything close to: Hitler, Saddam, Jim Jones, and a hundred other examples, did these individuals have charges that are pending(Attempt #2)? I think this is also not fact, but an opnion not based on any fact.SteelFeather 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

SteelFeather -

>My question remained unanswered. How is he anything close to: Hitler, Saddam, Jim Jones, and a hundred other examples, did these individuals have charges that are pending? I think this is also not fact, but an opnion not based on any fact.

you really haven't understood the point here, it's a rhetorical device. To disprove a principle (in this case it's that having followers is evidence of being a good person) you come up with a extreme example which clearly invalidates said principle. Personally I think there is something instructive to be gained from a comparison between Jung and Hitler, but here is not the place - nor is it the place for over-emotional rants and spurious justification.

This is supposed to be a discussion about the editing of the JMS wiki page. I won't waste everyone's time by clogging up the page with my reasoning - but it's quite clear to me that you are more familiar with 'this guy Jung' (as you persist in calling him) than you are intending to let on, and your edit history has sock puppet written all over it. I suggest that unless you have specific comments to make about the content of the page you refrain from writing here.

88.105.119.177 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I understood your "rhetorical" device. But you misuse the definition of rhetorical which is a related person. My point is why are you making Jung relate to these individuals when its not related(Attempt #3)? It seems that your trying to avoid the point. I will refrain from writing here if you refrain from trying to give speific comments that are factual and not just opnionated rhetorical information. That is what didnt make sense. I would understand if your trying to be factual if you present all the evidence good and bad. But you just bring negative information. If you were truly there as you state, you cant help but see people doing good as well as bad. But you just state the bad. Its seems like a personal vendetta filled with trying to relay every leeched source of negative information that you can get.

On the contrary you are filling this page up with your own reasoning as my pervious statement points out, and your statements above is evidence. A good reference is your use of a "rhetorical" device. I havent seen in any article.

Thank you I'd like to think I know about Jung situation to an extent. SteelFeather 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

To QCA,

I could spend all night refuting your points and arguments you made here, but I don't want to waste my time talking to a person whose view on this matter is so obstinate that no amount of words will convince you that you are wrong on many accounts. So, I decided to challenge you on something.

You have stated here that.....

"Plus, this article speaks only of the charges made but none of the trials where the court ruled in Providence favor. Is that giving all of the information? You don't include all the harassment and mental and physical violence the Providence members receive from critics and is that providing all the information? Is it that you want to hide the truth?"

I challenge you to provide proofs to back up your statement. Please take a moment to enlighten us of the rulings that favored in Providence. Tell me and provide proofs of harassment and metal and pysical violence that are infliced by the critics of JMS. It seems to be like, since most of the critical information on Jung Myung Seok is in Korean, you are taking advantage of language barrier to conceal the truth about him, and think that you could come up with any excuses to justify your action. If you think I'm wrong, then like I said please do provide the proofs. Keep in mind that I have followed and studied every court case involving Jung Myung Seok and his organization.

Make sure to follow your own guide lines of providing creditable sources.

Reply from QCA:

Will do. I just hope that you will not delete them or claim that it is not verifiable according to YOUR standards. For some reason, when I included all the charity work the "front" groups have done, you have deleted them without reason. So, please be patient until I compile them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QCA (talk • contribs)

• QCA, I gave you my reason, but you chose to ignore it.
• SteelFeather, there is no Wikipedia policy that means the "positive" information must be given as much space as the "negative" information. All of the reliable sources (that is, news in Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, Korean documentaries, and a book by a French psychologist which apparently resulted in Jung being banned from France) say the same thing, what you call as "negative". The only people who disagree with what is reported are Providence members (and the people who agree with it most are the former members, what does that tell you?). Right now the article gives more weight to member's POV than all the reliable sources do (that's why all the member's POV parts are unsourced or sourced to the Providence website, despite the huge amount of media attention Jung has gotten).
• There are plenty of "negative" information I didn't add, and many things that are more extreme than in the Wiki article. I'm hardly "trying to relay every leeched source of negative information that [I] can get" when I left out the most negative/extreme things and put extra detail about the member's POV that reliable sources didn't see fit to print.
• Neither the recent IP-signed post nor the "to QCA" post are by me. RB972 19:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

** rb972, I did not state anything about Wikipedia policies about posting negative or positive information. All those information tells me that someone had published it which becomes verifiable and not necessarily the truth. You stated,"The only people who disagree with what is reported are Providence members (and the people who agree with it most are the former members, what does that tell you?).", it tells me that despite the bad press people still believe and overcome which is simply incredible. That is what it tells me. Everyone knows that bad press is heavier than good press. When was the last time you heard reporters going out to find good news? Press like dirt, any dirt and will go crazy over it.

