Talk:Jung Myung-seok/Archive 2

message: I don't claim to be unbiased and neither should any of the authors of this article. As an adherent of Jung’s teaching I realize that there is an ongoing judicial investigation involving accusations against him. That information should be included in this biography, of course, but opinions and conjecture concerning it should not be. Those opinions and conjecture, whether in support of Jung or against Jung, should be reserved for personal websites. 
In addition, citations which lead to public or “un-moderated” message boards and/or private websites which exist to either promote or slander Jung are, by wikipedia standards, "unverifiable". What they purport may or may not be true, but owing to the fact that they are not professionally scrutinized, they should not be employed as sources of information for this article. If you disagree with this policy, consider this litmus test: would a university professor accept your citation and source for a research/term paper? In many cases concerning this article the answer was ‘no.’ 
In all sincerity I have no wish to turn this article into a tit-for-tat edit war. So, in the spirit of conciliation let us all agree to stick to verifiably sourced factual information that has been professionally scrutinized. Those who come to this site seeking a bit of credible information should leave having a greater understanding of the man and the controversy surrounding him. Of course, ultimately every visitor is personally responsible for what they read, but let us strive to not deceive them with misinformation or hearsay. 
A brief word to those who misuse this article to propagate negative opinions: Do not judge. Instead, let time decide who is wrong and who is right. By this I mean, if Providence is a "dangerous cult" as one author claims, then surely those who adhere to it as a religion will exhibit dangerous behaviour. Until they do and that dangerous behaviour is properly evidenced (ie. NOT hearsay), by what standard can you judge? 
So here is a simple request. Let us act with maturity and with honest intent to make this article concerning Jung an attempt to provide a non-biased biography of the man himself. Both sides of this debate may create as many partisan websites as they can, but let's all agree to keep this particular site free from personal attack, slander, innuendo, and ignorance.
In anticipation of this, 
Thanks. 
Uptional 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An open letter in regards to my recent edits (15 December 2006):

message: It’s obvious to anyone reading these pages that we both hold contrary views on the person of Jung, his faith, his teachings and what we both believe to be facts concerning his legal circumstances. In short: you believe him to be guilty while I believe him to innocent. You believe he fled to China because he is guilty, I believe he fled to China because his life was threatened. Neither of us need pretend otherwise. Fortunately, in many countries throughout the world the accused are afforded legal council and are deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You interpret his actions as an admission of guilt, but you have not been afforded all the information, so as Jesus said, ‘do not judge’. Let’s leave that to people who are professionals at it. Let’s both assume that the legal system will (hopefully) fairly judge the accusations made against Jung and be patient for that moment. Until then, let us afford him the human dignity and respect given to any other person who has had accusations (especially from an anonymous source) brought against him—an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Let us also reflect that assumption in this article, while still presenting the facts, lest we prematurely condemn an innocent man. 
I am glad to read that you have consulted the wiki policy on use of sources (verifiability, etc.). You are right in saying that some partisan private websites, which may or may not also contain message boards, do contain what appear to be primary source material. For the sake of the article I will not object to those. I do object, however, to material coming from anonymous sources, especially those published on partisan private websites. For this reason I edited many sections of the article. To quote the wiki official policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability:
Biographical claims about living people need special care because of the effect they could have on someone's life, and because they could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to the website as a whole, not only to the main namespace.
I hope that clears up your confusion. I did follow all the links to see where they took me, and then searched those web-pages for any primary sources. If I made mistakes, please correct them. I will then re-check the article. 
Regarding the testimony of “former members”, let us refer to the wiki policy (from the same page):
“Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.”
Claims made by anonymous “former members” are not only self-published, but they also are not verifiable because they are not professionally scrutinized sources, that is, there is no discernable measure of veracity. This is a very important point RB972, because without it, do you not know see that someone could start a wiki biography about you simply by stringing together some false testimony from conjured-up friends, old employers, or childhood teachers, all of which would be anonymous? 
Please understand the term conjecture properly. Conjecture is when an opinion is expressed based on dubious or incomplete information. For this reason it has no place in this article, nor does the incomplete information that issued it. For example, your belief that Jung is guilty is conjecture because you haven’t all the information (most importantly, a ruling from a judge).
As to why I have not added to the article, I offer this very simple answer: I do not have verifiable, professionally scrutinized electronic sources to cite. When I obtain them, rest assured that I most certainly will add to it. In the meantime I ask that you govern yourself similarly and add only that which we have agreed upon in these discussions. For myself, I will only edit and help to explain that which you have written with your primary sources.
I have written too much already—let’s both strive to edit ourselves for brevity. These discussions are getting long!
PS – Please note that Jung Myung Seok is the Korean form of his name, and when presented in English would read: Myung Seok Jung. Point being: his last name is Jung, Seok being his first name. Let’s agree to refer to him using his last name in order to stave off more confusion.
Uptional 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Edits of 16 December

