Talk:Providence (religious movement)

Note for other editors here re socking

the following accounts have been blocked as socks of one another

• Phoenix0316
• Avataron
• Just War
• BourkeM
• Indah0316

Am going to do a bunch of archiving now. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Disheartening but unsurprising. Ravensfire (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh what a shock. I was thinking about initiating an investigation myself. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This user initiated a delete vote for Exodus, which is a group highly critical of Providence. The result was a redirect. They also made a lot of expansion to an article focusing on a retreat used by Providence. I would highly recommend going over the edits by this user's accounts and reviewing changes that they've made.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXODUS (NGO)
• Wolmyeongdong

Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the Exodus article. There was only one other SPA that commented but multiple other editors that I would not imagine connected in any way. And honestly, looking at an old version of that article shows significant BLP and sourcing problems. A redirect would have been a very easy call. Wolmyeongdong isn't a terrible article but comes across overly promotional at the moment. I think it meets WP:N easily, just needs some chopping. Ravensfire (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Now does this represent any concerted co-ordinated effort to whitewash Providence articles or is this just several unrelated but motivated people? Also, is there any word on the quality of Providence articles in other languages? Other language wikis may have fewer users, so it may be easier to whitewash those articles without anyone doing anything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all (Harizotoh9—Ravensfire—Jytdog) for keeping this article on your watch pages. Sam Sailor 20:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

More concerning is the fact that you have censored several sources that warrant inclusion in the article-- no mention of any of the controversies surrounding Do-hyun, no detail on the perjury conviction in which the plaintiff stated on record that accusations against Jung had been fabricated, none of the investigative reports from Korean sources that followed up on the trial in the years following the conviction.

One example that is well sourced is the SBS doctoring of Providence material, in which SBS was forced to pay reparations. I will include it in the article GIOScali (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You have brought this up several times in the past (see Talk:Providence_(religious_movement)/Archive_2), and nothing has occurred in the real world to change the response to your proposals. If you include them in the article you will be editing against clearly established consensus. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent sources

Here are a few recent articles which I think merit inclusion. And yes, to answer the question above. The vandalism over the years is part of a concerted effort from members of this group.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-11/the-bizarre-world-of-providence-cult-and-its-leader-jms/9224564

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11859132

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/gq9wxy/how-a-south-korean-cult-tried-and-failed-to-sue-an-australian-school-teacher-for-defamation PeterDaley72 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

One more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/how-a-promising-law-student-ended-up-in-a-sinister-cult/news-story/67878f2eefd15e0e944c92568085d0b7

PeterDaley72 (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@PeterDaley72: I have inserted text about New Zealand based on the NZH article provided above. Sam Sailor 10:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of edits without legit reason

Hi I added edits to this unbalanced page with proper citation. It was reverted by an editor without a good reason (making unproven accusations about socking is not a good reason). I reverted it and stated my reasons. If this editor had a problem with the content or citation, he should have noted it on the talk page without just reverting the article. It was once again reverted back without any reason. I would like to know why? AspiringCheetah (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

Please review the discussion above and the archives. You are the latest in a long line of editors adding ridiculously POV and UNDUE content promotional of this movement. You will need to get consensus for your edit and it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to get it Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I support the removal of the section § False claims and apologies from Media outlets as added by OP. The editorializing In recent years, especially most recently with the international focus on fake news, 'clickbait' and sensationalism of articles, there has been more scrutiny of the media in particular. This is also the case when it comes to reporting of this religious group, with multiple media outlets issuing retractions and apologies for false or baseless news reports is not backed by third-party sources and is in no way befitting our policy on neutral point of view. To me it sounds a lot like a summary of the deleted articles Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok and Media allegations, charges, and conviction of Jung Myung Seok created by now blocked editors. Jung Myung Seok is still serving 10 years in prison for raping young women, but is up for release on parole in early 2018,^Ref so as I predicted back in February 2017 this renewed attempt to stick in apologetic content comes as no surprise. Sam Sailor 14:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting insight into JMS mindset regarding this Wiki

As Jeong nears the end of his 10-year sentence (Feb 18 or 23, 2018 are likely release dates), Providence is producing quite a lot of propaganda. This should be of interest to those editing this page as it offers quite a few insights into the group's worldview and how it differs from, well, reality. I have had very little involvement with this Wiki apart from offering a few articles and engaging with members on the Talk Page, but I'm the focus of this "Wiki is nonsense" piece.

It may not be worth including in the main article, but at the least it should be of interest to those editors that have helped keep this Wiki factual: https://jmsprovidence.com/2018/01/27/providence-wikipedia-page-nonsense/ PeterDaley72 (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC) PeterDaley72 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Until it's something handled by a reliable source, nope. And you know that's not a reliable source... Ravensfire (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire here. Sam Sailor 09:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Violation of BLP and Neutrality policies

It's unfortunate to see that this article is essentially a battleground between members and editors; however, the article in its current form egregiously violates the BLP and neutrality policies of Wikipedia.

Several sources detail false witness testimony (including a perjury conviction) as well as admissions on the part of major media corporations of fabricating video material to incriminate Jung.

This info is crucial for neutrality.

I believe this article highlights a crack in the system on Wikipedia: an article with many relevant sources in a foreign language and only a few editors working on the page can be subject to a lack of neutrality.

I'm sure editors will work in good faith, you may not like the subject matter but it merits inclusion in the article.

GIOScali (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Another single purppose account that only edits Providence related articles which complains about how biased they are. We've had a real problem with Providence members trying to white-wash articles in the past. Are you a member of the church, and are you one of the former editors who were banned in the past from editing this page? Users username is almost identical to GIOSCali (talk · contribs), who was also another single purpose account. I want to assume good faith, but this page has been attacked endlessly by members of Providence who want to whitewash the page. I am very suspicious of these single purpose accounts. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m the same GIOSCali as before , I just lost access to that account info while I was overseas.

I’m just interested in neutrality ; and would prefer to keep the focus there. Also I was verified to not be a sock previously, and would welcome being checked again.

In its current form the article relies heavily on sensationalized articles that were published shortly after the accusations , and does not include any of the more detailed reports that followed.

It’s ugly subject matter but nonetheless needs to be weighed properly. GIOScali (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s a situation that would be hard to verify had I not lived in Asia previously.

A comparison in the western world is something like the Jussie Smollett accusations (not a direct parallel but the point is the same)

Accusations made, assumptions made and published widely before being properly examined.

The article in its current form on JMS is relying only on this first wave of articles GIOScali (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am deeply suspicious of SPA on this page who make sweeping changes that coincidentally make the church look better and their critics look worse. There's a long history of people with ties to the church trying to white wash the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh, the implications of the information are not really the point; if the media admitted to fabricating evidence, you don't think that should be included in the article? If not, then I think the best step forward will be to submit the article as a complaint, as experienced editors are keeping out information relevant to the article. GIOScali (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We should assume good faith, but we also shouldn't be naive. There's a long history of SPA wishing to whitewash Providence related articles on WP. The sections look to be similar to past attemtps to white wash the article, and didn't we cover "Civil Affairs Magazine" like years ago? This mostly seems to be retreading previous ground. I don't have time right now to examine everything in detail. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of stuff in the archives from previous discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just seems to be rehashing talking points and sources, often word for word, by other banned users. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed what all of the other users posted; however, major media companies admitting to fabricating info about the organization, among other things, belong on the page. And if you don't have time to vet the sources and go through the process, please leave the work to those that will put in the time to get it right. GIOScali (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, you need to start. Going over what has already been discussed is part of the process. Ravensfire (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

ok, here is the first example of a source that is using material that was doctored (the very first source you are citing for this article) https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/cults-nz-providence-infiltrate-nz/ Also, it appears that several previous users referred to some of the same sources and reports that raised issues with the trial. I'm not sure why you did not just include the information at that time GIOScali (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

...and the evidence that they're relying on faked information is what? We can't just take your word. Your edits seemed to rely heavily on print sources that we have no access to, and questionable sources like Civil magazine that we haven't proven is independent or reliable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

the evidence being that SBC officially retracted the information on the grounds the media was doctored and issued a formal apology. That is well documented. On the other side, some sources I cited are only print... however that is also the case with some of the existing sources utilized on the page. Also there are a lot of commercial cites being cited, that don't really hold high journalistic standards GIOScali (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The evidence being sources, and a lot of them are written sources we don't have access to, but you do. Meaning we just have to trust you on this? You are a single purpose account, making word for word similar edits to banned users, which all just happens to white wash a Providence's various legal issues. Imagine if in another article, someone cited right wing conspiracy books that only they had access to, and used it to prove that Trump was innocent, and that Pizzagate, and Q Anon were real.

So I genuinely don't know. And I admit I'm only half paying attention to this page. But if this is well documented, then you should have something better than mystery sources only you can have access to. Now, I use print sources all the time, but they're the type that someone can conceivably get a hold of, typically gaming magazines and books. Either in libraries, or elsewhere. I'm not sure how anyone can get a hold of those sources that you cite. On top of that, there's the issue of whether sources are reliable or not, and if they're tied to the church. Groups like Providence or Scientology will make front organizations to publish good sounding information about themselves, and then have that be cited by others. It's difficult to tell if sources are legit or not.

For Civil Government, another source you cite, we've gone over this before:

• Talk:Providence_(religious_movement)/Archive_4#Civil_Government_mag_self-published Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your posting style assumes that these are all self-evident facts, and that we need to make these changes immediately. However, these haven't been proven yet. WP is sources first. So you'll need to post a list of sources, what they are, who made them, and what they're claiming. That needs to be done before we proceed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding unreliable sources and lack of neutrality

I would like to work in good faith with editors who have the time and are willing to do so regarding the following issues:

• the article makes no mention of points that are very relevant to the case; such as the admission on the part of major media corporations of doctoring videos and photos of Jung

• many of the claims on this page are sensational in nature (i.e. thousands of women being held as slaves currently) and do not have the proper sourcing to meet those claims

• many sources on this page are outdated and re-published photos that were found to have been doctored

• there is not an accurate description of the trial on this page

I'm wondering how the editors on this article would like to address these concerns. If you are an editor like Harizotoh who says they do not have time, then it would be better to work with those editors who do have time to get the article correct.

Failure to do so would be to neglect the basic responsibility editors have when writing an article about a living person.

GIOScali (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Concern over editorial practices/ sources on this page

In addition to the controversies section which merits inclusion in the article, I wanted to raise a concern regarding the editorial practices taking place on this page as well as sources being used.

Several of the sources feature doctored photographs and other material that media companies later retracted. In addition, many of the sources themselves are not reliable and are opinion pieces. This is a problem considering this article covers a living person.

While the editors working on this article have worked on broad variety of subjects, my concern is that there may be also be a lack of familiarity with this topic and the Korean language to properly examine relevant sources, thus necessary information is being kept off of the page. GIOScali (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are potential concerns. But you also seem to cite a lot of what I term "mystery sources", as in sources that I don't have any access to, and we can't examine ourselves. That doesn't help things. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Evergreen section

I also removed the section on evergreens; the allegations are sensational and not properly supported with strong sources given their scope.

If thousands of women were being held somewhere as sex slaves, that would be worldwide news.

The same applies to the theology section; stating that a teaching of the church is that members need to have intercourse as a method of salvation -- several of the sources you have cited feature doctored photographs, which were already shown in court to have been doctored.

I'm removing the information, please do not post these sources that feature doctored material and which were later retracted by the media companies themselves.

GIOScali (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The section doesn't claim thousands of women are held captive, rather they were being groomed. It's a bit vague. I interpret that as there are many women in the organization groomed for sexual exploitation in the future. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Jung Myung-seok

Thinking of re-creating the article. What do you guys think? On the one hand, the religion is tied very heavily to him and his teachings. On the other, this article can spend less time on the biographical details of Jung and offset that to an article about him specifically. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok looked like this, and Providence (religious movement) looked like this in January 2014 prior to your merge. I'd say leave them merged. An added benefit is, that we only have one talk page where to discuss with the SPAs. Sam Sailor 09:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, keeping the two articles merged means that standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for this article pursuant to WP:ARBBLP, cf. the {{Ds/talk notice|blp|long}} at the top of this talk page. Sam Sailor 09:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Labelling

Providence is as a religous cult and not Christian. So its best to at least attach some other adjective to describe it, such as 'Pseudo' meaning false or fake, or speak the whole truth. As in it is a 'false religion' which manipulates and distorts Christianity for its own gain.

Otherwise let's label non-religous groups like the Greens as 'new atheist movements' seeking to coerce and manipulate people into abandoning their belief structures. Mark388 (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

These edits have been extremely minor and in no way remove any content, and merely express concern over labelling.

It is advised that the page and it's editors remind themselves Christianity is an inclusive religion with a very different belief structure and set of practices.

Pseudo stands as the best word to describe this new movement or false or fake or fraudulent.

Thanks for the patience, and feel free to mix the labelling. Mark388 (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mark388: All Wikipedia does is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.

When Wikipedia describes this or any other group as "Christian," it is not saying that they are saved by the blood of Christ and bringing His kingdom to earth.

When Wikipedia describes this or any other group as "Christian," it is saying that professionally-published, secular, mainstream academic or journalistic sources note that the group has its origins in Christianity, incorporates elements of Christianity into their doctrines and practices, and calls itself Christian.

And by "secular," I do not mean "against religion" but "focused on purposes other than proselytization." A source by an author who happens to be Christian, published by, say, W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. would be considered "secular enough" if the work in question is focused more on documenting things than telling people what religion to follow.

As for manipulating and distorting Christianity for its own gain, Providence members would accuse us mainstream Christians of doing that (or of having fallen victim to those who do that) -- and nevermind them, Wikipedia presents the Crucifixion of Jesus as a historical fact, something almost all Muslims would balk at. Our article on Beef contains nothing about the bad karma that will result from eating beef (as any good Hindu would know!). Where do we draw the lines in saying that one group's beliefs are right and the other's are wrong when imposing them on the reader? The simple answer is that we don't do that at all, we only summarize mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Now, yes, I also believe in the Trinity, Incarnation, and the Resurrection -- but I also remember the commandment as given by the Incarnation Himself, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If I don't want articles telling me that the Crucifixion is an obvious lie because the Quran says so, or that it's wrong for us to eat beef because that's what Hindus believe, I can't go around pushing my religious beliefs into the articles.

As for the Greens (these Greens?), unless and until they describe themselves as an atheist movement and are documented as such by professionally-published, secular mainstream academic or journalistic sources, we cannot call them that. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply

I totally see your point. My main concern was just with the label not the content. I will withdraw the issue. Mark388 (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical correction

Re: the sentence “In the 1970s, Jung was a member of the Unification Church(UC), who’s teaching his resembles.” - this should read “whose” not “who’s”. 2001:8003:953D:E300:7456:3EF5:86E6:5EB1 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Change "... JMS raped her..." to "...JMS member/s raped her..." or specify the name of the accused. 50.72.176.246 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)