** My question is still unanswered rb972. My point is why are you making Jung relate to these individuals when its not related(attempt #4)? SteelFeather 09:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not repeat myself. RB972 10:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I am not asking you to repeat what your answer as rhetorical device but to explain why you used it when it isnt related. Of course hearing the same answer is not needed unless thats the only answer you can resolve this to which is misleading. Therefore you statement remains misleading and not neutral unless you have another answer you can change it to. SteelFeather 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

To SteelFeather,

Since RB's point is inadequate for you, and he is somewhat reticent to answer your question. I'll be more than happy to provide you with a concise answer to sate your inquisitive mind, only if you are willing to concede here that Jung, indeed, priased, extolled and complimented Hiter for his atrocious crimes, which he committed against the Jewish people.

ARTICLE PROTECTION: How Long? and For What Purpose?

The article is currently protected and yet there doesn't seem to be any active investigation into the matter. For how long shall it remain protected and towards what end does the protection persist? I'm curious to know this for there appears yet another glaring violation of the most basic wikipedia standards. Case in point, the very first paragraph: "...is believed to be hiding in Costa Rica." Why did the author not say Siberia, New Orleans, or Timbuktu? They would have all made an equal amount of sense because there is no supporting evidence for Costa Rica. If only the article wasn't protected I could add in my theory: Jung is hiding on the planet Mars. This habit of conjecture is rife throughout the article--as it has been from the beginning. The debate back and forth has been an effort to edit these conjectures from the article. One group of editors finds them useful in defaming someone they seek to vilify. Another group finds them atrocious violations of policy and feels justified in removing them. Where are the wikipedia editors to sort that out? Reading and re-reading violations while trying to maintain respect for the wikipedia project is difficult. One wonders what--other than human decency--prevents anyone from saying anything about anybody? Sure, I understand that this article is under debate--but how is it possible that the most basic wikipedia standards be continuiously violated? Are they not printed for all to read at the very top of this screen in the biography of living persons policy? How is it possible for such an obvious disconnect between policy and content to remain---in a protected article none-the-less?! Uptional 13:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The information about Jung being in Costa Rica came from Japanese news stations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1XTHx5kEog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abN1mIYc_r0

So how could you object to material in the article pointing out what Japanese Media are reporting? As a senior member, why don't you tell us where Jung is? Or does he keep that information from you? Where are those links to prove the charity work you claimed? CaptPorridge 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

Calling him a former Unificationist seems designed to malign the reputation of the church. He reportedly taught the VOC material for a while, but that does not make him a church member. --Uncle Ed 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And I got an admin to unprotect the page. --Uncle Ed 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, the former Moonie claims are mentioned in most of the Japanese articles. I have compared the Moonies Bible course and Jung's 30 lessons and agree completely with a quote from one of the Japanese articles that Jung's version is simply a watered down version of the Moonies. Many of the passages are practically identicle. You are welcome to view Jung's Bible lessons here for a comparison: http://www.jungmyungseok.com/falsemessiah.proboards23.com/indexec58.html?board=bible I don't think tha's a major point though, the important information on the wiki page concerns Jung's claims to be the Messiah, the rape charges the Korean police have laid, and the numerous other allegations as documented in the newspaper articles already referenced.

Sorry Ed, I misuderstood your first post, I've rewritten my reply accordingly.

CaptPorridge 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

I'm sick and tired of these JMS bigots, who try to justify their devious edits and their desire to hinder people from disclosing the facts about Jung Myung Seok. I'll tell you why this wiki page must be protected. You people lack the lower intestine fortitude to speak with candor, and base all of your arguments on your personal, ilogical conjectures. Your sole purpose here is to delete all the negative information about Jung, so that you may continue with propagading Jung's teachings without any encumbrances and to blind people from seeing the truth. That's why this wiki page must be protected. If you don't want this to be protected and want to have the right to make edits, how about mannning up for once in your lives and actually prove your statements by adducing facts. QCA, I'm still waiting for your alleged court cases that favored in Jung to be posted here. I'm still waiting for your alleged harrasments that the critics of JMS inflicted against the members of JMS to be posted here. You accepted the challenge, didn't you? You are a man right? Why don't you keep your word for once? ARe you really compling the facts, or did you decide to let Uptional do your biddings, because you can't provide anything to support your claims? Steelfather, What happened to you? How come you stopped asking RB to answer your question? If you admit to what I asked you to do, I would answer your question. You people want to resolve this discord, fine. Let's begin a real debate. Start providing facts to support your arguments, if you can't! you JMS people ought to refrain from mouthing off. By the way Uptional, thanks for proving my point about how JMS followers unscrupulously take advantage of "language barrier." Like you didn't hear the news about Jung hiding in Costa Rica from Korean news networks and Japanese news networks. ONce again, thanks.