message: Uptional wrote
Fortunately, in many countries throughout the world the accused are afforded legal council and are deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You interpret his actions as an admission of guilt, but you have not been afforded all the information, so as Jesus said, ‘do not judge’. Let’s leave that to people who are professionals at it. Let’s both assume that the legal system will (hopefully) fairly judge the accusations made against Jung and be patient for that moment. Until then, let us afford him the human dignity and respect given to any other person who has had accusations (especially from an anonymous source) brought against him—an assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
While I can understand believing someone innocent until proven guilty, it is worth pointing out here that Jung is guilty of breaking bail in Hong Kong, and when that happened extradiction was granted in his absence.  So you may feel he is innocent of rape, but he did break bail in Hong Kong and that is an act which in my opinion, is not that of an innocent man. Unless you think the one armed man raped those girls.
Yes, I hope the legal system will judge him fairly too, if you truely want that to happen, then I hope you suggest to Jung that he give himself up to authorities so that we can see courts go to work.  His repeated flights from justice do not help his reputation outside his cult.
Why must we wait? And what are we waiting for? Do you expect these rape charges to disappear?
I don't know whay you cling to these "anonymous source" statements, as though that somehow casts doubt on the charges the Korean Police have laid.  The Korean prosecutors in charge of the case aren't "annonymous" and I'm sure they know the names of the victims.
As you know, it is a traumatic event for a girl to be raped and then have news of that rape televised on national TV. They have shown the courage to go on national TV and testify to the crimes of Jung.  I think it is disgusting you try to lessen their credibility by all this "annonymous" nonsense. If they were truely annonymous, the Police would not have pressed charges. 
Here is video footage of the April press conference, please watch the video of the woman and the reflect on these two comments made by senior American JMS members, one's yours I believe: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSuMe6MDH8U
"DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE OF DOGS"  from Ralphs's blog http://www.xanga.com/r_eagle
"Dishonorable people make dishonorable allegations for dishonorable reasons" by Lee Ho-myong (from San Diego article)
PJ, you talk about being ethical yet you and your fellows label such woman dishonorable and DOGS? 
Care to elaborate on what those "dishonarable intentions" are?
What have they to gain.
What do the hundreds of woman who have accused Jung in Korea, China, Japan and Taiwan, have to gain?
Until then, let us afford him the human dignity and respect given to any other person who has had accusations (especially from an anonymous source) brought against him—an assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
And given the seriousness of the charges, how about you stop indoctrinating teenagers into beleiving Jung is the Messiah? How about you stop evengelising altogether until the chages are proved or disproved.  Because if the accusations are true, and Jung really is a serial rapist, my God, think about what you have done with your life, are doing with your life. You are actively aiding a serial rapist.  That is not something to be proud of Ho-myong.
If you expect his critics to stop posting factual information lest he be innocent, are you prepared to stop evangelsing lest he be guilty?
Do you have the moral courage to tell your flock to stop recruiting until the case is resolved?
Rape is a serious crime, and you are actively recruiting teenagers into your cult.
Serious question.  Are you prepared to stop, as you would have us do?
I'm guessing that your answer will be no, that you will continue to indoctrinate children, and continue to lie to them about Jung.
Am I right? 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responce to some of Uptional's comments 

message: Claims made by anonymous “former members” are not only self-published, but they also are not verifiable because they are not professionally scrutinized sources, that is, there is no discernable measure of veracity. This is a very important point RB972, because without it, do you not know see that someone could start a wiki biography about you simply by stringing together some false testimony from conjured-up friends, old employers, or childhood teachers, all of which would be anonymous?
Yes but would the Korean Police press formal charges and issue Interpol alerts based on annonymous allegations posted on websites? I doubt it.
Would rb flee the country and tell his followers his accusers are influenced by Satan? I doubt it.
Would every major Japanese newspaper and network run with that story, digging up 100 of their own annonymous allegations? I doubt it. 
Do you think the woman in the news clips are all actors, or all liars?
PJ, the charges against Jung are real, the allegations are real, the people making them are real, and I say with more than a touch of certainty, the crimes are real too.
CaprPorridge —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptPorridge (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more 

