Talk:Providence (religious movement)

Concerns with Existing Source

I understand that all of you participating in this discussion are far more knowledgeable of the sources relevant to this subject than I am. Bearing that in mind, I would like to query one particular source cited in the article- source No.2 published by Nathan Schwartzman. That article was effectively written by Peter Daley and reproduced under Nathan Schwartzman's reporting, with no further information from Nathan Schwartzman himself. Peter Daley has been banned for having a conflict of interest. Is it possible that this article, which is effectively Peter Daley's article, could be a reliable source? While it is arguably not self-published, it question whether the source is reliable and neutral given that he has a conflict of interest and this is entirely his writing.I query whether it is appropriate to use such a source for this very sensitive article to which Peter is banned from editing. CollinsBK (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsBK (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 August 2015‎ (UTC)

I haven't been banned and I didn't write source 2. Nathan translated the Korean article listed at my request. I'm glad you admitted you're not that knowledgable, but I am curious how you came to think I wrote Nathan's translation? Obviously you have some connection to the subject of the article. Are a member of Providence?PeterDaley72 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)PeterDaley72

May I correct a couple of misunderstandings here? The article in question and used currently as reference no. 2 was indeed neither "effectively written by Peter Daley" nor was it "reproduced under Nathan Schwartzman's reporting" or for that matter any of OP's following misinterpretations:

• Song, Ju-youl (2012-03-28). "JMS 정명석, 탈퇴자에 대한 테러 지시". CBS (Korea) Newsroom (in Korean). No Cut News. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help); English translation by Nathan Schwartzman (02 April 2012)

Peter Daley is not topic banned from editing, although I can imagine it would have suited previous sect members well; they where both topic banned and indef-blocked. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the source here is the article in Korean by Mr. Song of CBS TV (No Cut News).

The English translation is strictly a courtesy link to help assist understanding it.

I apologize for having introduced the mistake that Peter Daley was the translator, facilitating user:CollinsBK's misconception, but I had already corrected this 3 days ago.

The translation (or a passage used from it) was assessed in Nov 2013 under #Translation by MrTownCar.

The "sex bribes reserve corps" mentioned in the original was omitted in the translation, and was later added into the Wiki article by me.

(Details continued to #Sex bribes)--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) edited; some details moved to new section17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I apologize for mis-stating that it was written by Peter Daley. I am clear that it was not written by him. As for whether I am a Providence member, I am not. Having gone through some of the sources, I am sympathetic of the matters raised by GiosCALI, which are relevant. If this article were to be of an encyclopaedic nature, the suggestions proposed ought to be included. I hope that it is by no means the case that by holding such a view, I could be assumed to be a 'Providence member'.

Furthermore, another source that I would like to raise and query whether it is appropriate for the same reason being that it was written by Peter Daley is source no.23, titled, 'How to spot a Woolly Woof', published by the Keimyung Gazette. Peter Daley's name is in the byline. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would mean that he was the author. CollinsBK (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, is that a joke? If it is, I consider it tasteless, and ask you to stop and rectify. Peter Daley did not write an article titled, "How to spot a Woolly Woof"! I hope this is a Freudian slip; if so please use the "Show preview" in the future. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

To me, the title would appear to be a play on "wolf in sheep's clothing". I don't see any homosexual references in the article, so I think the Urban Dict meaning might be unfamiliar to Peter Daley. Jim1138 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of making any joke of this. The byline clearly states 'Peter Daley', with his email address next to it. To any reasonable person, the article is unmistakably written by Peter Daley. To be clear, the source I am referring to is listed as source 24 in the Providence (religious movement) article. If not Peter Daley, please advise who wrote this article. [http://gazette.gokmu.com/news/article.html?no=189 |title=How to Spot a Woolly Wolf |publisher=The Keimyung Gazette |date=2006-08-18 |accessdate=2014-03-01 | CollinsBK (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem with the article? It is not a blog and appears to be published by a reputable source. Jim1138 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is problematic for the following reasons:

1) it was written by Peter Daley who is known to have a conflict of interest with respect to CGM. This is evident in his websites, his blogs, podcasts, and also recognized by a Wikipedia administrator in an archived talk page. As a result, there is clear bias. Moreover, much of what is written is his personal experience and personal research. written in first person. It is not a secondary source and the material appears to be self-serving. There is no neutrality to the source. Weighing that against the gravity of a BLP, the source should not be used.

2) The Keimyoung Gazette is a university journal, not an academic journal. Therefore, because of the opinion/'free speech' quality of a university newsletter it is not subject to any rigorous fact checking process.3) Given Peter Daley's position, Wikipedia policy strongly recommends against his involvement in editing biographical content. Citing a source that was written by him is contrary to that policy.

3) The article is published in the Keimyoung Gazette, which after having done some research, is also the university that Peter Daley is a lecturer of. This would also make it a potentially self-published source.

Under WP: BLP, content that fails to meet verifiability requirements, that is contentious and libelous, and are self-published can be removed immediately. Therefore, I am deleting that source in accordance with that policy. CollinsBK (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As it says on WP:COI, "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships..." given that Peter Daly is directly connected to anti-cult orgs in South Korea, manages the anti-JMS websites, and has made it his career, he has at least as much of a conflict of interest as Providence members who were banned from editing this article.

Oh, and Sam Sailor--- you should be checking the sources before writing a response like that. You were so sure it couldn't be real article, but it was. Check next time. The same thing has happened when I have submitted seemingly controversial but valid info, much in the way collinsbk did. Be sure to check in detail. GIOSCali (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, you thought you got me there? But you are blatantly wrong, and your triumphant little melody of victory is out of tune and off-beat in all its loquacious ineptitude. "You were so sure it couldn't be real article, [sic] but it was." That's utter nonsense! I have said none of that, in fact I have offered no opinion on the source. I have corrected CollinsBK's initial misreadings of one source, and I have inquired as to why CollinsBK would in effect re-title another source to "How to Spot a Homosexual". And as they said it was not intended as a joke, but without explaining why they did so, I further followed up on their talk page 12 days ago, but they have not replied.

Not to my surprise you are in agreement with CollinsBK regarding Peter Daley. Please open a case at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I would appreciate that editors here would refrain from making attacks at each other. To be honest I do not understand why Sam Sailor would claim that I re-titled the source to "how to spot a homosexual". The article was called, "How to spot a Woolly Wolf". Forgive me, but I do not understand your comment about me citing anything about homosexuality, I clearly typed 'Woolly Wolf' to this talk page at the time of discussing it. I'm sorry if you were in any way offended. I would appreciate it if you can make some clarifications. CollinsBK (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Civil Government mag self-published

Continued from archived #Civil government magazine - monthly (merged from JMS talk page)

Archived old thread

The title of the magazine is min jung - transliteration which means Civil Government produced by the government notice the blue rose of sharon seal which is the official government seal. Publisher: Jin soo Cha Address: Gardenlife F8020, 66 Chungmin-Ro, Songpa-Gu, seoul, Korea This is not a Providence publication!!!!!!! All information taken from min jung website which is ONLY written in Korean and found with Korean search engine Snap-do. MrTownCar (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Here is the Original article taken from the source February 2010------ http://www.mjnews.co.kr/bbs/zboard.php?id=mj02&page=4&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=185 MrTownCar (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I asked a Korean-speaking friend last night to take a look at Civil Government and let me know what he thought of it. This is what he said: “ As far as I can tell, Minjeong (Civil Government) appears to be an independent online news agency with a "government-watchdog" slant to it. I looked at the company history and background. On the surface, it does not appear to be religiously focused at all. They have a huge repository of articles, most of which are about local government. Not related to religious ideology at all. I think critics would have to demonstrate a more substantive link between the paper and JMS. Even the article published by the monthly on JMS was not apologetic. The JMS story was not the lead story, and the by-line on the article cover says, "Why Jung Myeong-seok? For whom is he bearing the cross?" — suggesting maybe that he is "bearing his cross" out of self-serving reasons. So as far as I can tell, they are legit. That being said, I haven't looked at the article itself, or JMS translations of it. ” This friend of mine is definitely not a member of the JMS group (Providence) and has no interest in joining it. As best I can tell, he doesn't have strong opinions one way or the other about JMS (other than not being willing to accept his claims or teachings). In fact, I'm not even sure this friend of mine had ever even heard of JMS before I asked him to help me with translations of sources in the article. So, I'm prepared to give fair consideration to the possibility that Civil Government is a reliable source for facts and/or mainstream opinions. I think it's possible that one of the main reasons people here have been reluctant to acknowledge Civil Government as a reliable source up till now is that the only exposure we have had to Civil Government so far has been in translations of articles available on JMS-associated web sites. The skeptics (and even neutral people) are simply not going to accept anything from providencetrial.com as being anything other than unabashedly pro-JMS — in order for material about JMS from Civil Government to be taken seriously here, we cannot use material from providencetrial.com, we need to go directly to the source itself. So, I would like to ask MrTownCar (or anyone else here who has the required language skills) to give us a links to any Civil Government articles about JMS from the magazine's own web site. I realize these will be in Korean; that's OK, we'll find people who know Korean so that we can get an understanding of what the articles are saying and who is writing them. Then, we can make a proper decision — on a case-by-case basis — whether a given article is usable for substantiating facts, usable as an indication of the views of a specific author or of the JMS organization, or not usable at all. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC) See above Mr wales post for link. Sorry I meant to have it below Mr Wales post.MrTownCar (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks very much, MrTownCar, for the link to the original Civil Government article about JMS. Once we can get an English translation, we can start figuring out what (if any) role this article might be able to play in the article. If you believe other Civil Government articles may also be helpful here, please give us links to them too. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC) The editors on Korean Wikipedia said that this article was a paid placement and written by JMS members. Shii (tock) 06:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Interesting. I'll admit I'm a bit surprised, since I was told earlier this evening that this Civil Government article didn't challenge the rape charges against Jung (though it does question the validity of the kidnapping charges). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I don't think their opinions can be worthy of inclusion here, but it's probably an indication that this publication is not exactly a journal of record. Shii (tock) 06:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I probably need to ask this for completeness' sake: What sources of information led the Korean Wikipedia editors to say that this article had been written and paid for by the JMS people? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I just checked my ko.wiki contributions. It looks like it was not from them but from the anti-JMS website manager that I got this opinion. (Sorry, it was last year...) Shii (tock) 15:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC) So in general, we can use information from this. Even better if we can link to the article on their website. I have zero confidence linking to the article re-hosted on a pro-JMS site, just as I would have zero confidence linking re-hosted on an anti-JMS site. Ravensfire (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Mr Wales you have independent confirmation that Civil Government is an independent publication, I strongly recommend continuing what you planned on doing and not be swayed by the say so of a non korean speaking contributor. There is no proof that the above claim is true. Please continue working with your Korean speaking contact and I will provide other articles from Civil government as I believe there are 1 or 2 others that can be reviewed and considered for inclusion.MrTownCar (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC) @Ravensfire, we do have a link (above) to the original article on the Civil Government web site. I've been given a basic idea of what the article says by a Korean-speaking friend, so it might be usable as an example of independent opinion regarding the JMS trial. Everyone please note that the Civil Government article does not seek to completely exonerate Jung; from what I've been told (and people can correct me here if I've misunderstood), it doesn't question the most important accusations against him (that he raped female followers by abusing his position to coerce them into having sex with him), but it does question whether the kidnapping charges were solidly substantiated, and it suggests media hype in general may have influenced the trial. We should treat this article similarly to the way we've been treating other Korean-language sources — with English translations for Korean names, titles, and excerpts. Also, if there is any way to find out some background info regarding the author of this piece, that might be helpful as well. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Thank you Richwales for taking the time and finding the human resources to finally get an objective look at the Civil Government and related articles. I had requested this long ago and feared that my requests had fallen on deaf ears. Macauthor (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: The original article in Civil Government, JMS(기독교복음선교회) 정명석 총재는 may not be available translated. But Moon's "follow-up" article is translated: “Retrial needed for the case of Jung Myung Seok” (English) 月刊誌記者追跡「鄭明析事件再審が必要」 (Japanese) [BreakNews 月刊誌 記者 追踪調查「鄭明析事件 有必要再審」] (Chinese) 『民政』雜誌月刊追蹤報導「鄭明析案件必須重新審理」 (Chinese)   --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nutshell: Cha's Civil Government piece opines that Jung's was unfairly convicted. Cha intones that Kim Do-hyung concocted women victims as a hoax to "extort (협박, 脅迫)" 2 billion [won]. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The Civil Government magazine is published by "Cha Jin-soo". He is described as a journalist, and also was the one wrote the article in question, JMS(기독교복음선교회) 정명석 총재는, dated 2010/02/07.

This is easily verifiable.

• Cha Jin-soo appears clearly as the magazine's publisher in the web link above (in Korean), and also stated as such by MrTownCar in archived talk.
• Cha Jin-soo is identified as the writer of the CG piece in Moon Il Seok's "Retrial needed.." (orig. Korean article 2010/02/15, in at BreakNews), which is a contemporaneous rehash of the material found in CG.

Since Moon's piece is a rehash ("based primarily on such sources") it is also tainted and meets disqualifying rules under WP:SELFPUB. Other such rehashes included the Newsmaker magazine article.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the NewsDaily article is another rehash of Civil Government material, and is part of this chain. So, if you want the reporting that goes into heavy detail about the court-imposed settlement against SBS, I advise you find more neutral sources that are not part of this chain. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify a bit on this:

I contacted the former Civil Gov publication, and they said that Cha Jin Soon was indeed the publisher but that all articles were written by separate authors. If you look at the actual article itself, Jin Soo is listed as the publisher, but for the author space it only shows the magazine's logo.

Whoever wrote the ProvidenceTrial website article misreported Cha Jin Soo as the author, which I think has been the source of this confusion.

Again, it is common in S Korea for articles of this nature to be written anonymously; in this case, it is not surprising that the author would choose to remain anonymous, especially given the controversy surrounding Providence in S Korea.

As for the rehash claims, some, not all, of the other articles reference the Civil Gov article, but they also offer independent reporting/separate evidence.

GIOSCali (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Civil Government piece is a WP:SELFPUB piece, and that assessment should stand.

GIOSCali, the feedback you got back on your phone call is the purest form of WP:Original Research. As is your brazen claim that Moon "misreported" on this. But we do not need to heed them. Stop wasting our time.

Moon goes on to say Cha has been following this case for 11 years, so he clearly has this specific person in mind as the writer of the piece. Which makes it doubly doubtful such gross clerical error could have been made. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand where Kiyoweap may be coming from. I checked the article by Moon on the Providence Trial site and saw that the translation explicitly referred to the author of the Civil Government article as 'Cha Jin Soo'. However, upon further enquiry with a Korean, the untranslated Korean article written by Moon makes no reference to the author being Cha Jin Soo. The translator inserted the name 'Cha Jin Soo', for translation purposes. As I am informed, Korean does not prescribe subjects with respect to verbs, which starkly contrasts with the English language. Hence, the name 'Cha Jin Soo' was inserted to mitigate that contrast. Unfortunately, that is a misleading insertion, as he was not the author of the Civil Government article. The article is in fact not self-published.

As for whether making enquiries on whether an article is self-published constitutes 'original research'. it does not. As per the policy, OR is 'used on Wikipedia to refer to material -such as facts, allegations and ideals- for which no reliable, published sources exist.' [3] Original research refers to content that is written based on research done by the editor, that does not refer to secondary source. The purpose and intent of OR has nothing to do with enquiries made about sources, to check for reliability. In this case, enquiries were made with respect to a particular source, to determine whether it qualifies as a reliable source, more specifically a non-self-published source. There is a clear distinction between this and editor's research about the subject matter itself. The enquiries made about the source is appropriate to and necessary for complying with Wikipedia Policy, and is not contrary to any policy. This is especially the case given that the article was published in a non-English magazine, and given the cultural and language differences, it is only appropriate that enquiries are made to ensure that it qualifies as a reliable source, per Wikipedia standard.

The article published in the Civil Government unquestionably falls within the scope of being a reliable source. While I understand that the News Daily article et al may be 'rehashes' of the Civil Government article, they are not strictly speaking, reprints of the Civil Government article. The WP on citation does not exclude them from being included. Moreover, I noticed that there are several sources currently listed in the article that appear to be 'rehashes' of the same content. If 'rehashes' are to be excluded, perhaps those sources should also be excluded. CollinsBK (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

CollinsBK, I assume you relied completely on a machine translator, and as a result you made a good faith error.

However, please double-check more thoroughly before you start posting misinformation. Your conclusion that "Cha Jin Soo" was a translator's insertion is patently false.

The very first paragraph of Moon's article in the original Korean clearly states "Cha Jin Soo" (차진수), and "Reporter Cha" (차 기자):

Original Korean	English (Google)	English (revised)	Japanese (Google tr.)
" 이 잡지의 진수 기자는"	Car magazine is the essence of the journalist	→Journalist Cha Jin Soo of this magazine	この雑誌の車進記者は [Reporter Sha Shin of this magazine]
"이 기사를 지난 11년간에 걸쳐 추적 보도한 차 기자는 1995년부터 경찰을 출입한 현역 기자이다".	Press reporter track cars over the past 11 years. This article is out of active duty police reporter since 1995.	→Reporter Cha, who has followed and reported this story for the past 11 years, is an active (non-retired) reporter with on-the-beat) coverage of the police since 1995.	この記事を過去11年間にわたって追跡報道した車記者は、1995年から警察を出入りした現役記者である

If you want to verify the above tabulated results, just go to https://translate.google.com/ and first translate the Korean text into Japanese, then the Japanese text into English.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kiyoweap for providing that translation, and indeed you are correct to point that the Break News article makes the reference that Cha Jin Soo is the reporter.

I have contacted and checked with a representative of the MinJeong magazine (the Civil Government Magazine) about who the investigative reporter was with respect to its article on Providence. The article was not written by Cha Jin Soo, the publisher of the magazine. The reporter of that article is in fact Jungjik Lee, and the article was approved by its publisher, Cha Jin Soo, for publication. It is part of the editorial policy of many magazines in Korea, including this magazine, to not include a by line in the articles published. Naturally, this makes it difficult to identify the reporter who wrote the article.

Break News is a small media organisation. In its re-hash article, (as you correctly pointed out) Cha Jin Soo was noted as the reporter for the likely reason that his name appears in the magazine, in place of the name of the actual reporter. The Break News article was not the product of an independent interview conducted with the reporter or the publisher of MinJeong. Reasonably, the name cited was Cha Jin Soo, which appears in the magazine. Upon enquiries made with MinJeong, the journalist of the article in question is confirmed by a senior editor of Minjeong to be not him, but Jungjik Lee.

Moreover, the policy on self-published and questionable sources has the purpose of restricting works of such nature as personal web pages, self-published books, blogs and newsletters, which are not subject to fact-checks. The magazine MinJeong is a third party, non-religious publication, published mainly for government agencies in Korea. Hence, its articles written by the MinJeong reporters are subject to a fact checking process prior to publication to ensure credibility, and is categorically within the scope of reliable sources. CollinsBK (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

From my understanding, WP:NOR is specifically about synthesizing facts from reliable sources. However, the fact of whether or not this source is reliable is not a fact that will be presented in this article explicitly. It seems to me that not allowing people to confirm the self-published nature of a source is not a proper application of WP:NOR. CollinsBK has put in a substantial effort to find out whether or not this source is really reliable. I believe at this point it's a better use of everyone's time if discussions about this are brought to some appropriate noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Further to the discussion about whether the News Daily article is a reliable source, the question of reliability is based on considerations of 1)the type of work, 2) the creator of the work, and 3) the publisher of the work. The News Daily article is third party published material by a well-established news organization. While it does resemble the contents of the Civil Government article, it is written by another journalist and published by another publishing authority. This makes it an entirely independent source. The fact that its content overlaps with another article is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a reliable source, per WP: Verifiability. Moreover, the fact that one news organization corroborates information published by another news organizations, reinforces the reliability of both sources. CollinsBK (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

On a separate but related point: it becomes problematic to begin viewing articles on similar subject matter strictly as rehashes, particularly when it comes to investigative reporting. By this same logic, several existing sources on the article would be "rehashes" of initial reports of accusations against Jung. (See Schreiber's article).

The Civil Gov article was written by a reporter who followed the JMS case since 1999 and was the first to highlight some of these issues we have been discussing -- its natural that other publications which decided to report on those events might refer to the publication that first addressed them, but it doesn't compromise the integrity of those publications or the material in question. This of course includes the NewsDaily source, which does reference the Civil Gov article but offers its own reporting. GIOSCali (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised at this name of "Jungjik Lee" (이정직) surfacing as the author of the Civil Government piece.

But this is not at all credible information. The circumstantial evidence simply doesn't add up:

1) A sitewide search on "site:www.mjnews.co.kr" "이정직" does turn up Lee/Yi Jung-jik (이정직) as a reporter for Civil Government magazine. But the stories found are short pieces mostly on ecology, climate, systems, with only a couple on police matters. So he fails to convincingly fit the profile.

2) The author of the Civil Government, refers to the 1999 JMS attack on defector Ms. Whang/Hwang, and is quoted as saying I wrote an article in Police Journal.

But this Police Journal(「경찰저널」) was also "published/edited by Cha Jin-soo" (발행인/편집인 : 車眞受).

As for reporters for other than Cha, none can be found for 1999, as bylines ("취재") naming other reporters all date from 2002+ period.

I found four reporters beside Cha named in the 50~60 search results checked, but none of them was "Lee/Yi Jung-jik".

Conclusion: It was no "Lee/Yi Jung-jik" but Cha Jin-soo himself who wrote the Police Journal piece in 1999, therefore, Cha was the one who wrote the Civil Government piece. Moon did not misreport. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a bit more fleshing out to do. First, the author of the Civil Gov article claims to have been following the JMS case behind the scenes since 1999-- it seems unlikely that the publisher of not only the Civil Gov publication, but apparently the Police Journal as well, would be able to follow a case like an investigative reporter... Second, given the practice of not listing author's names in S Korea, it's not surprising that the article is often tied back to the publisher-- but this does not conclusively prove that cha wrote it. GIOSCali (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no double-time burden, since Cha published and wrote formerly for the Police Journal which existed 1995-2003.

Cha wrote pieces in it, i.e., reported on the police as a journalist.

Moon does not identify Cha as publisher, but calls him an "active reporter", a needless qualifier unless speaking of someone who is senior management or retiree. So it all fits. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Kiyoweap, respectfully, I suggest that you also contact the MinJeong magazine to verify whether Cha Jin Soo wrote the article or not. It's not unreasonable that Jung-jik Lee does not appear on the MinJeong website given that the article was published more than 5 years ago. I did what was considerably the most appropriate means of verifying the author of the article by contacting the magazine directly, by which the fact was established that another author wrote the article, not Cha Jin Soo. CollinsBK (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

CollinsBK, contacting this pro-Providence magazine and divulging my personal information such as telephone number etc. is a highly unwise option, and I flatly decline. It is totally up to whoever wants to legitimize Civil Government to prove it is legit. Do not shift the burden of proof.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not a pro-Providence magazine. The magazine publisher and all its journalists have no affiliations with Providence. The reporter independently investigated the highly publicized affairs involving Jung and Providence. The journal is published for Korea's government agencies and is therefore unequivocally, non-religious. Secondly, you are not required to divulge any of your personal information to the magazine when you call them to enquire about the author of the article in question. Thirdly, I have established the fact of who the author is by enquiring with the magazine. Any further disputes in relation to this should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard. In the meantime, the edits in relation to the Civil Government Article and the News Daily Article should be restored to this Wikipedia article. The persistent deletions that are without proper basis suggests that there are editors who are in positions of bias against Providence and its founder and is more interested in defaming, than to present all the relevant facts. CollinsBK (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Civil Gov a third party source, just bc it reports on controversies committed by Do Hun doesn't mean its pro-Providence, but that assessment speaks to why the author may have chosen to remain anonymous GIOSCali (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that there was no consensus to excluding the Civil Government article and the News Daily article from this encyclopaedia article. Both sources satisfy the verifiability requirements. As such, I have added the information back in. However, in the interest of neutrality, I have modified GIOSCali's wording with more neutral wording. CollinsBK (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There are too many questions and too few answers in regards to these sources, such as who are the writers and are the publishers notable and reliable etc. Since the sources are in Korean, the majority of Wikipedians are here excluded from vetting the sources and confirming that they support what they are saying.

I oppose and WP:CHALLENGE inclusion of text based on these sources until those matters are settled. Please provide adequate translations and collapse them below. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Working on obtaining the necessary translations. Likewise, several existing sources on the page also present the same concerns and so will require translations to be provided as well, or will be unfit for inclusion GIOSCali (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I am confused as to what translations are being prepared to be provided. What I myself asked for was a transcription of the parts of the <Court-imposed settlement decision> that says 900million won is being awarded to Providence.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Requests for source translations

I see now that Phoenix0316 has acted on GIOSCali's suggestion, tagging {{source needs translation}} on a couple of places. But this template refers you to WP:NOENG policy, which you should re-read. This tag should be used to request a quote on a specific claim you somehow doubt that it is in the source. You should identify the claim on this talk page, and say specifically you couldn't find it, etc. to make the request.
I will not stint on unreasonable requests, but I am feeling averse about spending time to quote and translate whatever Phoenix says he's unable to find. Because in as in this diff here he evidently is not capably able to discover what is plainly verifiable in the footnotes given. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kiyoweap. As for this diff, the description is incomplete. Your insults are really unhelpful. I removed this quote because it is strange that the only thing out of that whole correspondence that makes it into the article is about tax-exempt status. There are actually several answers provided in that transcript, so the statement is quite misleading.

As for translations, I will do as you request. I did not put them on this talk page since it is already so bloated. I did not think translating a few sentences would be so burdensome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The two {{source needs translation}} are now removed after inserting relevant quotes (which I'm guessing are the ones you want).

1. The "numerology" statement. 2. The "vice president" faction rift statement.

Neither statement was edited by me, BTW, I only enhanced the status of the sources. And on statement 1., I must have given the wrong page number. Sorry.

Sttement 2. originally began with the atttribution "According to Information Network on Christian Heresy.." (acronym: INCH).
This INCH, to clarify, is the English title given on the website forHyundae jongkyo (Modern Religion) monthly mag (http://www.hdjongkyo.co.kr). And this magazine published the Korean book being footnoted (Self-proclaimed Messiahs of S. Korea, 2002).

This book is cited by Sakurai (2006) who gives a brief descriptio of the "vice president" factional rift situation. So I've quoted him. But note that Sakurai only roughly corresponds to Statement 2 (e.g. Sakurai says late 1980's vs. 1986). So the source that precisely match down to detail is not Sakurai. It must be either the Korean book, or, some {{cite web}} "INCH" website @ hdjongkyo.co.kr.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up Sources

I have been studying the sources recently and noticed that many of them are worded quite similarly. After further research, I found that indeed, some of them are taken from the same source. Under WP:NEWSORG, it states that "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." And according to WP:OVERCITE, in certain instances, needless citations should be deleted. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to simply take the most comprehensive or most reliable source among those that talk about the same story.

Articles about the initial arrest in China

1. "Alleged South Korean Rape Cult Leader Arrested in China". Fox News Channel. May 16, 2007. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
2. "Jeong Myeong-seok Arrested in China". The Dong-a Ilbo. May 17, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Hwang Chul-kyu, who is in charge of international crime cases in Ministry of Justice, announced on May 16 that, "Chinese police informed us that a man caught in Beijing on May 1 turned out to be Jeong Myeong-seok after comparing fingerprints."
3. "Suspect of Corrupt Cult Founder Arrested in China". The Korea Times. May 13, 2007. Archived from the original on September 13, 2007. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
4. "Asian Cult Leader Arrested". The Australian. May 15, 2007. Retrieved August 24, 2015.
5. "[University]Columbia University Networks Global Alumni". The Korea Times. May 13, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Jung has been wanted by Korean police, for fraud, rape and embezzlement, since he fled the country in June 1999. The pseudo-religious leader was placed on the Interpol wanted list in 2002.

Articles about the extradition from China

1. "Cult Leader Extradited to Korea". The Korea Times. February 21, 2008. Archived from the original on April 1, 2008. Retrieved February 27, 2008. He'd been on Korean wanted lists since 1999 (and the Interpol Red Notice since 2004) after fleeing the country after charges of rape emerged. While overseas, he made constant headlines for allegedly raping female devotees in various countries.
2. "South Korean fugitive cult leader Jung extradited back to Seoul". Associated Press Television News. February 20, 2008. Archived from the original on April 7, 2013. Retrieved February 29, 2008.
3. "China extradites SKorea cult leader". Radio Australia. February 21, 2008. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
4. "South Korean religious sect leader extradited from China to face rape charges". International Herald Tribune, AP. February 20, 2008. Archived from the original on June 4, 2008. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
5. "Cult boss extradited to face sex raps". JoongAng Ilbo. February 21, 2008. Archived from the original on July 18, 2011. Retrieved November 4, 2013. Jung was taken directly to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutors' Office from the airport. Prosecutors began questioning Jung after his arrival regarding nine complaints filed against him on charges that include embezzlement and sexual assault.
6. "China extradites chief of alleged S. Korean rapist cult". China Post. Taiwan. AFP, China Post. February 21, 2008. Retrieved February 27, 2008.

Articles about the initial six-year sentence

1. "South Korean religious sect leader jailed for rape". National Post. August 12, 2008. Retrieved August 31, 2015. A South Korean court on Tuesday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said. Jung, 63, the leader of the Jesus Morning Star sect (JMS), fled to China from South Korea in 2001 where he had been charged with selecting followers from photographs and then forcing them to have sex with him.
2. "Cult Leader Gets 6-Year Prison Term". The Korea Times. August 12, 2008. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Notorious cult leader Jung Myung-seok received Tuesday a six-year prison sentence for raping and sexually abusing his female followers.
3. "정명석 JMS총재 징역 6년 선고". Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). August 13, 2008. Retrieved October 29, 2013. 서울중앙지법 형사26부(재판장 배기열)는 12일 여자 신도들을 성폭행한 혐의로 구속기소된 JMS(기독교복음선교회) 총재 정명석(63)씨에게 징역 6년을 선고했다. (The Seoul Central District Court No. 26 Criminal Division (Justice Bae Ki-yeol) delivered a prison sentence of six years to JMS President Jung Myung-seok, 63, who had been arrested and charged with raping 12 female followers.) {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
4. "Sect leader imprisoned". Dubai, UAE: 7 Days  – via HighBeam (subscription required) . August 13, 2008. Retrieved October 31, 2013. A South Korean court yesterday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said.... Former members have told the Seoul court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The date was wrong for the first source. They were all published within a day of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is typically applied in cases where the same news story from a news agency is printed by several outlets. That does not appear to be the case with any of the above. WP:OVERCITE is a matter of case-to-case judgement. Few if any would argue that this revision of Iris japonica does not suffer from citation overkill. That is not the case with the Providence article. Rather contrary it needs to be well sourced to avoid disputes about whether this or that is sufficiently sourced. This applies to the big issues such as the court given testimonies by former female followers that forced sex was canonical as confirmed by the Supreme Court given judgement that sex with Jung "is a religious behavior meant to save their souls", something active Providence/CGM members violently tried to suppress in the media,[4] and all the way down to the small details such as the media frequently describing the organization as a cult.

Phoenix0316 posted the above unsigned message on 06:48, 3 September 2015 and began removing sources less than 24 hours later on 05:23, 4 September 2015.

In regards to the point of the article being sufficiently sourced: the article had 81 references (link) which Phoenix0316 through a series of edits reduced by 14 to 67 (link). They then return four days later to slam a {{BLP sources}} onto the /History/ section (diff). The only thing in that section that needed additional references, and therefore was need of immediate attention, was the poorly sourced quasi-libelous addition by GIOSCali in this diff. But that had previously also been added by Phoenix0316 in their very first edit on 21 July.

In regards to the organization being described as a cult: the article in edit mode contained the string "cult" a total of 73 times before Phoenix0316's edits (link). By the time they were done, this count was down to 59 (link). They then return two days later on 6 September to erase the sourced mention about cult in the lead, and they stick in a couple of unsourced lines regarding the organization's teachings.

I will revert the "source cleaning" and remove the poorly sourced POV-additions. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor. Your recent [reversions] have included changes that I believe are genuinely helpful to the article. I have made these edits in WP:GOODFAITH by spending many hours in reading through both the sources listed above and other sources. Therefore, I will revert edits that I do not believe you have adequately addressed.

As for the above sources, I have noted that many of them not only have the exact same structure, but phrase certain statements in the exact same way. In some cases, they actually cite each other. This has resulted in an article that has unnecessary redundancy cited by redundant citations. I will continue going in this direction while discussing on this page. Phoenix0316 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I urge you to not. Follow WP:BRD. Your edits were unhelpful. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sam Sailor in that the claims in the article must be properly cited. However, the state of the source list prior to Phoenix0316's edits was such that it appeared (misleadingly) that there were more sources than was the case in reality. Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press. Under the WP NEWSORG policy, the re-print articles are not counted as separate sources, but as 1 source and the policy on OVERCITE requires that for ensuring that an article is good standard, the re-print sources be removed. Hence, the number of actual sources that substantiate the contents of the article are made clear. Those sources should be deleted, or else we can take this to the relevant noticeboard for further discussion. CollinsBK (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix0316 adds this large list of articles, then adds that "some of them are similar", but does not list which ones are similar. I went through a few of them and found them substantially different. Don't expect others nor myself to compare each source with every other source.

That they were "all published within a day of each other" would indicate that the news sources are doing their job. The events occurred and the news services reported. What else would you expect? Jim1138 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@CollinsBK: You write Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press. The possibility of me overlooking something can not be ruled out, but please post a list of these many reprints, preferably grouped together by duping. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sam Sailor I would not mind using WP:BRD as a guideline for editing this article, but it seems previous efforts, as evidenced by bouts through dispute resolution, that the discussion portion of this cycle is met with only very one-sided efforts. That does not mean we cannot or should not discuss, but I am saying that adopting this optional method of reaching concensus will need some wiggle-room for it to work here. Phoenix0316 (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Note: On 02:18, 12 September 2015 CollinsBK claimed that Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press and they went on to say that sources should be deleted, or else we can take this to the relevant noticeboard for further discussion.

On 06:58, 14 September 2015‎ in this diff I followed up here in this thread by PINGing CollinsBK and asking them to provide a list of these supposed dupes. CollinsBK did not reply.

On 06:32, 15 September 2015‎ in this diff Phoenix0316 posts on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard repeating more or less their initial post here above. They did not notify any other user about their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They did not PING any user in their posting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Despite that, CollinsBK only c. 90 minutes later on 08:09, 15 September 2015 in this diff replies at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

As the reliability of the sources has not been questioned here, RSN is the WP:Wrong Venue. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to your PING. I'm not familiar with the PINGING tool as I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia. So please do not bite the newcomer. As for the reliable sources noticeboard matter, I noticed the post on the list of sources from Phoenix0316 and looked more closely at the sources and identified almost exact duplicates within that and provided my comments accordingly. It was done within absolute good faith. I consider the RS Noticeboard as appropriate because the WP:RS contains policy on news organizations and news sources that are reprints. If you have a view on what is posted there, please feel free to state your views on that noticeboard. CollinsBK (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@CollinsBK: Please post those Many of the articles were re-prints of the exact content from one news organization, such as the Associated Press. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I did not ping you or any other editors because I did not see that being done for any of the other posts on that board. Additionally, I posted this there in the hope of getting more opinions since actually looking through the sources takes time that you are either reasonably unwilling or unable to put in. That said, I believe there are exact duplicates among these sources -- as CollinsBK pointed out. In the first section, articles 3 and 5 appear to be duplicates. From the "initial six year sentence" sentence," citation 4 and 1 appear to be duplicates. As for the rest of the articles, it appears that they are not exact duplicates, but just many news agencies reporting the same story in a similar way. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 05:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As Phoenix0316 has already reiterated the sources I identified as duplicates, I will no longer repeat that. There has been no further discussions on this. I will proceed to delete the duplicate sources, as per WP NEWSORG- multiple republished sources are not indicative of there been multiple sources by one source. CollinsBK (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Phoenix0316 did not add that sources no.2 and 4 under the section on extradition to China is also a repulication. CollinsBK (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Article Structure

Suggesting that the article be re-organized in chronological order, as originally suggest in past DR/N discussions. Current structure is a bit arbitrary, organizing it this way would prevent any structural bias and also clear up some of the duplicate sourcing concerns as well. GIOSCali (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how restructuring the article could improve the article that much. The bias seems to come more from the content and tone of the article rather than the structure. However, the article is hard to follow and the events, not being in chronological order, makes the big picture difficult to see. So I have no objections. CollinsBK (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently, the article opens with a section on theology. The content of that section has been disputed heavily and is very controversial, presenting it within the overall history of the group would give it more context. Also, it would allow the article to be more clear on the charges for which Jung was accused, charges that were dropped, and those for which he eventually stood trial.

If the article is not arranged in chronological order, then its structure is subjective and someone will always claim issue with it.GIOSCali (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

News coverage of this article

http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/05/02/wikipedia-page-rapist-cult-whitewashed-inside-ato/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.124.110 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, 14.203.124.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

The article in Crikey sheds more light on the deliberate whitewashing Providence and its remaining members have attempted for years on Wikipedia.

Crikey article

May 2, 2016

Wikipedia page of rapist-led cult whitewashed from inside the ATO

An ATO employee has been using a work computer to whitewash the Wikipedia page of a South Korean cult, whose leader is in prison for multiple counts of rape. Freelance journalist John Power reports.

An Australian Tax Office computer has been used to whitewash information online about a South Korean cult that has recruited Aussie women as “spiritual brides” for its leader, a convicted rapist.

Crikey can reveal an ATO employee has used her work computer to make favourable edits to the Wikipedia page of Providence, also known by the names Jesus Morning Star (JMS) and Christian Gospel Mission.

Under a pseudonym, a lawyer with the ATO has gone to considerable lengths to beautify the Christian sect’s Wikipedia page since August last year. Crikey has chosen not to name the ATO lawyer involved.

The effort has included scrubbing references to Jeong Myeong-seok’s sexual assaults and an incident in which cult members broke into and trashed a newspaper office in South Korea in retaliation for negative press, as well as mentions of the term “cult”. Jeong was charged with rape in 2001 and was captured in Hong Kong in 2003 but vanished while out on bail. He resurfaced in 2007 and was found guilty of rape in 2008. An appeals courtadded four years to the original six-year sentence in 2009.

The ATO lawyer also changed the Wikipedia page to challenge the integrity of Jeong’s conviction and South Korea’s justice system and insert glowing passages about the founder’s character and art, describing his poetry as conveying “the freedom within God’s truth and love”. Several times the lawyer revealed she was editing the Wikipedia page from an ATO IP address, and she edited the page at all times of day and night, including during the week.

Crikey can further reveal that the same lawyer tried to have material about Providence removed from the website jmscult.com, run by Peter Daley, claiming it had breached copyright by using images and videos of the sect.

The lawyer did not claim an ATO affiliation in the letter, instead referring to herself as an “authorized representative of Christian Gospel Mission”.

When contacted by Crikey, the ATO employee initially denied responsibility, but then admitted to both editing the page and sending the letter.

But she said her personal beliefs had nothing to do with the ATO and that most of the Wikipedia editing had been done outside of work. She also said she had done most editing in her “down time”, though Crikey can confirm the IP address associated with some of the edits to the Wikipedia page is an ATO computer.

The lawyer also denied Providence was a cult or even controversial, claiming it had been persecuted and that Jeong’s conviction was faulty.

“Just because he was convicted for an offence doesn’t mean the organisation is bad,” she said.

A former Providence member, who previously described being left suicidal by her time in the sect, told Crikey she lived with the lawyer and several other members at a house in Canberra in 2012. According to the ex-member, the lawyer at the ATO would talk openly about promoting the cult at work.

The ex-follower, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, said the Canberra crew moved to Melbourne following an expose on Providence by SBS’ The Feed in 2014.

The program found Providence had encouraged young female members to see Jeong as the messiah and their lover, and several women had visited the 71-year-old in prison in South Korea. Providence failed to respond to most allegations against it, but it has insisted it is a legitimate Christian church.

Daley, who recently beat defamation charges pursued by several cult members in South Korea, said Providence had tried to silence information about its inner workings for years.

“With the leader due for release next year and with growing awareness, the group is involved in an international effort to whitewash the internet and stifle free speech in order to aid their recruitment efforts and their indoctrination program,” he told Crikey.

“Criminal complaints against me and other outspoken critics are the most obvious attempts to silence critics, but behind that are the issuing of dozens of false copyright claims directed at YouTube videos, emails threatening further legal action — one sent to my work email, which isn’t so easy to come by — and the efforts to whitewash Wikipedia are all part of a wider organised effort.”

Following a tip-off by Daley, the ATO’s Fraud Prevention and Internal Investigations Unit looked into the lawyer but declined to take any action. It did not provide a reason for its decision in correspondence with Daley.

Crikey has lodged a freedom of information request with the ATO to see the results of the internal inquiry into the lawyer and the rationale for taking no action.

Several attempts to contact the head of the unit, Brett Irwin, were unsuccessful. An employee at the unit, however, said that information about its investigations could not be released over the phone due to thePrivacy Act.

Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
(cont. to #Reverting to old version below)

Reverting to old version

(cont. from #News coverage of this article above on Crikey article) I am going to restore a previous, less colored, and much better sourced revision. Please observe WP:BRD

Editors should make themselves acquainted with our Conflict of interest guideline.

Church members may also ponder on a simple little question: does these endeavours just make our reputation worse? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. I'll get back to filing at AN/I in a little while to have more eyes looking at this challenge. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• AN/I case found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#In the news: Whitewashing in Providence (religious movement). --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Saw this on ANI - I took this off my watchlist because of the unrelenting whitewashing from editors with a clear COI. Ideally, this article should be reverted to a state before the last extensive whitewashing and fully protected. Ravensfire (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

While I am not saying I agree with every edit recently made on this page, there are a number of controversies that took place throughout Jung's trial that merit inclusion in the article--recanted testimony, witness perjury, Do-hyun's retractions, and so forth. If the concern with the page is whitewashing, the pendulum should not swing so far in the other direction as to fail to include some of these facts.

My point is that every subject should be represented accurately. GIOSCali (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, as peter daly has made a career and received a lot of publicity from attacking this group, his statements should be met with the necessary skepticism.

My suggestion is to revert to a prior section in between, one which includes the controversies. GIOSCali (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Moved here from #Updating revert to 24 Oct '15 version below)
I was not able to actively participate in the recent bout at the incidents noticeboard. It appears there is a clear consensus to revert to previous versions of this article, but I do not believe that the current reversion is appropriate because there were many appropriate edits between October of 2015 and January of 2015 that do not deserve to be reverted. Therefore, I am suggesting that a more recent version be adopted. BourkeM ^Converse! 05:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The version of Sept 2015 was an appropriate choice for initial revert on a prima facie basis, because users were still reporting their activity or intents on Talk page.

Jan 2016 version is from a time when many of the debates stopped being active. This suggests active members may not have been keepuing up-to-date. So it is a poor choice for initial revert.

If you want to re-instate some of the contents between Sept 2015 and Jan 2016, no one is forbidding you from doing so, just reintroduce them under your own responsibility, and if possibly controversial, try to journalize what you are doing properly in edit summary or talk page. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating revert to 24 Oct '15 version

I want to update from the reverted version (26 Sept 2015) to a later version (24 Oct 2015) and in the process of doing this by section.

I just did the #Theology section. I received comment about whether I might have removed significant material. The Sept version had 4 subsections, but these subsection headers were removed.

Theology section

• The last 2 sections contained info poorly cited and not demonstratively noteworthy info, and had been removed earlier by me or somebody else. The meat was in the first 2 sections and nothing was really removed, as tabulated below.

Sept '15 ver vs. Oct '15 vers

Recent Revert /682797618 (03:18 26 Sep '15 Kiyoweap) Update/687302339 (17:46 24 Oct '15 /GIOSCali) A) Providence's teachings are similal.. 1) Providence's teachings are similar to those.. **See C)** 2) One lesson implies that those who do not "meet" — 3) During the instruction of the advanced level[a] of the 30.. B) Some diff..Jung as Messiah 4) Like the Unification Church,.. but identifies Jung as C) It is also explained that those who do not "meet" **2) above** — 5) Providence furthermore allegorize.. -- D) That Jung forced female followers.. 6) Jung was found to have forced female .. -- E) In 2012, Jo Gyeong-suk, former head .. 7) **Moved to Explanatory notes**.. -- F) Additional confirmation comes from religious scholar Yoshihide Sakurai,[13] and a Christian anti-cult activist, Toyoshige Aizawa. 8)Although some of the teachings are held secret to within the sect, scholars such as Yoshihide Sakurai (ja) [got info from ex-member interviews and notebooks]

• I decided to remove one source, Pastor Toyoshige Aizawa for various reasons. He is quoted in "Love cult" piece which is in English and I find that useful, some issues were raised using a rehash of Shukan Post pieces. Toyoshige himself also wrote a piece for the Shukan Shunju magazine.

• I also restored the paragraph on Sakurai obtaining his info from himself contacting ex-members and obtaining ex-member notes, but I prefaced it by saying <Although some of the teachings are held secret, Sakurai obtained them from..> to clarify the purpose of the statement, since Borock deleted it as irrelevant in his edit 21:59, 18 October 2015. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Kiyoweap. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have restored an English-language source to the claim that Providence resembles Unification Church's theology. There are 3 other RS citations but they are all in different foreign languages (Fr, Ko, and Ja).

It must be conceded however that this English source is somewhat RS but somewhat not RS.

It is RS insofar as this is actually a Kyodo News Service feed, similar to AP/UPI news feed.

Criss-Cross News's kuchikomi "word-of-mouth" section had nothing to do with authorship of the piece, so it need not receive mention at all, so Phoenix0316's deletion on 12:30, 6 October 2015 was on false pretext, and I replaced the URL that mentioned Criss-Cross to avoid confusion.

There are RS issues however, because Kyodo story relies on the 7/28/2006 issue of Friday (ja:フライデー) weekly magazine, and provides opinion attributed to Friday rather than a specific scholar or a published author on the subject.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I trust you entirely in what you do here, Kiyoweap, once again thank you for your neutral editing. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sexual allegations in media

The older September 2015 edit began by saying the Sisa Journal and SBS television reported on the scandal. This seems misleading. While I was able to find sources crediting SBS for breaking the news to wide audience in March 1999, I could not find substantiation that Sisa journal broke the news in 1999 (the Sisa article provided dated to 2006).

Next, I wanted to try to clarify details on the SBS news broadcast. The actual name of the new show, the number and dates of broadcast. The show is 그것이 알고 싶다 ("[I] want to know it" / "The Unanswered").

These are the events as far as I understand, but I am not sure i have all the facts right: Providence tried to block SBS's March 20, 1999, seeking a court injunction prohibiting the airing, but was not successful, and it aired. However, the Court did rule there was lack of fair balance, and ruled that the Providence side of the story should be given some coverage, at least 5%. In order to comply, SBS created a part two (May 29, 1999) containing 5 minutes segment where Providence was allowed to have a 5 minute say. I believe the show is 50 minutes long, so by making it a 2-parter, 100 minutes vs. 5 minutes, SBS was able to fulfill the Court's request.

However, after this aired, JMS (Providence) started to advertise "SBS admitted to erroneous [reporting]", which confused viewership into thinking it was some kind of a retraction ("correction report"). SBS countered by creating a sequel (broadcast July 24, 1999) refuting JMS's claims (PD journal [5]). PD refers to the producer-director, but there are other news stories on this sequel from not so much an inside-the-show perspective.[6] --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

So-called investigative reporters

Not necessarily to pinpoint this recent edit 06:17, 15 June 2016 by BourkeM that got reverted by Jytdog, but in general, I am not sure where you are finding faith in stating "several investigative reporters have begun to call into question the rulings".

There are no "investigative reporters" in the plural, AFAIC. There is just the one article by Cha Jin Soo (#Civil Government mag self-published) in the Feb-2010 issue of "Civil Government", which gave a very distorted, facts-supressed, lop-sided, pro-Providence account of things. The rest are just rehashers. Moon Il Seok's "Retrial Needed" is forthcoming about doing a rehash, others (the Newsmaker weekly piece and the minor web news sites) are not.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Had Jytdog not reverted BourkeM's edit, I would have. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Civil Government article's distortions

With the Civil Government (Feb 2010) article, I didn't get very far beyond trying to establish this piece written by the publisher Cha Jin Soo because of denialists. But WP:SELFPUB isn't the only problem with the piece. The presentation of facts are very distorted and echoes Providence propaganda, frankly.

• Cha / Moon accuses SBS News / "A media" of engaging in a sleazy piece of journalism rigging the tape . This was a claim that came from Providence circles. No other reliable sources agreed such rigging took place. Upshot is, court said there was some inbalance in coverage, so SBS created a follow-up episode to give Providence 5% of air-time, end of story. No fines actually assessed (even though some editor(s) fantasized about a 900 million won judgment).

• Cha/Moon's presentation of events regarding Kim Do-Hyung/ “the informer” is eyeball-rollingly distorted. What Cha/Moon conceal is the news of Oct 2003: Father of EXODUS (Anti-JMS NGO) Founder Bashed With Steel Pipe. I believe Kim Do-hyung was on the phone talking to his father, who was scolding him for wasting his life on this anti-religion crusade when he heard this "oh .. oh" on the other end of the line as the attackers did their business. Following such a traumatizing episode, it is perfectly understandable for Kim Do-Hyung to have written some groveling letter to Jung Myeong-suk to spare his family further harm, and to ask for monetary settlement as a means of closure. But Cha/Moon's paints him as a cold, calculating extortionist.

• Cha (but not Moon) also repeated another Providence assertion claiming one victim to be a hoax. I believe this is the matter reported as Providence's intrigue in this article: Jung, Yeol (정열 / passion) (July 21, 1999). "SBS「그것이 알고싶다」`JMS, 그후'" (in Korean). Yonhap. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Basically, Providence produced a doctor's note stating that one of the claiming victims was still a virgin, but it turned out that the doctor was a JMS-member who had performed reconstructive surgery on her. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments, Kiyoweap. Oct 2003: Father of EXODUS (Anti-JMS NGO) Founder Bashed With Steel Pipe contains numerous links the news articles regarding supposed attacks by Providence members of former members and their relatives, and this seems to warrant an inclusion here. Do we have some Korean speaking editors who wish to work on this task? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Kim Do-hyung, the leader of EXODUS is a key figure, but info on him has never been really developed in the Providence article. There was a EXODUS (NGO) stub article, as Sam may recall. An independent article on KDh or EXODUS might be hard, since I didnt find much info written about the org's history beyond WP:OWN websites or blogs. But Providence members committting violence against EXODUS and other defectors certainly does warrant coverage, since KDh's father is not an isolated case. Peter Daley's board features picture of a colleague Kim Young-su with a swelling black eye. Here's also an article witha photo of KDh himself bloodied up as well.[7]

For the record, Kim Do-hyung's letter demanding money is something I've seen posted on an EXODUS site as well, and it is well-established. But I didnt find it written up in mainstream media, so due weight is rather flimsy. In the absence of mainstream citations, I argued against using Civil Government distorted article, which characterizes KDh's "apology letter" as admission of wrong-doing and "extortionist" activity, conveniently leaving out the fact of the attack, because obviously most people would then see the "apology letter" as a typical case of a whistleblower bowing to pressure and violent tactics. I already argued this point against GIOSCali last year (archive 3) --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Unsurprisingly, there has been some reversions and accusations following the addition of material that I recently added that shows this organization in a positive light in some way. Since resistance has only been done through vaguely worded edit messages, I cannot know what part of what I am doing is being opposed. Therefore, I posted what I believe should not be a problem. I will be bold in edits. You may be equally bold in reversions. However, since it is not myself who reverts, I cannot faithfully begin discussion. Please explain your reversions in detail.