NOTE: THE COMMENT DIRECLY ABOVE WAS UNSIGNED. IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS AND DO NOT USE THIS TALK PAGE TO ATTACK EDITORS. READ THE RULES AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. Uptional 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)'

• • Take it easy there. I thought the page stated to, "be polite"? Dont need to get upset. I stopped because rb doesnt reply. What did you ask me to admit? I dont know who you are.. As far as the links to that japanese news reporting the Jung is Costa Rica, I didnt see him caught on camera in Costa Rica.. Did I miss something? Once again that report is verifiable, but not necessarily the truth that he is in Costa Rica.

• • As for the data from qca I am also curious to see what will be presented... Thanks, in anticipation.. SteelFeather 05:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when does voicing a personal opinion considered as being impolite? You haven't seen me impolite, you wouldn't like me when I'm impolite and don't fret you will most definitely know when I'm being impolite. If you are offended by my comments, then stay offended. I don't really care, because I spoke from my heart and I'm not going to twist what I stated just to appease some people in here. I tell it like it is. If I see a "shit" then I'm going to call it a "shit." That's just me. I don't know about you, but I tell it like it is. I don't bend the truth nor embellish it. You should try it once in a while, if you haven't tried before. I'm not insinuating that you are incapable of speaking the truth, it's just a suggestion because it does your mind good. I could say something in regard to your reason for stop asking that question, but no point of arguing with you. You stopped because rb didn't reply. I'm not a mind reader so I guess you stopped because he didn't reply. I'll take your word for it. But if you still want the answer to your question, just let me know. But, be sure to admit what I asked you to do. You know something? I would to ask you a question, since you sound like a person who has an intimate relationship with JMS followers. Do they all employ the same excuse by saying "I don't know who you are, when they are asked with a question of which the veracity can't be disputed? I'm just curious. In regards to the news about Jung hiding in Costa Rica. I don't think anyone in here predicated that he is hiding in Costa Rica. The editors here simply reported the news they heard from the korean and the Japanese news agencies. No one said he is currently hiding in Coast Rica, but simply stated that he is believed to be in Costa Rica. The news agencies that reported this news, reported that there is a strong feasibility that indicates he is believed to be hiding in Costa Rica. So, how can this be considered as a conjecture? How is this any way considered as a vilifiaction? Hos can this be considered as a policy infrigement? I think Uptional is the one who should stop vilifying the editors with his nonsense. QCA, I'm still waiting.

NOTE: THE COMMENT ABOVE WAS UNSIGNED. PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS AND REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACK. PROFANITY IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE. PLEASE READ THE RULES AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. Uptional 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I think many great people with good communications skills dont need to resort such ways of communication. Its people that are limited in conveying what they need to convey will resort to such methods. I didnt question about you telling it like it is. There are many ways to convey your thought. Best way to convey is in a reasonable manner, if its too much to ask then I understand. I welcome your thoughts and opnions that will help move this topic forward. But venting what you want may help keep this page at a stand still. As for asking rb the question, he never answered my question after he tried giving the rhetorical device answer. Or did he actually answer me and I didnt see it? Can you point it out for me? Or you can answer for him? I dont get it, then are you rb? You asked,"Do they all employ the same excuse by saying "I don't know who you are, when they are asked with a question of which the veracity can't be disputed? I'm just curious." I dont understand your question, can you rephrase the question or give me an example?SteelFeather 07:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for posting the link to the Costa Rica issue. Here's the problem we face as editors: the news clip is in Japanese. Wikipedia policy on biography (of living persons) and on verifiable sources states that such sources should be translated into English if they are to be used on an English wikipedia article. I'm sure that everyone can see the wisdom in a policy like that. No one would want me to cherry pick random clips from Al-Jazeerah and claim they say something which they don't. I wouldn't do that, but I'm sure there are people out there who might, hence the need for the policy. The news clip in question should be transcribed and translated into English by a neutral party. Why is this so necessary? Because it's a living person's biography. I'd feel even more adament if it were my biography! I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your biography. So, here is what I propose: the person who published the sentence can either remove it or have the source translated. Shall we say that 2 weeks is sufficient time to do this?

Secondly, I know that this debate gets heated at times because we are talking about religion, which is a passionate topic. But I'm sure everyone involved can agree that the un-signed comments above are dangerous to this project. When people resort to personal attack it is because they are trying to intimidate. Those tactics actually work because editors have family they don't want to endanger. So, to those editors who know this person, please, please, please endeavor to rope them in and convince them to either stay off the talk page or write respectfully. This isn't the first time it's happened. The last time caused me to take 30 days off from the article, which I did in an attempt to calm things down. But it's been less than 30 days since I've been back and it's happening again... which is sad. Thanks for your help. Uptional 14:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP says no such thing. Neither does WP:A#Language.
• Besides, if you watched the video clips (and you did), you would have seen Japanese clips showing pictures/video of Jung, interviews with people speaking Spanish and Spanish paper reports showing Jung, as well as in both videos a map of Costa Rica.
• The mention of Costa Rica therefore shall not be removed. RB972 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To uptional

So, by your logic it is ok for you to write pejorative comments about the people who reported the news of Jung hiding in Costa Rica. I guess it is ok for you to make insinuations about how immoral the editors are by giving your own personal opinions that you have for them, but when someone like myself disparage your nonsensical comment, you consider that as “personal attack” designed to intimate you. Care to explain that?

Who wrote this?

Why did the author not say Siberia, New Orleans, or Timbuktu? They would have all made an equal amount of sense because there is no supporting evidence for Costa Rica. If only the article wasn't protected I could add in my theory: Jung is hiding on the planet Mars. This habit of conjecture is rife throughout the article--as it has been from the beginning. The debate back and forth has been an effort to edit these conjectures from the article. One group of editors finds them useful in defaming someone they seek to vilify. Another group finds them atrocious violations of policy and feels justified in removing them. Where are the wikipedia editors to sort that out? Reading and re-reading violations while trying to maintain respect for the wikipedia project is difficult. One wonders what--other than human decency--prevents anyone from saying anything about anybody? Sure, I understand that this article is under debate--but how is it possible that the most basic wikipedia standards be continuiously violated? Are they not printed for all to read at the very top of this screen in the biography of living persons policy? How is it possible for such an obvious disconnect between policy and content to remain---in a protected article none-the-less?!

You did. (BTW, was your claim turned out to be true? No. Was the author making a personal conjecture about Jung hiding in Costa Rica? No.)

You assailed the decency, integrity, motivation and character of the editors without merits. You criticized them with the intention of trying to discredit them in any way possible. You don’t have any right to tell me what to do nor criticize for my so called “personal attacks’ against you. You instigated it, and you deserved it. Like I said, I’m a type of person who tells it like I see it. If I see a “shit” then I'll call it a “shit” I mean seriously, your behavior is that of a five year old, who calls someone a name in the playground, and if that kid response to your name calling, you run over to a teacher to tell on him without thinking about what you did in the first place. You understand what I’m saying?

Perhaps, you are the one who needs to discuss things in more respectful manner. You are the one who should research and rethink about what you are going to post here without making any distasteful innuendos. If you do that, you won’t have to dread about these so called “personal attacks.”

By the way, here are the English translations you requested.

From the video clip of TV Asahi.

Jung Myung Seok, the president of a cult known as “Providence” who is an international fugitive for committing sexual offenses against his female followers is believed to be hiding in Costa Rica.

The Costa Rica police department initiated a search for Jung Myung Seok on a mass scale.

Police officials were dispatched to a quiet beach resort called “Coco” following a tip that a suspicious Asian resembling Jung was spotted. The police officials began door to door search and blocked all exits of the town including the roads, but their investigation wasn’t successful.

The police doesn’t know the exact location of Jung as of this moment, but they informed us that they will expend their search area and continue their search in Jung.

Translation done by a Japanese foreign exchange student named Steve, who is attending at UCSD.

Another one……..

From a respected Korean news agency,

http://imnews.imbc.com.news.world/1498243_1502.html

Copy “정명석” and paste into the search box located in the upper right part. There you’ll be able to read this article in Korean.

Click on the first article. It also has a few videos talking about Jung, so check it out.

TV ASahi reported that Jung Myung Seok, the president of a religious organization known as JMS, and an international fugitive wanted for rape is believe to be hiding in Costa Rica.

TV Asahi got a tip that Jung myung Seok got into Costa Rica through a land route from Mexico, which instigated the immigration officials as well as Costa Rica’s defense security service agents to investigate on Jung Myung Seok’s whereabouts.

70 agents were dispatched by Costa Rica government to the luxury resort area located in Northwestern part of Coast Rica, where Jung myung Seok was last seen.

Even before this news, several Japanese news agencies such as TBS reported the appearance of Jung Myung Seok in Costa Rica, which prompted Costa Rica police to investigate on Jung Myung Seok’s whereabouts.

Translation done by a Korean-American named Robert, who is also a student at UCSD.

Now, how about you provide the links to the charity work you claimed, as well as the enigmatic court cases that ruled in Jung’s favor? Shall we say 2 weeks? It’s more than ample time to prove your case, don’t you think? ;) If you fail to provide the proofs within two weeks, can we agree that everything you stated here is nothing but a deceitful lie?

Here is your chance to prove your case. Ironclaw 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to Uptional and QCA. You two have one week left to provide the facts to support your claims.

Ironclaw 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Be Polite and No Personal Attacks Policy

I am personally offended by all the false accusations against me by the so-called editor of Wikipedia, of sock puppetry or meat puppetry. That is an accusation based on...uh, NO evidence. Not to mention that it is completely untrue. This makes me question how "verifiable" and "factual" your claims really are about Jung Myung Seok.

I have not responded here for several reasons. One of them is that this discussion page seems to be used as an outlet to attack those who support Providence. Second, I don't feel that I should reply to such derogatory remarks.

I will not post case findings here because I no longer feel that Wikipedia is a credible site, nor is it worth my time to correct the defamatory claims made on this article. Instead, I will submit all my findings to www.providencetrial.com.

As for positive articles, they are magazines in hard copy. Do anyone of you know how I can make them verifiable when I can't link them to any particular sites? There are also letters of apologies from people who accused Jung Myung Seok falsely. There are also letters proving money extortion and threats to Providence members by the anti groups.

I strongly advise that you research carefully before making any false claims like this. Here's a question. What would you do if Jung Myung Seok is proved innocent in court? QCA 08:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)QCA

Translation: I've been fabricating everything all these time and couldn't find a plausible excuse for not being able to provide credible sources to support my facts. People now know that there is not a semblance of truth to my claims, so I decided to do voice my opinion through a website that was created to defend Jung without merits. Because www.providencetrial.com will not ask me to provide reliable sources to substantiate my claims. I can say whatever I want.

Translation done by Ironclaw 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am blisful, now that I proved to everyone that you are not a man who keeps his word, nor capable of telling the truth. Do whatever you want! However, you have lost the previlge of making any kind of unscroupulous edits.

BTW, How can Jung be proved innocent when he keeps on eluding the authorities?

Ironclaw 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Magazines published by the cult. Of course they are going to support their Messiah. Those are not reliable sources. We were talking independant sources, and it's no surprise that you can't provide such sources.

The very idea of a fugitive cult leader wanted on rape charges supporting charities worldwide is simply ridiculous. Where does the money come from to support his flight from justice? His false passports? That's where your "charity" goes.

The police charges stand, your messiah is a fugitive charged with rape. No false claims were made on this site. Has Jung been charged with rape? yes. Has he repeatedly fled from those charges, breaking bail in Hong Kong and forfeiting the 100,000 US bail money? yes. Does he claim to be the Messiah? yes Has he praised Hitler in speeches? yes

This article is 100% factual and 100% unbiased. Jung's defences are represented in the article

Your only complaint is that it doesn't fit in with your cult view of Jung as the sole person God has sent.

If he is proved innocent in court, and he certainly won't be found innocent of breaking bail in Hong Kong, it won't change the fact that Jung's cult has been critizised in press throughout the world as the leader of a destructive cult that manipulates and exploits its members. It won't change the fact that he's praised Hitler and the Holocaust in his speeches.

What if he is found guilty, and you one day realize you have devoted your life to the worship of a serial rapist? I can't imagine that will be a very nice feeling.

CaptPorridge 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

Actually, those magazines are not published by the "cult." If it was published by our organisation, then surely we would have the link. Let's use some common sense here.

And the letters of apologies of false accusation, and letters of money extortion and threats are in soft copy but not linked to a site. And yes, they are signed. It's funny you bring up the subject of Hitler over and over again. It seems that that is what you obsess over. Whether he praised Hitler or not, it is not reason to convict someone of felony or even label someone as a cult simply because of one statement that could have been misconstrued.

Whatever the case, again, you are violating the "be polite" and "no personal attacks" policy. My point clearly being made thanks to you. 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)QCA

If it's not published by your cult, then why don't you give out the name of the Publisher and the title of the magazine. I'll travel any length to go buy that magazine to check it out for myself. HOw's that? As a matter of fact I'll set up a private website for you, so you can employ it to support your claim. Come on, I'm burning with desire to buy that magazine, or is it only available in the fantasy world known as "PROVIDENCE."

Don't make me repeat myself. You are incapable of telling the truth and your words are worthless. You have already proven that, so enough with your charade. It is so funny to see how a man who claims to follow the man of God likes to not KEEP THEIR WORD, and makes arbitrary comments to discredit the hard work of people who are trying to tell the truth, and tries to justify why you can't keep your word. You are a funny guy, but don't quit your day job. One more thing, you keep talking about "EXTORTION." Are you referring to how you guys ended up paying 50,000 US dollars to WANG in order to settle the law suit that you people filed against her for defamation of character? I guess you consider that "EXTORTION." Please!!!!! Also, I'm the one who has been talking to you in unsavory way, don't blame other people. You've got somthing to say, then say it directly to me.

Ironclaw 04:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How did I violate the personal attacks and politeness policy?

You asked how I would feel if he was found innocent, a question which has no relevence to the article. I answered and just posed the same question back to you. He is guilty of breaking bail, so there is absolutely no chance he could be aquitted of that. There are other charges besides the rape allegations, fraud is one of them.

It is worth repeating the references to Hitler: it is not a small thing to praise the murder of 6 million. And interesting that your colleague compared the Holocaust to a naughty child running near a road. Unbelievable.

The statement made by Jung was not misconscrued, he was quite clear. He either praised Hitler or he didn't, and he clearly did. And of course there are numerous other statements equally as disgusting and ridiculous. His claims to be the only person God speaks to every morning, his attempted conversations with ants and birds, his assault on his pet bird, his claims to be able to heal and to have super powers etc etc.

His own words and acions condemn him. You have no cause for complaint, other than that aspects of your cult you wish to keep hidden are no longer hidden. That is your real compaint here.

If you stay true to your word and will no longer attempt to edit the wiki page, then there is nothing else to discuss here. You are welcome to discuss the subject on my forums at www.jmscult.com/forums . Unlike the sites you operate, I allow dissenting opinions, and the fact that you don't is another sign your group is a cult.

Regarding charity work, I would like to share one link to my site where I, with the permssion of the author, copied the relevent secion from an interview with a North Korean refugee whom a member of the JMS cult helped escape from China to South Korea. As you can see from the interview, the aid given by the cult member was very conditional, "I'll help you if you promise to join our group." And then the young man describes life in the cult's control as not being so different from his life in North Korea. Another example of the cult preying on people in need. Charity work by definition isn't conditional.

Heres the link

I have no doubt that whatever charity work the cult does do, always has the ulterior motives of trying to recruit new members, furthering the indoctrination of current members, or simply raising money for Jung himself. Life on the run isn't cheap. And we have Jung stating in his own speeches, calling on followers to give him money, rather than the poor. CaptPorridge 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

For people who are very crude, there seems to be an overemphasis on "keeping our word." Translation: I'm scared to death of the evidence you will produce but I will do whatever I can to bring down your credibility.

You can believe what you want for what reason we do works of charity. We understand that good deeds can be misinterpreted depending on the person's persception. This site is not about convincing you to believe anything. It is simply to provide information. Click here for Charity by Providence volunteers

Again, you are avoiding the question but again, I expected that.

The magazine titles are "People of the Week -2006" and "News Journal-2005."

And no the extortion is an actual threat from a member of an anti group, (not someone from your group, I hope). It doesn't matter to me whether you believe if I have the evidence or not. I was only warning you that you are barking up a wrong tree. QCA 09:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)QCA

STOP BEING DISTASTFULLY AMBIGIOUS AND GIVE ME THE INFORMATION THAT A PERSON NEEDS TO FIND AND PURCHASE THOSE MAGAZINES. FOR INSTANCE, THE NAME OF THE PUBLISHER, THE NAME OF THE COUNTRY THAT THOSE MAGAZINES ARE BEING PUBLISHERED, ETC..... STOP WASTING MY TIME AND GIVE ME THE INFO I NEED TO GET THOSE MAGAZINES.

YOU SAID I'M SCARED OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO PROUDE. ON THE CONTRARY, I'M FILLED WITH EXCITEMENT TO SEE THE SO CALLED "EVIDENCE" YOU HAVE. WHY DON'T YOU DO ME A FAVOR, AND FINALLY DISCLOSE THE EVIDENCE TO THE PUBLIC? COME ON, DON'T KILL ME WITH THE SUSPENSE, LET ME SEE THEM ALREADY. BUT, YOU CAN'T, CAN YOU? I'M SURE EVERYONE IN HERE KNOWS WHY YOU CAN'T. SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU REALLY ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVES IN YOUR OWN WORLD? HOW DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I WAS SCARED? ARE YOU OK, IN THE HEAD? IF I'M SCARED TO DEATH I WOULDN'T ASK YOU TO KEEP YOUR WORD, WOULD I? WOULD I ASK YOU TO PROVIDE THE FACTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN? YOU ARE IN DIRE NEED OF A CAT SCAN, TAKE MY ADVICE AND GET YOURSELF CHECKED OUT.

ALSO, YOU ARE DOING THE VERY THING THAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING THE EDITORS HERE. CAN YOU NOT CONTRADICT YOURSELF BY GIVING LINK TO YOUR OWN BIASED WEBSITE? I MEAN, I COULD CREATE A WEBSITE AND TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH OF GOOD DEEDS I HAVE BEEN DOING WITH MY LIFE TOO? SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? NO WONDER YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR WORD, BECAUSE ONLY THING YOU GOT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU PEOPLE FABRICATED TO SUIT YOUR ARGUMENT. THE SO CALLED "PROVIDENCE" HAS BEEN AROUND FOR WHAT? OVER 10 YEARS AND YOUR OWN WEBSITE IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE PURPORTED "CHARITY WORKS." PATHETIC! THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT.

LASTLY, I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. IF, I MEAN, IF, IF, IF, IF, HELL FREEZES OVER AND HE IS FOUND INNOCENT, THEN I'LL MAKE A FORMAL APOLOGY AND KISS YOUR FEET, YOUR ASS, WHATEVER. I WILL PERSONALLY HELP YOU TO PUT A STOP TO ALL THESE CRITICS OF JMS AND MAKE SURE THEY APOLOGIZE TO ALL THE MSES.

NOW, HOW ABOUT YOU? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IF HE IS FOUND GUILTY? Ironclaw 10:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Things are getting a bit out of hand here. QCA, I'm not sure if your questions were addressed to me or Ironclaw. If you have any questions for me, please ask me on my forums or via email, and I'll be happy to answer them. If you and Ironclaw wish to exchange your differing views, please remember that this discussion board was not designed for that purpose, and yes I know I've been guilty of getting off-track myself. This page is for discussing editing the article, and you already said you were not going to continue trying to add / subtract from the article.

As far as I know you have no complaint as to the content of the article, as we both agree Jung has been charged with rape and is a fugitive. The article states the opinion of Jung's followers that they believe him innocent. The rest of the article also presents factual information, is linked to reputable news sources, and also presents the opinion of followers. There are no "claims" made about Jung on the article, instead sourced facts are presented. One more time: has he been charged with rape? Yes. Does he claim to be the Messiah? Yes. Is he a fugitive? Yes. Has he praised the Holocaust? Yes. etc, etc. Those are indesputable facts.

How about those of us that haven't contributed much to the current article go our seperate ways or at least continue our disagreements elsewhere?

CaptPorridge 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

24.66.189.191 - I've reverted your edits. Although the Providence Trial site takes care to keep the editors anonymous, it is quite clear that senior members of Jung's inner circle have posted 'testimony' there. Have a look at the testimony 'A Witness to the Birth of a Rumour' - at the very least this site has tacit approval from senior members, and therefore doesn't belong in the 'unofficial websites' section, and is deserving of a separate category. If you wish to change the title of that category, please discuss it here. WasNo 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Made some edits, here is a summary: Official to Unofficial: Please stop altering this. As an editor of ProvidenceTrial.com I can attest 100% that it is not an official website. The reason why this one is not official is because we receive submissions from various members and non-members and post them on that site without the approval of Jung, and therefore what is written on that site cannot be said to have been the official record for Jung or his followers in Providence. It is simply the work of a few Providence people in much the same way a blog or message board is. If Jung had editorial control of the website, or even if he had appointed someone to act in his stead, then I would be comfortable with it being official perhaps. But he has not. For this reason I insist that it be placed in unofficial so as to not confuse people. On ProvidenceTrial it says clearly that the website does not speak on behalf of Jung nor is an official spokesperson for people in Providence.

Differences between Jung and Moon: Followers have to have sex with Jung to be redeemed? I almost spilled my coffee when I read that. It's not only false, but its perverted and slanderous. This may have been a rumor that the editor who posted it had heard, but as a member, I can say that it is totally false. It doesn't even make logical sense, but that's besides the point. I wrote a short paragraph concerning this topic into the article because I have come across this mistruth on sites of Jung's opponents before. It is foundational to the claim that Jung raped women who were members, and therefore I believe my paragraph is important because it gives context to that debate. As far as the other ways in which Jung is supposedly the same as Moon, this needs to be cleaned up even further otherwise it is offensive to both religions due to its inaccuracy. One could say that Catholics and Protestants are pretty much the same, and to a certain extent and from a certain perspective you'd be right. But if you wrote that in a wikipedia article you'd be grossly misrepresenting and offending both faiths because the differences between the two are crucial to both sets of believers. The same holds true for Providence and Unification. Unless you are able to articulate those differences accurately you risk offending both groups for no gain in the article. Uptional 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Uptional! What are you doing drinking coffee? Aren't you and the rest of JMS followers forbidden to drink coffee? Wow, Jung is going to be upset when he finds out that you've drank something as evil as coffee. Good thing he is in a place where he can't rebuke you.  ;)

Ironclaw 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I watched the Youtube videos, which are totally acceptable propaganda. They have been created to elicit an emotional response in regards to unproven and slanderous accusations. If they are simply copies of media reports about the accusations then that would be acceptable, but these are clearly not. These videos were produced in order to defame a living person, which goes against the biography of living persons wikipedia standard. For this reason they should not be included in this article.

Secondly, the descriptors written beside each link were inaccurate and uneeded. The links speak for themselves, and if a person is unsure what the link is, they can simply follow them and find out. Whoever wrote them the first time had a bias for they used descriptors like: "orthodox Christian pastor", so as to distinguish them from un-orthodox Christian pastors, which I assume they mean anyone that would not be credible in their eyes. Who is and who is not an orthodox Christian pastor is not for an editor of wikipedia to decide. Secondly, the used the descriptor: American Providence website, when in actuality the website is edited by Providence members all across the world. _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Bla, bla, bla, bla........ Could you please desist from making the same repetitive and ludicrious arguments all the freaking time? Look, just because you choose not to accept the facts, doesn't mean you have the right to predicate that they are not facts. What the heck kind of logic is that? You go ahead and believe whatever you want based on whatever so called propaganda, which was fed to your guy. I'll believe the facts I hear from the news, and other mediums. (I mean, come on, above statement is coming from people who never provide anything adducible to bolster their claims.)

Dude, or dudes, at least keep your mouth shut until the court decides on Jung's faith. I don't think you can confute the fact that the JUNG Myung Seok is locked up and awaiting for a trial. Just wait and see what happens, ok? Until then, keep your mouth tightly shut!

Ironclaw 10:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I (once again) edited the sentence regarding Jung teaching that salvation comes through having sex with him, as this is a mistruth perpetrated by his detractors. If I reported to a 'cult watch' site that Jung is actually a 7 foot basketball player for the Harlem Globetrotters and they believed me, could I then too add it to the Wikipedia article? Logically, it makes no sense that someone who teaches that sex IS the fall, would then require sex to atone for the fall; because it is based on someone's opinion it is an unacceptable and slanderous accusation to report as fact in the Wikipedia article.

Ironclaw, thanks for your kind and eloquent advice. Let's both pray that God might quickly judge the hearts, minds and actions of everyone involved--may the truth prevail...

Best regards, Uptional 08:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to locate the reference for the strange looking card with pictures of girls on them. In the end I couldn't find any link to a Providence member, church, or even a link in the media saying such. The page it was linked to was all in Japanese or Korean, I can't tell, because I can't read either. This is actually a violation of Wikipedia rules, which content that reference material needs to be in the same language as the article to which it is linked. I'd go through and delete all the references that are not translated, but won't, yet. Could someone please translate them? It is important for people who want to use this article for research to be given the ability to check sources. Thanks in advance... Uptional 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I (once again) edited the sentence regarding Jung teaching that salvation comes through having sex with him, as this is a mistruth perpetrated by his detractors. If I reported to a 'cult watch' site that Jung is actually a 7 foot basketball player for the Harlem Globetrotters and they believed me, could I then too add it to the Wikipedia article? Logically, it makes no sense that someone who teaches that sex IS the fall, would then require sex to atone for the fall; because it is based on someone's opinion it is an unacceptable and slanderous accusation to report as fact in the Wikipedia article.

The allegations are made in numerous newsparer articles published in English. The fact that you don't believe them is irrelevent. The picture card of the women: The original news article may be offline, but I definately saw that on a Korean or Japanese news article. I will take another look in a few days, but I see no reason for you to doubt its authenticity other than just another attempt to water down a factual artcle about a very dangerous cult with a long criminal history. You may also remember that in a sermon Jung gave, he confirmed he had been sent such photos of young female followers in their underwear. Would you accept the words of your messiah as proof the photo is real? Would you object to me posting an audio file of that sermon as tanslated and distributed to Providence "churches." In the interests of a fair and unbiased article, will you and the other JMS leadership conscent to links to Jung's sermons (audio and video files) being posted in the article?

CaptPorridge 05:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

I attempted to locate the reference for the strange looking card with pictures of girls on them. In the end I couldn't find any link to a Providence member, church, or even a link in the media saying such. The page it was linked to was all in Japanese or Korean, I can't tell, because I can't read either. This is actually a violation of Wikipedia rules, which content that reference material needs to be in the same language as the article to which it is linked. I'd go through and delete all the references that are not translated, but won't, yet. Could someone please translate them? It is important for people who want to use this article for research to be given the ability to check sources.

The photo was originally published online with the article, but is no longer visible at the original Korean news site.

Here is photo of a newspaper article showing similar images: http://www.jungmyungseok.com/i80.photobucket.com/albums/j181/CaptPorridge/News/JMSArticleJune.gif

Here is an English translation of the article you requested: http://www.jungmyungseok.com/falsemessiah.proboards23.com/index7489.html?board=april&action=display&thread=1145281030

I haven't had a chance yet to dig up Jung's sermon in which he confirms he was sent such pictures by senior pastors. Once found, will you allow me to post a link to the audio file?

Again regarding the sources, the allegations against Jung and the charges are beyond dispute, as was his arrest. I find it pretty disgusting that in the face of allthe evidence, you still come here and attempt to remove information that doesn't fit with your "Jung is Jesus" view.

CaptPorridge 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)CaptPorridge

Fair use rationale for Image:Jung sermon.jpg

Image:Jung sermon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)