message: I'm fairly convinced now that you are indeed PJ Uptional. So that others may understand, this man is one of the highest leaders of Providence church in America, the head translator, or "voice" as they sometimes say, of Jung Myung Seok. The fact that this is true of you and that you deleted the majority of the article with the desire to rewrite it yourself doesn't look good. Your actions which I have mentioned in this page which you didn't reply to suggest bias as a result of your conflict of interest. The fact is that when the article gives a significantly less negative view of a person than what is routinely shown by major media (in Asia) I don't see how the argument that the article is full of opinion and bias as you suggest is so obvious to delete almost the entirety of it and neither does any of the other editors that I've talked to.
Making claims about all other editors as you did on the request for comments page and your implication on the wikiquote talk page is pretty impressive considering that the "overtly malicious" webpage you seem to have such a problem about and its contributors are in fact the site and people that media reporters go to for information, as has been seen many times with the brother site in Korean even by the major news agencies in Korea. I wish to bring attention to the fact that the author Uptional who desires to rewrite the entire article by himself, besides almost definitely being basically the "PR guy" for English speaking Providence, clearly sees the majority of news stories about his group by national news agencies even more bias than the wikipedia article which brings up questions of his interpretation s if he's even seeing that as bias. I make this conclusion due to the fact that media give an image of Jung which leaves a more negative impression than the wikipedia article did, and the fact that the editor Uptional deleted the Hong Kong section which was mostly translated from a HK Yahoo news article claiming it was conjecture and opinion.
I will wait to see if a third party comes, otherwise I may try to find some other way to resolve the conflict if you continue to insist that you must be the only editor of the page despite your obvious conflict of interest problems.
RB972 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: On PJ's blog we have confirmation that the posts on www.jungmyungseok.com attributed to cult members, are real quotes:
http://www.whoisjungmyungseok.blogspot.com/
So I can't see how anyone can claim those quotes aren't legit.
CaptPorridge 05:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from jungmyungseok.com 

message: After finishing elementary school he spent years living a secluded life of prayer in the mountain surrounding his hometown.
 
What is the source for that?
It's interesting you complain of unverified sources, but post something like that, which I can only describe as cult propaganda and I am sure false. If you would add "His followers believe that he.." I think that would be an improvement.
Regarding PJ's name,  his user ID at youtube is his real name, so I don't see a problem with writing his name here, since he put it on the web himself and contacted me via that account.
He also was interviewed in the UC San Diego article referenced on the main page in which he told the reporter his surname.  He also stated his name on his own blog which he provided a link to on the main page.  His name was also divulged by himself on the shopping site where is books are for sale. So how you find the use of his name here as in any way "distrubing" 
is a mystery to me.  Yes, I can see how someone aiding a wanted fugitive would not want his name posted on the Internet, but I would remind you that he posted his name himself.
Regarding the speeches:
What about Jung's speeches that I have on my site and video files of?
The one's in which he praises Hitler and threatens death to those who leave the cult.
If we are going to put a "fair" picture of Jung, then let's show the material he presents to members. What could be fairer than that?
Since you are a follower, can we agree that those speeches are real?
I am perfectly willing to share privately with the higher powers here video excerpts of Jung's speeches translated by PJ and I'd sign a Stat Dec, stating that the material is real.
Regarding your section about the 30 Principles:
Just as a new revelation is preached by men of God in each time period, Jung teaches that upon Jesus’ spiritual return new revelations will be given that are unlike teaching found in the New Testament and Old Testament.[9]
The phrase "upon Jesus' spiritual return" is misleading, Jung claims to be the one who brings these new "revelations"
According to Jung, he himself is this "Jesus spiritual return" personified.
The above quote infers that "Jesus's spirtual return" will come in a being other than Jung, and that this "return" is yet to happen.  
Misleading and false.
Peter / CaptPorridge
The prayer mountain bit has been there since the creation of the article, though Uptional rewrote it. Jung does say it, and although there is motive for him to lie, since he uses it to prove he "set the condition" for God to use Him as His body, similar according to Jung that Jesus "set the condition" by fasting for 40 days, I'm not so sure it's false. He must have been doing something then, since he says he didn't go to school or get a job, so talking to "spirits" in the mountains doesn't sound unreasonable. I'm happy to just to leave it.
This statement however:
It is invariably described as a denomination of Christianity by adherents.
Is no more true as Christians invariably describe themselves as a denomination of Judaism. Well, there is a difference, because Christians don't initially describe themselves as Christians and change the story later.
I have offered you peace offerings all along the way by being meek to revert your edits, even though you have basically rewritten the entire article which was contributed to by several editors over a period of time before you came along. You have been unfriendly in your behaviour. Making the claims you did with your first ever edits with the username on request for comment -- which was only about a week ago, by the way -- was not a good start. I looked over the history and I found at least 2 users have been banned for vandalism specifically targeting this page, so that we have used the word "vandalism" is not a fault. I've also tried to remind you that stating a page is "opinion" when it presents a weaker case than national news is a bold claim that should be discussed as it means the national news in Korea and Japan etc are also opinion. That may be true, or it may be true you have too much conflict of interest. I suggest the humble approach is to discuss first.
Here's what I ask of you:
You LISTEN to our reason, you are HONEST, you are OPEN, and you DISCUSS your edits so we can reach a resolution on the talk page and not have an edit war.
When, however, you try to sneak "under the radar" so to speak, by taking advantage of the lack of public official publications by Providence church to insert lies, like this: "It is invariably described as a denomination of Christianity by adherents." when as far as Jung is concerned Christianity is the "old history" and Christians are "spiritual toddlers" -- that doesn't speak well of your motives as far as I am concerned. If you want to produce an accurate article, why don't you state the facts as they are, REGARDLESS of if this will scare of potential recruits or not.
RB972 13:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources?